DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

HEADQUARTERS

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

March 5, 2024 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Joint Finance and Supply Process Review Committees Meeting (24-1), February 6, 

2024 

 This memorandum forwards the attached minutes of the joint meeting of the Finance

Process Review Committee and Supply Process Review Committee providing discussions on 

progressing DoD G-Invoicing implementation, PRC membership, and revalidation of specific 

edits on the Defense Automatic Addressing System (DAAS) Test environment. 

The Defense Enterprise Data Standards Office point of contact is Mr. Edward (Nolan) 

Davis, e- mail dedso.finance@dla.mil. 

Sarah Winegardner

Director, Defense Enterprise Data Standards 

Office 

Attachment

As stated,

DISTRIBUTION:

ODASD(Logistics)

OUSD Comptroller

FPRC

SPRC

Attendees
Minutes from Finance Process Review Committee Meeting 24-01, February 6, 2024 

1 

1. Purpose: The Defense Enterprise Data Standards Office (DEDSO) convened a virtual joint 

Finance Process Review Committee (PRC) and Supply PRC meeting via Microsoft Teams on 

February 6, 2024. Specific discussion topics are noted below. The meeting agenda and briefing 

materials are available on the Finance PRC web page archive: www.dla.mil/FinancePRC.

2. Brief Summary of Discussion: Mr. Nolan Davis, DEDSO Chair of the Finance PRC, 

facilitated discussions during the meeting. The first presentation was an introduction to the DoD 

Supply Data Dictionary by Ms. Amy Zink (DEDSO). Next, Mr. Davis provided an update on 

PRC membership designation. Mr. Paul Macias (DEDSO) explained plans to have each 

Component re-validate a set of edits on the Test environment at Defense Automatic Addressing 

System (DAAS). Mr. Michael Lane (DLA J8) presented a working group forming to continue 

progress on the details for implementing G-Invoicing across DoD Supply. The final presenter 

was Mr. Eric Flanagan (DLA J341), leading a discussion on key feedback received on Proposed 

Defense Logistics Management Standard (DLMS) Change (PDC) 1465, G-Invoicing Federal 

Intragovernmental Data Standards. 

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

Winegardner, DEDSO Director, who welcomed participants and encouraged feedback on PRCs. 

4. Meeting Topics:

a. DoD Supply Data Dictionary, DLA Service Portal DEDSO Request

Ms. Zink presented the DoD Supply Data Dictionary, discussing it’s evolution and current state, 

as well as how stakeholders can participate in its validation and improvements. The data 

dictionary is a comprehensive reference that standardizes, business terms and naming 

conventions for supply data elements across DoD. It includes definition, maximum field sizes 

and other relevant metadata for each data element. One of the key features of the data dictionary 

is its system-agnostic approach, which allow for common terminology to be utilized across 

different systems and Services, enhancing interoperability. 

The scope of the data dictionary focuses on three primary areas: item data, customer data, and 

supply data. Additionally, there are also seven secondary areas that intersect with these primary 

categories, encompassing a broader range of supply-related information. 

The initial dictionary was populated by reviewing supply standards to inventory elements, code 

lists, metadata to match peer DoD dictionaries. The initial content was analyzed to arrive at a 

valid population of elements with proper authoritative sources and current code values. 

Current focus is socializing the dictionary to stakeholders. PRC members are requested to share 

the DoD Supply Data Dictionary with their Component’s system data dictionary contacts and 

provide feedback to DEDSO. DEDSO is proactive in supporting this initiative by offering to 

conduct walkthroughs and Q & A sessions for any parties interested in learning more about the 

DoD Supply Data Dictionary. These sessions aim to clarify any questions and facilitate the 

dictionary's integration into various DoD systems and processes. Supply Data Dictionary: 

https://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/DLMS/Committees/DD/DEDSO_Data_Dictionary.

xlsx 
Minutes from Finance Process Review Committee Meeting 24-01, February 6, 2024 

