DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

HEADQUARTERS 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD 

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION 

April 2, 2015 

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Finance Process Review 

Committee (PRC) Meeting of March 4 - 5, 2015 

The attached minutes of the DLMS Finance PRC meeting are forwarded for information 

and action. 

The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office point of contact is Mr. Robert 

Hammond, Finance PRC chair, 703-767-2117, DSN 427-2117, financehg@dla.mil, 

Attachment: 

As stated 

cc: 

ODASD(SCI) 

Finance PRC members 

Meeting attendees 

Director, 

Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office 
 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

 HEADQUARTERS

 8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD

 FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

 

April 2, 2015

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Finance Process Review 

Committee (PRC) Meeting of March 4 - 5, 2015

Purpose: Defense Logistics Management Standards Office (DLMSO) hosted a Finance 

PRC meeting at a facility in in Tysons, VA and via Defense Connect Online (DCO). Sessions 

scheduled for March 5, 2015 were cancelled because Federal Government offices in the 

Washington DC area were closed due to a snow storm. Those topics will be rescheduled for a 

future date. A listing of attendees and all meeting related materials and briefings are available on 

the Finance PRC Web page linked to the meeting agenda at http://www.dla.mil/j6/dlmso/Archives/archives_fin.asp.

Brief Summary of Discussion: Mr. Robert Hammond, Finance PRC Chair, facilitated 

discussion of the agenda items below.

1. Welcome and Opening Comments. Mr. Hammond extended his sincere appreciation to all 

meeting participants. With a very full agenda, participants were asked to observe meeting 

courtesies for keeping the meeting focused and respectful, noting that briefers were doing us a 

service to inform us on some difficult issues that may not be easily resolved. Mr. Hammond 

described the structured, disciplined DLMS change process. He addressed DLMSO’s mission as 

the Executive Agent for the logistics information exchange, fostering interoperability and 

facilitating continuous enterprise integration process improvements to logistics management and 

operations. He discussed the Finance and Supply PRC missions and identified Web links for the 

Finance, Supply, DoDAAD and other PRC and working group points of contact. 

2. How Fund Codes Work. 

Mr. Hammond identified the relationship between fund code, signal code and DoDAAC in 

transactions. He identified the three fund code tables and explained each. The signal code 

identifies the ship-to party and the bill-to party. The bill-to party can either be the requisitioner, 

the party identified in the supplementary address field (in the case of Signal Codes A/B/J/K) or 

the party identified on the Fund Code to Billed DoDAAC Table (in the case of Signal Codes 

C/L). The Fund Code to Fund Account Conversion Table provides the line of accounting (LOA) 

or identifies non-Interfund billing from: 1) the Service/Agency (first character of the bill-to party 

DoDAAC), 2) the Signal Code Group (A/B/J/K or C/L) and 3) and the fund code in the 

transaction. In the case of Signal Code Group C/L, the fund code also identifies the bill-to 

DoDAAC for “third party billing” in the Fund Code to Billed Office DoDAAC Table. A 

separate table, the Table of H Series DoDAACs, identifies defense agencies with “H” series 

DoDAACs that are authorized to use Interfund billing. There are very few H Series DoDAACs 

Attachment

Page 1
capable of and approved for Interfund billing; adding new ones requires DLMSO FPRC Chair 

and “H” series fund code monitor approval.

In a related matter, Mr. Hammond noted that current Defense Automatic Addressing System 

(DAAS) edits and MILSTRIP policy only requires DAAS fund code edits for Signal Codes C/L 

to determine if the fund code is valid on Fund Code to Billed DoDAAC Table. This is because 

those transactions would not be able to be routed to the bill-to party. DAAS edits are not 

prescribed to validate fund codes on the Fund Code to Fund Account Conversion Table for all 

Components. However, with the introduction of Standard Line of Accounting (SLOA), 

additional DAAS fund code edits will be performed for the SLOA data elements for the billed 

office fund code in the Fund Code to Fund Account Conversion Table. Currently, in cases with 

invalid or missing fund codes, the billing office may cite the default line of accounting (LOA) 

for the Component prescribed in MILSBILLS, Appendix 2.2 Fund Codes. This is a concern. A 

separate briefing was presented by a Finance PRC Chair regarding default lines of accounting

later in the meeting. Mr. Hammond proposed staffing a Proposed DLMS Change (PDC) with the 

Finance and Supply PRCs to introduce edits for DAAS - and for all order processing entry points 

where transactions do not route through DAAS (such as call centers) - to reject transactions with 

invalid fund codes regardless of Component. There was agreement that such a PDC should be 

staffed.

Action:

 Finance PRC Chair staff a PDC to introduce edits for DAAS - and all order processing 

entry points where order-initiating transactions do not route through DAAS - to reject 

transactions with invalid fund codes for all Components. Suspense: May 1, 2015.

3. Finance PRC Chair Briefing. Mr. Hammond noted that understanding DLMS/MILS 

processes and how they have been implemented requires a team approach, with coordination and 

expertise across functional areas. This is the cornerstone of the DLMS change staffing process. 

The discussion items below are contained in the briefing slides linked to this topic heading.

a. Proposed and Approved DLMS Changes. 

(1) ADC 280 (New Type of Bill Codes for SDR & PQDR). In MILSBILLS, there is a 

general Billing Advice Code and Type of Bill Code for Product Quality Deficiency Reports

(PQDR), Supply Discrepancy Report (SDR) and Transportation Discrepancy Report (TDR) 

credits. ADC 280 established new Billing Advice Codes and Type of Bill Codes for each and 

called for simultaneous implementation. Because simultaneous implementation is challenging, 

Mr. Hammond asked if staggered implementation would be possible, with Transaction Services 

performing conversions from the new codes back to the generic codes for Components until all 

have implement ADC 280. Ellen Hilert, the MILSTRIP Co-Administrator, announced that PDC 

1084 will be released in the coming weeks. PDC 1084 will that Storage Quality Control Report 

(SQCR) credits for non-manager owned suspended assets returned to the manager be reported 

using Billing Advice Code 26 and Type of Bill Code WP for SQCRs instead of creating codes 

specific to SQCRs.

Attachment

Page 2
Action:

 Components review PDC 1084 when released and respond to staffing notes. Suspense: 

TBD.

(2) ADC 368 (Navy BRAC). In support of Navy BRAC, ADC 368 allows DLA to 

requisition Navy controlled material for BRAC sites and to bill DLA. It established N _ _ DLA 

Series DoDAACs and Navy Fund Code (J5) for Signal Codes C/L, which is associated with 

DLA DoDAAC SL4701 and a DLA LOA. This process directs bills to DLA and charges them to 

the appropriate DLA LOA. Unfortunately, Components have not universally implemented third 

party billing procedures properly and bills are going to Navy in error. This leads to manual work 

to reverse bills or make billing adjustments. Air Force reported that the issue has been corrected. 

FAA is implementing Signal Code C/L capability (third party billing) as part of their 

modernization effort.

Action:

 Components report to FPRC Chair the status of full Signal Code C/L implementation 

within their billing and feeder systems. Suspense: April 30, 2015.

(3) ADC 1009A (DOD EMALL Credit Card Bill-to). ADC 1009A allows EMALL 

purchase card/credit card orders to use MILSTRIP procedures to identify a ship-to DoDAAC in 

the supplementary address when other than the requisitioner, vice relying clear text addressing. 

EMALL currently inserts the DLA EMALL bill-to DoDAAC into the supplementary address 

field to identify a credit card purchase, which prevents identifying a ship-to DoDAAC in the 

supplementary address. This change relies on third party billing (Signal Code C/L) and fund 

code “XP” (non-Interfund) to identify the order as a purchase card/credit order that will be billed 

to the credit card. Signal Code L allows a ship-to DoDAAC in the supplementary address, while 

directing a non-Interfund bill to DLA via the Fund Code to Billed Office DoDAAC Table. This 

change will be implemented when EMALL is integrated into FEDMALL along with GSA 

Advantage in late 2015. No similar process is in place for GSA Advantage. 

(4) ADC 328, ADC 1068 & ADC 1068B (Funds Availability Verification/Obligation 

Recording for “Offline” Processes). Together, these ADCs implement a standard, transactional 

process for Component verification of funds availability and recording of the financial obligation 

in Component systems for orders placed outside the Component’s ordering system prior to the 

Source of Supply processing the orders. Army has implemented this capability for DOD EMALL 

and GSA Advantage. Marine Corps plans to implement this capability with SABRS for DOD 

EMALL and GSA Advantage once FEDMALL is deployed. This capability is available to other 

Components and potentially for other processes lacking upfront funds verification and obligation 

recording (e.g., post-post bearer walk through, etc.). When deployed in an ERP, this interface 

will allow the requisitioning and receiving Service to develop internal procedures to support:

• ensuring funds are available prior to submission of the requisition;

• establishing Interfund bill obligations;

Attachment

Page 3
• validating authorized customers;

• ensuring obligations accurately reflect price;

• establishing due-ins;

• processing materiel receipts.

Actions:

 DLA, GSA and other Sources of Supply are asked to evaluate standardizing the funds 

verification capability for use in ordering processes where the order entry point is other 

than the Component ordering system. Suspense: none, ongoing.

 Components are asked to evaluate using the capability in their processes and systems 

going forward. Suspense: none, ongoing.

(5) ADC 1043 (SLOA - DLMS Implementation and Web Fund Code). This change 

Implements a Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) and USD(C) mandate to carry 

Standard Line of Accounting (SLOA) data as discrete data elements in select DLMS transactions 

that initiate a financial event. It also adds select SLOA data elements needed by Treasury (that 

don’t vary by transaction) to the Fund Code to Fund Account Table. Finally, it establishes DAAS 

edits to add data to DLMS transactions from the Fund Code to Fund Account Table when it is 

missing from an incoming transaction destined for a DLMS capable trading partner and to reject 

DLMS transactions with SLOA data that conflicts with the Fund Code to Fund Account Table. 

During discussion, it was noted that Security Cooperation Customer (SCC) Business Partner 

Cases for foreign partners currently cite a no-year, non-expiring Trust Fund LOA to execute 

cases that actually have appropriations with beginning and ending periods of availability. These 

transactions may not be able to satisfy the SLOA beginning and ending period of availability 

data requirements without transactions failing DAAS SLOA edits.

Action:

 Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and Security Cooperation Enterprise 

Solution (SCES) evaluate establishing fund codes for Business Partner Cases citing the 

correct LOA with beginning and ending periods of availability. Report findings to FPRC 

Chair. Suspense: August 30, 2015. 