2 

Feedback/Questions: DEDSODD@dla.mil

Ms. Zink presented DEDSO’s new Service Now based portal. Stakeholders can use the portal to 

request training, develop proposed DLMS changes, and ask questions for DEDSO. DEDSO 

hopes this process will improve project tracking and coverage and assist DEDSO with strategic 

prioritization and support allocation. Additional information will be coming about registration 

and walkthroughs. 

b. PRC Membership

Mr. Davis provided an update on PRC membership. Policy and procedures require a lead 

representative to gather each Component’s feedback and disposition on proposed changes to 

DLMS standards. Key aspects of designating representatives are based on DoD norms for 

appointments to be in writing, on official letterhead, and signed by senior official, though not 

self-designating. There should be only one Primary and one Alternate representative. DEDSO 

will be performing annual verification of appointments. Changes between annual verifications 

should be promptly addressed by the Component. A standardized comment matrix will be 

distributed to the appointees with any materials seeking Component positions. Responses 

submitted on the matrix back to DEDSO will be collected and available on the DEDSO website.

The Finance PRC Chair will have the responsibility to perform annual membership validation, 

distribute proposals from comment, facilitate any needed adjudication of comments, and 

document the results. The Chair's role is integral to the functioning of the Finance PRC, as they 

help to maintain the integrity of the policy review process and ensure all that policies are up-to -

date, relevant, and reflect the collective inputs of the organization's stakeholders.

c. ADC 1043E Revalidation 

Mr. Macias provided background on the edits from ADC 1043E, Invalid Fund Code Edit and 

Remove Suspense Account F3885, which needs Components to revalidate with DAAS. The 

series of ADC 1043 changes revolve around the DLMS implementation of the Fund Code to 

Standard Line of Accounting (SLOA) table maintained at DAAS. 

Currently, DAAS performs real-time fund code validation when a MILSTRIP transaction

indicates signal C or L (aka third-party billing), because if DAAS cannot find the fund code on 

the table there is no way for DAAS to route a bill. In addition, an Army specific edit was created 

some time ago to validate the fund code is on the table when signal code is A, B, J or K. The 

purpose of ADC 1043E is for DAAS to validate fund codes for all Components when signal code 

is A, B, J, or K. An exception to the rule is post-post transactions since the materiel has already 

been issued. Other sources of supply that did not go through DAAS were encouraged to provide 

similar validation.

When DAAS was given the go ahead to put the edit into the production environment, a large 

volume of transactions began failing that were not intended to be caught by the edit. The edit was 

quickly backed out and all the data from that period was analyzed by DEDSO. DEDSO worked 

with DAAS and the Components to categorize rejected transaction into either correctly caught 

and need Component work, or non-intended rejections that needed fine-tuning of the edit (e.g. 

initial FMS transactions and non-interfund). An updated edit function was completed and posted 
Minutes from Finance Process Review Committee Meeting 24-01, February 6, 2024

3

for testing. Most stakeholders worked out opportunities to perform testing, but it went on for a 

while and DEDSO is hesitant to approve moving the edit back into production without a full 

revalidation over a tighter controlled period.

Mr. Macias pointed out other DAAS testing is complicated by the lingering 1043E edit. It would 

be a better means to test new edits if 1043E was in both production and test, so that only new 

edits are being checked for impact on the test environment.

DEDSO will be requesting Components work with DAAS to revalidate the 1043E edit in test in 

the coming months. Following all revalidation, a target date for transitioning the 1043E edit to 

production will be identified.

d. G-Invoicing Working Group

Mr. Lane started with a brief level-setting of the implications of G-Invoicing mandate on noninterfund transactions, which are settled in Treasury’s Intra-governmental Payment & Collection 

(IPAC) system, while noting considerations for DLMS’s larger interfund based transactions are 

getting started. G-Invoicing standardization can help resolve DoD’s outstanding material 

deficiencies (i.e. eliminations and revenue recognition) for all supply transactions. However, 

resolving auditability will require Components to standardize policies on top of system processes 

like G-Invoicing. Within this environment, DLA is advocating for the 7600EZ as the basis for 

funds settlement of supply transactions for the DoD.