(6) ADC 1043A (SLOA - updates guidance for rejecting transactions). The ADC 

1043A Addendum updates SLOA guidance for rejecting transactions. It was staffed in 

conjunction with ADC 1103 discussed below. It modifies the transaction used by DAAS for 

rejecting incoming transactions with invalid SLOA data to now include DLMS 824R, 870M, 

870S and 842 A/W, as applicable. The DLMS 810L Logistics Bill employs the DLMS 824R.

(7) ADC 1043B (SLOA - adds “Program Year”). The program year data element was 

not accommodated in the initial ODCMO/OUSD(C) SLOA guidance. This data element 

identifies the beginning period for program execution in certain cases for no year, non-expiring 

funds. The business rules for the program year data element in the Business Enterprise 

Attachment

Page 4
Architecture (BEA) prescribes that program year be carried in the “beginning period of 

availability” data field. However, no-year funds do not have a beginning period of availability 

and current BEA guidance does not accommodate a beginning period of availability for no-year 

funds. In coordination with ODCMO/OUSD(C), ADC 1043B was issued to prescribe that the 

program year data element be carried in DLMS in the beginning period of availability data field 

(as applicable) and to document the requirement to clarify the BEA business rules for use of the 

program year data element in the beginning period of availability. 

Action:

 ODCMO/OUSD(C) complete BEA business rule update during the next periodic version 

update. Suspense: TBD.

(8) ADC 1043C (SLOA; corrects in which DLMS ICs LOA elements are modifiable; 

corrects 810L). ADC 1043C corrects DLMS notes from the original ADC 1043, which 

erroneously allowed or omitted references to the line of accounting data elements being 

modifiable in certain DLMS Implementation Conventions (ICs). It also changes the DLMS 

810L, Logistics Bill, 2/FA1/350 segment from “must use” to “use” to preclude transaction 

failure that would result from trading partners implementing at different times and transaction 

failure for non-Interfund bills, which may not have SLOA data.

(9) PDC 1043D UNDER DEVELOPMENT (SLOA; Sub Allocation). SLOA 

established sub allocation as a new data element to replace limit/subhead. Limit/subhead is a 

data element on the Fund Code to Fund Account Conversion Table, but it was unclear during 

PDC 1043 staffing if it was synonymous with sub allocation. Moreover, there is a limit of 1296 

possible fund code combinations for each service code and there was concern that Components 

may run out of fund codes. Sub allocation has not been mapped to the limit/subhead data 

element on Fund Code to Fund Account Conversion Table. Micky Chopra, OUSD(C), 

confirmed that sub allocation is synonymous with limit/subhead and can replace it on the Fund 

Code to Fund Account Conversion Table.

Action:

 DLMSO staff PDC 1043D to map limit/subhead to sub allocation on the Fund Code to 

Fund Account Conversion Table and change the heading name to sub allocation. 

Suspense: April 25, 2015.

(10) ADC 1103 (SLOA - DLMS 824R to reject 810L Logistics Bills failing DAAS 

edits). Transaction Services uses an 824R to communicate rejected 810L Logistics Bills using 

narrative messages, though this was not documented in the DLMS. ADC 1103 expands the scope 

of the 824R to include logistics bills and addresses a number of administrative edits to better 

document the intended uses of the 824R. It adds reject advice codes - in addition to narratives -

and documents both legacy 80 record position transaction and DLMS variable length transaction 

procedures in MILSBILLS C6.2.2.2. 

Attachment

Page 5
(11) ADC 1134 (Administrative corrections to MILSBILLS). As part of researching a 

billing issue for DLA Energy, the Finance PRC Chair noted that the legacy DIC FJR/FJS format 

for Reply to Request for Adjustments for Fuel Billing and Follow-Up for Adjustments had a 

typographical error related to the quantity field. ADC 1143 is an administrative correction to 

DIC FJR/FJS format that has been in use for decades. There is no known misinterpretation of the 

quantity field based on the error in the DIC FJR/FJS format. However, it is significant to note 

that the quantity field length for fuels transactions is different than that of other transactions.

(12) ADC 1136 (Unique Item Tracking (UIT) - defers to NARA for retention time 

and removes IUID from 810L). ADC 1136 removes IUID capability from DLMS 810L, as the 

UII is not needed in the bill. It also eliminates specific reference to finance document retention 

periods for UIT, deferring to an approved agency records schedule or the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule. NARA is the Executive Agent with 

authority to set retention periods for Federal Records. These retention periods are developed 

jointly by NARA, the Military Department and Agency Records Officers based on input from 

Program Officers and business process according to the business needs of the organization. They 

have the force and effect of Federal law. Components must consult with their records manager 

regarding retention periods.

(13) PDC 1035 (Withdrawn - increased frequency of billing/Treasury reporting). 

PDC 1035 supports increased frequency of Interfund reporting to Treasury (vice monthly) to 

improve the timeliness and accuracy of the daily funds balance with Treasury. This change 

would require both process and system changes. During initial staffing, Components noted that 

there is an ongoing OUSD(C) sponsored Interfund working group on consolidating Interfund 

billing that must be accomplished first. PDC 1043 was withdrawn by OUSD(C) and will be restaffed at a later time.