In practice, the standard DoD supply processes would remain the same, but 7600EZ data would 

be captured up front. After performance the 7600EZ would settle payment. This data would be 

the elements proposed in the PDC 1465. A key date for the DoD to implement this strategy is 

Treasury’s deadline for shutting down IPAC settlements, September 30th, 2025. This requires all 

non-interfund (i.e. fund code XP) materiel be transitioned to G-Invoicing by this date. Interfund 

transition is to be determined but will be close behind.

DLA categorized all their materiel systems as either DLMS-related or not but working GInvoicing changes for both groups concurrently. For DLMS, DLA led PDC 1465 development. 

The hope is to progress to ADC by March so Components can work with their systems to get the 

requirements in place. The non-DLMS systems are working a project with each owner to 

incorporating the G-Invoicing data requirements for a 7600EZ based process. DLA encourages 

sharing this information widely among Component materiel system contacts and leadership to 

ensure the transition is successful.

Mr. Lane showed target dates towards meeting Treasury’s 2025 deadline. The milestones are

aggressive, but have reasonable timeframes to complete key negotiations and implementations, 

including flipping PDC 1465 to an ADC by March 2024. Even if DLA is ready by this date, 

success depends on all of DLA’s trading partners transitioning.

If participants are not familiar with G-Invoicing, Mr. Lane explained how Treasury 7600B will 

be taking over for MIPRS. Every order under 7600B will require agreement on General Terms 

& Conditions (GT&Cs). Then each 7600B order must fall under a GT&C. The 7600EZ will 

follow standard order processes, with reference to a GT&C. A performance action will recognize 
Minutes from Finance Process Review Committee Meeting 24-01, February 6, 2024

4

revenue and trigger settlement. An 7600EZ process is under consideration for interfund, but 

exact details and the timeframe needs to be worked out.

If all goes according to plan, DLA wants all DLMS systems ready for G-Invoicing (i.e. eventual 

ADC 1465) by April 2025. This will allow for regression and partner testing before formal 

rollout.

At an SES executive summit in November 2023, Mr. Stephens called for a working group to 

walk through the to-be process. Planning is for a face-to-face for all trading partners to step 

through a detailed process flow identifying any system and policy gaps for G-Invoicing to be 

successful. Hopefully, a clear policy will develop a common understanding of G-Invoicing for 

all parties. A charter and planning document are in the works.

Mr. Lane noted successful implementation of a 7600EZ approach will depend on ironing out 

contradictions in policy, aiding trading partners for transition, and collaboration on cutting over. 

At the end of the day SES support is going to be critical for resource support. The next SES 

executive summit is in April and will be looking for progress status on G-Invoicing from this 

planned working group.

e. PDC 1465 Component Responses and Discussion

Mr. Flanagan introduced his plan to go over feedback received on PDC 1465 and am overview 

of the 7600EZ, a nominal end-to-end ordering scenario, and a related topic on revenue 

recognition.

(1) 7600EZ General Overview

The 7600EZ is a G-Invoicing alternative to the 7600B financial reporting requirement to 

Treasury. A servicing agency would send an 7600EZ invoice through G-Invoicing broker to 

initiate funds settlement. The requisitioning agency would have an opportunity to review the 

7600EZ and may option for acceptance or rejection within a set number of days. Both parties 

must agree to using the 7600EZ process. By default, the 7600EZ is available to high-volume 

sales with a $10,000 limit. A few exemptions have been granted by Treasury to specific seller 

processes, like General Services Agency (GSA) fleet leasing, GSA global supplies, and the 

Government Printing Office (GPO) for publishing and printing. Most recently, the exemption has 

been granted to DLA supply.

In 2021, the Fiscal Service announced the 7600EZ, targeting low value products and services. 

Without the 7600EZ, two organizations would start with a GT&C and then proceed to a 7600B 

order. A funding and programing official signs off from a requesting agency to approve an order. 

Then a servicing agency has a funding and program official sign off on their end. At this point 

there is an open 7600B allowing the servicing agency to perform. While the streamlined 7600EZ 

still requires a GT&C agreement, the orders occur ongoing through ordering applications and 

call centers, but on the backend the servicing agency would bill the requesting agency with a 

7600EZ transaction. Now the 7600EZ accommodates low value and high-volume common to 

supply. GSA and GPO made a case they were having trouble implementing the standard GInvoicing process and that lead Treasury to support them with a 7600EZ process without a dollar 
Minutes from Finance Process Review Committee Meeting 24-01, February 6, 2024

5

threshold. Resources for G-Invoicing and technical specifications are available on the Web at: 

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/g-invoice/.

Mr. Flannagan noted that DLA has significant transaction volume with Federal civilian agencies 

impacted by the eventual shutdown of Treasury’s IPAC system. Many of these commodities are 

not inherently defense related. In terms of volume DLA processes over a million requisitions 

annually from Federal civilian agencies, resolved in IPAC. A process requiring four people to 

sign off on every order under the 7600B process is not practical. After seeing GSA global supply 

be granted the 7600EZ, DLA met with Treasury to make their case for similar recognition.

As for the interfund billing system, it is part of the military standard requisitioning and billing 

procedures. It is used by DoD for the source of supply to quickly reimburse itself for stock items 

issued to DoD customers. Interfund is very automated and overseen by the DoD Financial 

Management Regulation and the DLA Defense Logistics Manual (DLM) 4000.25. DoD policy 

requires interfund for items with a National Stock Number. Manual billing of DoD supply items 

under non-interfund is an exception basis, only where interfund cannot be applied. The DLM 

4000.25 spells out scenarios (e.g. billing contractor DoDAACs) where interfund cannot be used 

and must use non-interfund billing.

Mr. Flanagan provided some quick facts on DLA. Of note there are six major subordinate 

commands overseeing eight supply chains. Federal civilian requisitions are largely going to be 

routed to DLA Troop Support which oversees Subsistence, Clothing and Textiles, Construction 

and Equipment, and Medical supply chains. Another is DLA Energy who manages bulk fuel and 

Aerospace supply chains. Within DLA is a Whole of Government division, coordinating DLA’s 

relationship with Federal, state, and local agencies along with foreign governments, and which is 

partnered with other Federal agencies. DLA will look to coordinate with these Federal partners 

to use G-Invoicing.

Around December of 2023, DLA received final approval from Treasury to use 7600EZ without 

the $10,000 threshold. As DoD works through next steps, DoD needs to consider seeking 

additional exceptions to applicable DoD activities. [Note: Treasury exemption applies only DLA. 

Other DoD sources of supply must evaluate if they will need to seek a similar exemption based 

on their offerings.]

(2) PDC 1465 Component Feedback

In moving into a review of feedback to PDC 1465, Mr. Flannagan thanked all the commentors 

for the level of detailed analysis obvious from the comments. For this review, he organized some 

important comments into four main areas, with a fifth point around the 7600EZ not yet being 

DoD policy. 

First, all Components concurred with the changes, as long as they did not apply to interfund 

transactions. PDC 1465 does not apply to interfund. Navy added context of their concerns around 

needing DLMS compliance in retail system to support the G-Invoicing transactions, citing 

complications. Army believes if the current focus is IPAC, the impact will be low to them. Mr. 