(14) PDC 1050A (WORKING DRAFT) - EMALL credit card failures. DLA 

Enterprise Business System (EBS) subsumed credit card billing and collection for EMALL and 

changed the billing process to align with policy. Non-Federal customers are charged at the time 

of order. Federal customers are charged when materiel is dropped from inventory or upon 

vendor delivery. Although the credit card is validated at the time of the order, the delay between 

order and performance for Federal customers may be problematic. At the time of billing, a credit 

card may no longer be valid, over its limit on that day or there may be other issues. As a result, 

EMALL is experiencing on average 400 credit card charge failures per month (around $350,000) 

and revenue recognition is delayed or lost on approximately 5% of orders. Currently, following 

failed attempts to manually resolve the credit card issue with the buyer and charge the 

customer’s credit card, a customer's bill is converted a non-Interfund bill. This is not optimal. 

Revenue is still delayed for DLA and the customer's obligation would have been recorded 

against the credit card, creating billing problems in clearing the subsequent non-Interfund bill. 

There is not currently an automated solution using DLMS transactions to facilitate this 

circumstance. DLA in (conjunction with DLMSO) is evaluating potential DLMS solutions. The 

goals are to alert customers of credit card issues early via a DLMS transaction, resolve credit 

card issues to pay by credit card (if possible), potentially bill via Interfund or non-Interfund as a 

last resort. 

Attachment

Page 6
Action:

 DLA complete draft PDC 1050A for EMALL, including documenting an interim process 

pending full implementation. Suspense: June 30, 2015.

(15) “Rolled-Up” Interfund Detail Bills. 

An Interfund bill may contain a summary bill and up to 495 detail bills linked by common bill 

number. Current Interfund billing policy requires a single original document number in the detail 

bill for each line item, with item identification, unit of issue, quantity, unit cost, etc. In this way, 

the Interfund bill (together with supporting logistics transactions) is fully auditable at the 

transaction level, showing what was ordered, what was received, any supply discrepancy report 

adjustments, remaining balance due, what is being paid for, etc. In addition, DAAS provides a 

central, automated transaction repository visible to the Enterprise for audit evidentiary matter, in 

lieu of paper documents or emails. 

However, there are scenarios for some customers and business processes, where a Source of 

Supply suppresses the detail lines in the bill and use a single pseudo document number for 

multiple line items. There are also other business processes in which an original document 

number for each line item is not created. In both processes, the Component may obligate and 

clear the rolled-up detail bill based on a pseudo document number, invalid generic NSN/part 

number, a quantity of 1 each, and invalid (summary) unit price. Any documentation supporting 

the detail bill would be manual and not contained in the Interfund bill. As these non-standard 

Interfund bills do not contain true detail bills, they are not auditable at the transaction level and 

there is no supporting policy or procedures. Neither process is compliant with DLMS.

Regarding business process in which a unique, individual document numbers for each line item 

ordered is not created, these appear to be primarily related to DLA Tailored Vendor Relationship 

processes using commercial vendor Web sites to initiate orders. To support these processes and 

make them compliant, DLMS transactions are able to support additional qualifiers (such as 

MIPR, contract, call number, contract line item, etc.) in conjunction with a unique original 

document number for each line item. This may require business process reengineering and a 

DLMS change. Moreover, there may be challenges and impediments to near term 

implementation.

DLA briefed a related DLA Troop Support C &E Tailored Vendor Relationship Process 

Improvement Initiative. This initiative seeks to correct many deficiencies with the current 

process and to eliminate MIPRs where possible. In this process, a customer may order via an 

improved MIPR process or by MILSTRIP requisition using a single requisition document 

number for multiple items and potentially then be billed via Interfund. This is not compliant with 

core MILSTIRP/DLMS, which requires a unique document number for each line item. Many 

concerns were expressed by meeting participants, including coordination via the prescribed 

DLMS change staffing process, the lack of supporting DLMS transactions in the process and the 

potential impact on the integrity and auditability of Interfund billing. In addition, there were 

concerns regarding how this process may relate to the OUSD(C)/Treasury Intra-governmental 

Transaction Invoice Payment Platform (IPP) strategic initiative. This initiative (which was 

planned to be briefed on March 5, 2015) address deficiencies in the current MIPR and IPAC 

Attachment

Page 7
payment process that OUSD Comptroller and Treasury state are contributing to a DOD/Treasury 

material weakness preventing a clean audit opinion. OUSD Comptroller and ODASD Supply 

Chain Integration representatives expressed serious concern about this initiative and asked for a 

follow-on discussion. 

Action:

 Components/Sources of Supply evaluate all processes where individual document 

numbers are used in the ordering processes, but suppressed in the detail bill. Report 

results to FPRC Chair, along with impediments to producing proper detail bills in the 

near term. Suspense: June 30, 2015. 

 Finance PRC Chair coordinate a follow-on discussion between DLA, DLMSO, 

ODASD(SCI) and OUSD(C) to address concerns regarding the DLA Troop Support 

initiative to eliminate MIPRs that includes using a single MILSTRIP document number 

for multiple line items. Suspense: May 1, 2015.

(16) Multi-Year Appropriations. In the Fund Code to Fund Account Conversion 

Table, some fund codes rely a fiscal year indicator of # or * to allow billing office financial 

systems to compute the beginning and ending periods of availability from the transaction 

requisition date or billing date respectively. This capability allows fund codes to be reused 

indefinitely for each new fiscal year and it works correctly for single year appropriations. 

However, it is prone to error for multi-year appropriations, where the billing office is not able to 

accurately compute the beginning and ending POA in every case. Accordingly, the billing office 

Central Account Office may report incorrectly to Treasury, requiring the billed office Central 

Account Office to make adjustments at Treasury to record the disbursements against the correct 

appropriation. 

As an enabler for identifying which fund codes using these # or * indicators are multi-year 

appropriations, the Web Fund Code application has a “multi-year indicator”. Components were 

previously asked consider if their business processes would allow replacing the applicable fund 

codes with a new fund code for each multi-year LOA that would specify a numeric fiscal year 

indicator in place of the # or * and the true beginning and ending periods of availability. Army 

has largely accomplished this. Army is also working a related issue for single year appropriations 

to (in reverse) change single year fund codes with a numeric fiscal year specifying a single year 

beginning and ending period of availability to #. This is because some units do not use the 

correct fund code when a new fiscal year begins. In those cases, the wrong POA may be used 

and reported to Treasury. Since DLMS contains discrete fields for beginning and ending POA, 

this problem will be ultimately eliminated by DLMS implementation of SLOA by all 

Components, trading partners and DFAS. Of concern, DFAS systems are not yet DLMS capable.

Action:

 Components report to FPRC Chair if there are sufficient fund codes to assign a unique 

fund code to each multi-year appropriation to support processing in a legacy environment 

until full DLMS implementation has been achieved, along with any impediments to doing 

Attachment

Page 8
Action:

so. Suspense: July 15, 2015.

(17) Credit Adjustment Process. The DLMS credit adjustment process (legacy 

Document Identifier Code (FAE/FAR) is not being used or is not being used effectively by 

modernized systems. DLA, the largest Source of Supply, did not initially implement the 

functionality in their EBS modernization and then experienced early IDOC failures when the 

process was implemented. The manual process is extremely labor intensive, prone to error and 

does not provide audit evidentiary matter. In addition, the preponderance of requests for 

adjustment currently being submitted are requests by buyers for sellers to bill them in cases 

where the material has been received. This represents delayed revenue for the seller and may 

result in unused obligation authority for the buyer in the case of credits after an appropriation has 

expired. Component FPRC representatives were asked to initiate coordination within their 

Components to implement the credit adjustment process functionality in their modernized 

systems.

Action:

 Components report to FPRC Chair their implementation status for the DLMS credit 

adjustment process, along with target implementation timeline (if known). Suspense: 

August 1, 2015.

(18) Default Lines of Accounting. MILSTRIP and MILSBILLS allow use of blank 

fund codes. In these cases and in cases where the billing office is unable to identify the correct 

fund code for Interfund billing, billing office financial systems may apply the Component’s 

default appropriation identified in MILSBILLS Appendix 2.2. When this occurs, there is 

additional work for the billed office, potentially requiring adjustments at Treasury. The goal is to 

minimize use of this process. In a related matter, DLA noted a desired change to the DLA default 

LOA in MILSBILLS. 

Actions:

 FPRC Chair, in conjunction with Transaction Services, provide sample transactions to 

Component FPRC leads to review and determine why default lines of accounting are 

being used. Suspense: August 1, 2015.

 DLMSO develop an administrative change to DLMS Vol. 4, Appendix 2.2 for the DLA 

default line of accounting (limit 5CBX). Suspense: August 1, 2015.

b. DLMS Bills Failing DAAS DoDAAC Edits. Rejected Interfund bills, primarily due to 

DoDAAC authority code issues, are a significant problem totaling over $33 million in one year 

for DLA alone. DoDAAC authority codes were established to allow Components to limit the 

authority/roles for some DoDAACs to less than full authority, such as bill-to or ship-to authority 

only. Component designated DoDAAC Central Service Points (CSPs) maintain their DoDAACs. 

Attachment

Page 9
DAAS edits reject transactions where the DoDAAC authority code is inconsistent with its 

use/role in the transaction or where the DoDAAC itself is invalid - meaning that it is not 

contained in the authoritative DoDAAD database. However, not all orders are routed through 

DAAS for editing in some business processes (such as bearer walk-through, call center orders 

and processes linked to credit cards/fuel VILKEYS). In addition, there may be a DoDAAC 

authority code change after a valid order has been placed. Since all Interfund transactions are 

routed through DAAS for editing, Interfund bills with invalid DoDAACs or those with improper 

authority codes at the time of billing will fail DAAS edits.

In the case of bill failure, the seller has already recorded the revenue and must make a journal 

voucher entry, which is problematic and a red flag for audit. Since the bill fails DAAS edits, it is 

returned to the billing office and not transmitted to the billed office. A typical resolution involves 

finding a workable DoDAAC, which impacts billed office financial processing and may even 

result in a bill being routed to the wrong party. These errors lead to costly manual work for 

buyers, sellers, and DFAS. 

DLA, in coordination with DLMSO, is drafting a PDC to establish a requirement for all Sources 

of Supply to perform DoDAAC edits for processes where the customer’s order does not originate 

in the Component’s ordering system and is not routed through DAAS for editing. In addition,

DLA is proposing establishing automated supply status transactions to alert the requistioner of 

DoDAAC authority code issues prior to materiel shipment and, if not resolved, to subsequently 

cancel the order. Components are encouraged to develop internal procedures to evaluate orders 

that might be in the system and offline business process linked to DoDAACs, (such as 

VILKEYS) when making DoDAAC authority code changes.

Action:

 DLA complete the draft PDC referenced above. Suspense: April 30, 2015. 

4. DLA Managed Ordering Systems. 

a. Subsistence Total Order and Receipt Electronic System (STORES). 