Lane put forward that rather than linking to G-Invoicing, the transaction of PDC 1465 may be 

enough. Mr. Flanagan clarified that the PDC 1465 provides the elements needed for a system to 
Minutes from Finance Process Review Committee Meeting 24-01, February 6, 2024

6

provide DLA for G-Invoicing. However, if the Service is the source of supply, they need to be 

able to deal with the volume of 7600EZ. In the case of the Navy as source of supply, their 

systems are not capable of providing DLA with the data as long as they are not DLMS 

compliant. The withdrawn PDC 1442 provided a DAAS table to fill a data gap like the Navy 

situation, but PDC 1465 does not have such provisions. Mr. Flanagan recommends the to-be 

working group consider this and other gaps preventing the DoD from implementing G-Invoicing. 

Mr. Selester Copeland, DoD Comptroller, advised the working group to look strategically at 

ordering to make the whole process consistent and simplified, as he does not consider 7600EZ to 

be the fix all for DoD supply needs.

The second area of concern includes systems that are not DLMS compliant and offline ordering 

systems. There are going to be orders that do not go through the automated order systems. His 

recommendation is to revisit the fund code functionality of PDC 1442 and consider the 

documents associated with the ordering process. For instance, does the DD Form 1348 need to 

add elements?

Third focused area is meeting the needs of an accounts payable two or three-way match. A longstanding finding is DoD unmatched transactions. While G-Invoicing is going to ensure orders, 

receipting, and billing all happen, the 7600EZ doesn’t provide all the details needed to make a 

match. Mr. Flanagan recommends looking at either adding the information to the 7600EZ, 

having the DLMS 810L supplement this information for the 760EZ, or develop a purpose built 

810 transaction addressing this function.

The fourth area of concern relates to referral orders passed from an initial source of supply to 

another. It is not clear how G-Invoicing GT&C and 7600EZ can work in these scenarios.

Lastly, Mr. Flanagan acknowledged comments that 7600EZ is not yet DoD policy. This 

complicates implementation planning. System change orders require budget justifications and 

prioritization. At some point DoD will require a mandate if G-Invoicing is going to be used for 

interfund or not. 

Mr. Copeland commented that 7600EZ was not developed with interfund in mind, and an 

alternative would engage Treasury to adopt the policies and procedures of 

MILSTRIP/FEDSTRIP to have controls in ordering systems rendering GT&Cs irrelevant. Mr. 

Flanagan shared his efforts to educate Treasury on the background for DoD logistics, but the 

current G-Invoicing structure is difficult to shoehorn interfund into. Mr. Copeland recommended 

the working group expand to procurement to enable G-Invoicing to facilitate accountability of 

acquisition.

(3) 7600EZ End-to-End Ordering Scenario

Mr. Flanagan walked through a generic end-to-end scenario involving the 7600EZ [Note: see 

meeting presentation slides 63-65]. During the walk through there was discussion around the 

current and to-be 7600EZ regarding revenue recognition and the need for the working group to 

identify gaps where updates to policy and system controls should lessen risks around 

performance.
Minutes from Finance Process Review Committee Meeting 24-01, February 6, 2024

7

Ms. Carol Stottlemyer, Navy, asked how invoice rejection during the 7600EZ process worked, 

and if it would be similar to the IPAC chargeback process. Ms. Wendy Villaman, DLA, reported 

on DLA’s developing G-Invoicing rejection resolution process, which will establish a queue for 

manual investigation. In response to a follow-up from Ms. Stottlemyer about the process being 

part of the GT&Cs, Ms. Villaman supposed it could be referenced in GT&C, but there is a

change management component preparing outreach and training on the process to come.

Ms. Stottlemyer questioned if a trading partner is providing a materiel receipt acknowledgement

(MRA), why would a seller bill before the getting the MRA? Mr. Flanagan asked to defer to the 

next topic on revenue recognition.