STORES is DLA Troop Support Subsistence web-based ordering system that allows customers 

to order and receipt Subsistence products. It supports the Subsistence Prime Vendor Program, 

which is a method of food distribution that employs commercial food distributors that offer 

exceptional services for DLA customers. Orders may be initiated within the Component’s 

ordering system or within STORES. When orders are initiated within STORES and interface into 

EBS, obligations are created after the vendor has received the order. This is problematic. DLA 

has developed a corrective action plan to address this. Orders are at the line item level with a 

unique document number for each item. Customers receipt for goods within STORES and 

customers are only billed for what is received. A three-way match between the order, the receipt 

and the invoice is performed in EBS. A module within STORES enables vendors to report 

corrections to their invoice or to initiate resolution of potential customer receipt processing 

errors. Customer billing takes place in EBS. In some cases, based Component request, the detail 

bills may not be at the line item level.

Attachment

Page 10
Air Force is not currently using Interfund billing for STORES orders; however, they are 

currently reevaluating this in order to comply with DOD policy. A past concern was that prices 

may change after the order and then not match the obligation. But, STORES now bills based on 

the price in effect at the time of the order. If customers use the current STORES catalog for 

pricing when initiating orders in the Component ordering system, the obligation price will match 

the bill. Jennifer Kaiser, DLA finance, noted that she is the point of contact for coordinating 

Interfund billing within STORES. 

Marines Corps reported receiving Subsistence bills citing pseudo M series document numbers 

that are not Marine Corps DoDAACs. These are locally assigned identifiers for shipping 

locations within DLA’s customer master profile and USMC asked that DLA discontinue their 

use. Marine Corps also expressed concern regarding the lack of DLMS logistics transactions to 

support automated receipt processing and evidentiary matter for audit. There is also an internal 

Air Force process using M series document identifiers that is integral to their maintenance 

programs that was not addressed as part of this discussion. 

Actions:

 DLA evaluate locally assigned identifiers for shipping points and initiate action with

Components to coordinate assignment of legitimate DoDAACs. Report concurrently to

DLMSO FPRC and DoDAAD PRC Chairs (financehq@dla.mil> and

DODAADHQ@DLA.MIL). Suspense: May 30, 2015.

 DLA report to FPRC Chair the feasibility of initiating DLMS supply status transactions

for STORES orders. Suspense: July 30, 2015.

 Air Force confirm that the current STORES catalog is being used for ordering through

USAF systems. Report to FPRC Chair the status of initiating Interfund billing procedures

for STORES orders. Suspense: July 30, 2015.

b. Department of Defense - Electronic Mall (DOD EMALL).

DOD EMALL is the most robust internet ordering solution offered to the Federal Government 

today, supporting DOD, other Federal and non-Federal customers approved by statute, such as 

states and local governments. The eCommerce site supports over 3.80 million national stock 

numbered items and over 18.3 million commercial items supported by DLA contracts. It can be 

used to purchase everything from office supplies to weapon system parts. Orders may be placed 

using credit card or DLMS/MILSTRIP, with an interface to the MILSTIP Order Entry System 

(MOES) Web application. MOES provides the web-based user interface to execute MILSTRIP 

ordering; providing tools for form, freeform, and bulk ordering. These documents are verified 

and processed through DAAS for editing and routing. 

DoDAAC authority codes are validated and shopping carts are scanned to prevent purchase 

where EMALL or customizable Component rules are not met. 

Customers can track the status of their orders for DLA managed items, whether the item was 

ordered using DOD EMALL or not. The Material Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) 

functionality in DOD EMALL allows users to report the receipt status of their orders, or 

Components may be systemically initiate MRAs for EMALL orders from Component systems. 

Attachment

Page 11
Marine Corps added they plan to submit a PDC to add a receipt information copy of the EMALL 

MRA back to Marine Corps as part of USMC funds verification process implementation. The 

briefer was uncertain about the format of the MRA for external business processes using 

EMALL MRA functionality for TVR commercial orders that may not have a unique document 

number for each line item. 

The funds verification process is available to verify availability of funds and record obligations 

in Components systems. Otherwise, customers must record the obligations outside of EMALL, 

which may be problematic. Navy expressed interest in exploring the funds verification process.

DOD EMALL will be integrated with GSA Advantage into a single federal mall (FEDMALL) in 

the near future. Functionality for providing status of commercial orders is planned for 

FEDMALL. 

Action:

 DLA report to FPRC Chair any external business processes using EMALL MRA 

reporting functionality where an individual document number is not assigned to each line 

item in a commercial order, along with the format of the MRA. Suspense: July 30, 

2015.

c. DLA Medical Prime Vendor Program 

Prime vendor is a large part of the Medical business supporting over 250 customers world-wide. 

The process employs Distribution and Pricing Agreements with pharmaceutical and 

Medical/Surgical manufactures allowing items to be sold at prices established in the agreements. 

There are various ways customers can order. Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support 

(DMLSS) Retail is the primary method. Other methods include vendor Websites, Theater Army 

Medical Management Information System (TAMIS), Theatre Enterprise-Wide Logistics System 

(TWELS), EMALL, manual orders, fax and phone. All orders are at the line item level. 

The first step is that DLA’s Medical Reconciliation Application distributes vendor pricing 

agreements to customers. Customers place orders and EBS transmits the orders to vendors on an 

X12 850 sales order transaction. The order awaits an 855 order acknowledgement confirming 

that the vendor has received the order. Within DMLSS, TWELS and TAMIS, unique requisitions 

are created for each line item in an order. Customers receive the items, which results in a 527R 

Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement to the Medical Reconciliation Application to confirm what 

was received. Then, vendor payment and customer billing through EBS using the 810 Logistics 

Bill may occur. It was not clear whether some customers have requested that detail bills be 

suppressed and that a single pseudo detail bill be used for multiple items.

In some scenarios for orders placed directly with vendor’s website, a unique document number is 

not assigned for each line item to support compliant MRA reporting and Interfund billing. There 

may be process improvements that might be considered to support these scenarios. 

Recording obligations at the line item level in Component systems may be problematic for 

customers when orders are placed directly into vendor Web sites or in DMLSS. 

Attachment

Page 12
Actions:

 DLA report feasibility of creating unique document numbers for each line item in an 

order for orders placed through vendor Websites. Suspense: August 1, 2015.

 DLA report the feasibility of using of the funds verification process to confirm funds 

availability and recording obligations in Component systems as a future enhancement. 

Suspense: September 30, 2015.

 DLA report to FPRC Chair if any DMLSS customers are receiving “rolled-up” detail 

bills using a pseudo document number. Suspense: July 15, 2015.

5. Air Force Topics. Ms. Angel Sweetser briefed Air Force issues for which Air Force is 

seeking resolution.

a. Fund Code “VA”. This fund code citing an Air Force appropriation was initially 

established in 2004 on under the Army service code in support of Surface Deployment and 

Distribution Command (SDDC). But, SDDC transitioned to Army in 2010, so this fund code is 

no longer needed and its continued use is problematic. This is causing rework for DLA, GSA, 

Air Force and Army. Air Force is seeking to coordinate removing this fund code from the Fund 

Code to Fund Account Conversion Table in a manner that does not impact billing reversals. 

Action:

 Representatives of DLA, Air Force, Army (General Fund), and GSA coordinate 

removing Fund Code VA from the Army service code. Suspense: May 30, 2015.

b. Reversal Requests. Air Force reported 149 invalid Interfund bills from DLA and is 

seeking DLA assistance in reversing the bills. Karen Opie-Toler, DLA finance, offered to assist. 

Since some bills go back to 2007, it was recommended that the review be prioritized to focus

first bills with funding nearing expiration and those of high dollar value.

Action:

 Angel Sweetser send Karen Opie-Toler information on invalid Interfund bills for which 

reversal is being requested. Provide a copy to FPRC Chair. Suspense: April 15, 2015.

c. Erroneous Use of SF 1081 Voucher and Schedule of Withdrawal and Credits. 

Because obtaining a timely reversal and rebilling for Interfund bills from seller billing offices has 

been difficult, other Services have been sending an SF 1081 to the Air Force to charge Air Force 

funds in lieu of having the billing office reverse the errant bills and resubmit them to Air Force. 

This is problematic and not in line with MILSBILLS billing adjustment procedures. The SF 1081 

transaction is reported on the DD Form 1329 Statement of Transactions According to 

Appropriations, Funds and Receipt Accounts instead of the DD Form 1400 Statement of 

Interfund Transactions. Air Force receives the DD Form 1400 cash. But, since the bill does not 

Attachment

Page 13
route to Air Force, there are no details. This is causing problems with balancing during 

reconciliation. Air Force wants billed offices to request billing adjustments from the billing 

offices and for billing offices to perform the appropriate reversal and rebilling in a timely manner 

instead of using an SF 1081. FPRC Chair noted that implementation of automated billing 

adjustment and reply procedures using DLMS is essential.

Action:

 Components identify billing offices from which billing adjustments have been requested 

but not accomplished in a timely manner and provide specific examples. Suspense: 

August 1, 2015.

d. Use of DAMES. Ms. Sweetser asked for clarification on who DAMES is intended for 

and under what circumstances. She noted that Air Force DFAS Central Accounts Office had lost 

access to DAMES in 2010. Transaction Services stated that DAMES is recommended for 

customers who’s DoDAACs are not tied to a billing system. DAMES would provide a 

communications routing identifier (COMMRI) to route the transactions. There is a user guide for 

DAMES. Additionally, Transaction Services help desk staff can help with setting up a DAMES 

account and answering questions.

e. Non-Interfund Authority Code. Air Force expressed interest in creating a nonInterfund authority code for DoDAACs with authority code “00”, which are authorized to 

requisition but are not capable of Interfund billing. The current process in such cases,

implemented under the ADC 110 series is for Transaction Services DAAS edits to convert the 

fund code for specially identified Air Force DoDAACs or DoDAAC series to the non-Interfund 

Fund Code XP. Mr. Hammond suggested a future discussion with Air Force and DLMSO 

Finance and DoDAAD PRC chairs to evaluate the Air Force concerns and explore potential

solutions.

Action:

 FPRC Chair set up a conference call to evaluate the Air Force concerns and explore 

potential solutions. Suspense: May 15, 2015.

6. Army Use of Interfund Billing for Contractor DoDAACs. 

Ms. Lori Peterson presented a briefing regarding Army use of Interfund billing for contractor 

DoDAACs, which is contrary to DOD policy cited in MILSBILLS. Mr. Hammond noted that 

Army is the dominate user or this practice, but that other Components have similar practices. 

There may be impediments to eliminating this practice to comply with MILSBILLS in the near 

term. 