(4) 7600EZ Revenue Recognition Considerations

Mr. Flanagan pointed out DoD confusion around revenue recognition when trying to reconcile 

the many policies on the topic. This leads to different expectations among trading partners 

around when the seller’s performance obligation is met. On of the key drivers of G-Invoicing 

was to get trading partners communicating about these matters and codifying an agreement.

Traditionally, supply has had generally clear guidance on the timing of billing. For instance, 

DoD supply under DLM 4000.25, Volume 4 allows billing when materiel is dropped from 

inventory. DoD Manual 4140.01, Volume 11 mentions billing upon drop from inventory and 

placement on transit. DoD FMR, Volume 4, Chapter 16 prescribes the same.

When it comes to improving controls to be more like the commercial sector, Mr. Flanagan 

recommends looking to the commercial Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), 

which recommends five steps towards revenue recognition. These steps include defining 

performance obligations and recognizing revenue when each performance obligation is satisfied.

Mr. Flanagan recommended the work group look at having this GAAP compliance codified in 

interagency agreements.

In the private sector there are generally two governing bodies that deal with delivery type 

contracts. International shipping has Incoterms, and domestic usually follows the Uniform 

Commercial Code. Both standards refer to free on board (FOB) to describe when title transfers 

from the seller to the buyer, which can equate to the seller meeting their performance obligation.

Based on the type of FOB, performance can occur at the time of shipment or at destination where 

the customer requested delivery. Mr. Flanagan believes the DoD can benefit from standardizing 

around these standardized controls so there is no confusion about when the seller has met their 

obligation to perform and be on the same page. Mr. Copeland contested similarly of DoD’s FOB 

terms to Commercial, but agreed policy needed to be up to date and aligned among all relevant 

governance documents.

Mr. Flanagan presented the key GAAP requirements for FOB shipping point and FOB 

destination. He noted DoD FMR directs working capital fund activities to use FOB shipping 

point, but implementation was not GAAP compliant. Mr. Copeland recommends the working 

group fix compliance. Mr. Flanagan explained that the DoD approach to FOB shipping point is 

non-compliant by having the seller still retain title and risk of loss.
Minutes from Finance Process Review Committee Meeting 24-01, February 6, 2024

8

If trading partners put FOB destination arrangement in the GT&C, the servicing agency still 

invoices at time of shipment, however title and risk of loss does not transfer until proof of 

delivery demonstrates the performance obligation. Within DoD there isn’t sufficient policy to 

define proof of delivery. The MRA is a possibility, but it is not mandated to proceed billing. 

Even if the MRA were mandated, there is a complication of significant transit times under 

prescribed time definite delivery goals, along with possible lags in MRA. These can lead to 

cashflow issues when working capital is based on anticipated off-setting collections. To this, Mr. 

Flanagan recommends evaluating proof of delivery standards, even if they do not guarantee there 

isn’t something wrong with the item but can still prove the delivery was made and receipted by a 

person at the customer designated destination. While there would be more to discuss, proof of 

delivery would still support the foundational G-Invoicing goal of addressing eliminations by

keeping both parties on the same page.

Mr. Copeland noted that these discussions touch upon contact regulations. He encourages a 

solution be broadly applied to acquiring all sorts of good and services. Intergovernmental buying

of goods and services needs policy on obligation performance, receipt and acceptance, and 

revenue recognition. He also noted that the transportation sector has the 315 transaction for 

noting delivery that should be considered as part of the whole of supply chain. Lastly, Mr. 

Copeland pointed that there are important supply chain management elements that should go 

along with this effort even if they are not key to reporting to Treasury.

Meeting Wrap Up

Mr. Davis thanked all presenters and participants for their contributions to today’s meeting.

Mr. Davis shared that DEDSO is preparing for a DLMS summit the week of May 6th, 2024, at 

LMI’s facilities in Tysons, VA. Another joint Finance and Supply PRC updating on G-Invoicing 

will be a key part of the summit. All the DEDSO teams will be providing save-the-date 

information and noting their potential breakout sessions during the event.