There are significant issues caused by this practice. First, the ability to distinguish government 

furnished materiel (GFM) from contractor furnished materiel (CFM) requisitions is lost. For 

GFM, the government pays and the bill-to party and should cite a government entity. For CFM, 

Attachment

Page 14
the contractor pays and the bill-to party should cite the contractor using non-Interfund 

procedures. Second, Management Control Activity (MCA) validations for what the contractor is 

authorized to order as GFM may be circumvented, since requisitions appear to be for CFM. 

Only Army requires MCA validations against CFM requisitions under certain MILSTRIP 

procedures. Third, billing offices may not be able to correctly identify the transaction as federal 

versus nonfederal for financial eliminations. 

In the Army practice, the requisitions cite the contractor DoDAAC as the bill-to party and an 

Army fund code associated with an Army LOA for Interfund billing. The contractor DoDAAC 

cites an Army DFAS address in the TAC 3 and directs the bill to an Army financial system 

COMMRI. Ms. Peterson noted that the LMP Army working capital fund ERP bills these 

requisitions via Interfund billing and that GCSS-Army only has Interfund billing in scope. 

However, DLA bills this same situation when the Army contractor DoDAAC is cited as the billto party according to DOD policy by billing the contractor via non-Interfund procedures. 

Contractors are declining to pay the bills, resulting is aged receivables. 

DLMSO DoDAAD PRC Chair provided a listing of Component DoDAACs citing a DFAS 

address in the TAC 3, which Mr. Hammond distributed to Components prior to the FPRC 

meeting for their review. Mr. Hammond noted that a review of the contracts associated with the 

DoDAACs may be necessary to determine the business process where the DoDAAC is being 

used. Mr. Hammond asked that Component FPRC representative’s coordinate with their Supply 

PRC representatives to determine if near-term changes to such business process may be made to 

comply with policy, to identify any impediments and to identify projected dates when these 

impediments might be overcome. While Army proposed changing MILSBILLS to allow 

contractors to be billed via Interfund, Mr. Hammond suggested that a Proposed DLMS Change 

documenting the Army process and requesting a temporary waiver may be more appropriate.

Mr. Hammond noted that the government entity DoDAAC may correctly be cited as the bill-to 

party in either the supplementary address field or in the Fund Code to Billed Office DoDAAC 

Table using Signal Code C or L for third party billing. The practice of citing the contractor as the 

bill-to party and using Interfund billing may have arisen because Fund Code to Billed Office 

DoDAAC Table third party billing logic may not have been properly implemented in all systems. 

Action:

 All Components review the listing of DoDAACs provided to them identifying a DFAS 

center billing address in the DoDAAC TAC 3 and report to FPRC Chair if near-term 

changes to these business process may be made to comply with policy, if there any 

impediments and projected dates when these impediments might be overcome. Suspense: 

September 30, 2015.

7. Navy Innovative Use of Web Fund Code Narrative Field. John Kupchik described how 

Navy is making use of the narrative field in the Fund Code to Fund Account Conversion Table to 

associate the fund code to internal Navy business processes. This field has been used primarily 

for H-series DoDAAC fund codes to specify the applicable defense agency associated with the 

fund code. Other Components may consider similar use of the comments field.

Attachment

Page 15
8. DLMS Implementation Plans. Mr. Hammond noted that full DLMS implementation for all 

Component and DF AS financial systems is essential for achieving full SLOA compliance and 

supporting emerging business needs. Of particular note, DF AS systems are not yet DLMS 

capable. Components and DF AS were asked to provide their DLMS implementation target 

dates. DF AS was asked to identify the action officer leading their DLMS implementation. 

Action: 

• Components and DF AS provide FPRC Chair their target DLMS implementation dates; 

DF AS additionally provide the contact information for the action officer assigned 

responsibility for coordinating DLMS implementation ofDFAS systems. Suspense: 

April 30, 2015. 

9. Concluding Remarks. The original agenda anticipated a two day meeting which was 

reduced to one day due to closure of federal government offices in the Washington capital region 

on March, 5, 2015. Deferred topics, along with links to the associated briefings, are at Enclosure 

(1). The FPRC Chair will reschedule these topics for one or more future FPRC meetings. 

Next Meeting: Future Finance PRC meetings, including focused topic meetings, will be 

scheduled as needed. 

ROBERT HAMMOND 

Chair, DOD Finance PRC 

Director, 

Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office 

Attachment 

Page 16 
ENCLOSURE 1: Deferred Agenda Topics

1. DLMS Implementation Status/Progress. 

2. DLMS Status Review Briefing. 

3. Comptroller/Treasury/DFAS GWA. The briefings below incorporate the following topics:

- Introduction to Cash Accountability and Traceability Work Group. 

- Financial Audit Readiness. 

- Interfund Working Group Update. 

- Improving Daily Funds Balance With Treasury – Daily Reporting. 

- Treasury Disbursing Office Planning. 

- Invoice Processing Platform. 

- Financial Management Regulation – Audit Related Updates. 

- Treasury Direct Reporting. 

a. Update on GWA – Treasury Central Accounts Reporting System. 

b. Standard Line of Accounting Update. 

c. Joint Interoperability Test Command. 

4. The Art of Logistics Video. 

5. Tour of DLMSO Website. 

6. How Fund Codes Work. 

7. DLMS Finance Training Module 4F. 

8. Overview of Select Transaction Services Web Resources. 

9. Overview of DLMS 810L Logistics Bill. 

10. Federal Agency Briefings

Enclosure

Page 1