2 

b. ACTION (Due 15 January 2010). 

i. BTA, clarify the relationship (if any) to initiatives by the procurement 

community to employ standard SFIS data, and provide appropriate 

language for the PDC. 

ii. OSD Comptroller (Joe Doyle) 

1) Provide guidance on the uses of the character “*” in the fund code 

table, which identifies the fiscal year of the billing date. This 

relates to the option of modifying the fund code table to include 

SFIS data for data exchange. 

2) Provide guidance on the proposed use of ANSI X12 qualifiers for 

SFIS for the FA2 segment that are managed by the Financial 

Management Regulation under code source 529. 

iii. DAASC provide some examples to Joe Doyle of transactions using fund 

codes with “*” as the fiscal year indicator in the fund code. 

iv. Tom Rybak (BTA) provide a future demonstration of how the ERPs will 

accommodate requisition processing to pre-populate financial data. 

v. All. Ensure that Component stakeholders review draft PDC 365 and 

provide any comments to Bob Hammond (DLMSO). 

2. Off-Line Ordering System- Funds Availability Check.

a. There was a discussion of ADC 328, “Off-Line” Requisition Processing: Internet 

Ordering Application Request for Component Verification of Funds Availability 

& Recording of the Financial Obligation. This ADC will establish a capability for 

a funds verification check for off-line ordering systems such as DoD eMall and 

GSA Advantage before orders process, and will allow for recording the obligation 

in component financial systems. This capability was requested by Army, who will 

be the first component implementation, however it has applicability to all. Marine 

Corps intends to implement ADC 328 procedures. 

b. ACTION. 

i. Components review funds availability procedures for off-line ordering 

systems and brief at the next Finance PRC plans to implement ADC 328 

or alternate procedures to ensure funds availability and recording of the 

obligation. 

ii. DLA brief at the next Finance PRC how they will leverage ADC 328 

functionality for ordering via non-integrated Tailored Vendor Relationship 

(TVR) programs, or (alternatively) alert customers to record their 

obligation independently prior to placing an order. 

3. FAA RIC Problem. 

a. Some FAA billings have RIC 570 vice RIC G69. Billie Davis, FAA, indicated 

that FAA is sending RIC G69 in the Detailed Bill but that GSA, who submits the 

bills for FAA, is entering the incorrect RIC of 570 in the Summary Bill. 

b. ACTION: Roxanne Degner, GSA, will research this problem provide status by 

15 January 2010. 

4. Fund Code Validation on FMS Requisitions. 
3 

a. ADC 20, which has been incorporated into Chapter 9 of MISBILLS, specifies 

mandatory use rules for the Fund Code. Subsequent to implementation, DAASC 

excluded FMS from the logic due to reported problems with Army and Air Force 

transactions. 

b. Kathleen Heikel, Army, reported that changes were made to the Army Centralized 

Integrated System for International Logistics to comply with ADC 20. The AF 

scenario was described as a pre-requisition inquiry from the ILCO to obtain the 

correct source of supply from DAASC. Air Force has documented the Air Force 

process as follows. DAASC and SAMIS have had an agreement for 

approximately the last 20 years where SAMIS sends transactions/inquiries to 

DAASC (pre-requisition) to search for a SOS when there is no SOS listed in the 

Air Force catalog. SAMIS transmits these transactions to DAASC (RIC SGA) 

with a blank fund code because SAMIS is unable to assign a fund code when the 

SOS is unknown. DAASC then searches to identify a SOS. If successful, 

DAASC returns the transaction with the SOS identified; if they are unsuccessful, 

DAASC also returns the transaction, but with a notation that they could not find a 

SOS. Either way, these types of transactions are not requisitions processed by 

DAASC. For the successfully identified SOS, SAMIS assigns a fund code based 

on the SOS and submits a requisition; if not successful the document number is 

researched for possible further action. 

c. DAASC removed the exception for FMS Fund Code edit and implemented a 

procedure to accommodate the Air Force pre-requisition inquiry, in March of 

2009. In reviewing the edit, it was discovered a subset of Air Force SOS for FMS 

requisitions was bypassing the edit. This was resolved and a new edit was put in 

place on 19 October 2009. This new edit ensures FMS transactions from the 

ILCOs and from EMALL are edited for a valid Signal Code and Fund Code and 

excludes the Air Force pre-requisition inquiry from the edit. 

d. ACTION: DLMSO (Ellen Hilert) will look into publishing procedures for “prerequisition inquiry” in MILSTRIP/DLMS Manual. DLMSO will coordinate with 

the Air Force as needed. 

5. Air Force Billing Problems Resulting from Partial Shipments.

a. This issue came up in the Supply PRC, but it also has financial implications. ADC 

247 provides some background. Since DLA Distribution Standard System (DSS) 

confirms based on partial shipments, and DLA Enterprise Business System (EBS) 

bills based on these confirmations, (ARO) vice the material release order (A5_), 

the possibility exists that some bills will appear as duplicate billings. These bills 

don't contain suffixes on the document numbers, and the Air Force finance system 

considers the same document number with the same quantity to be a duplicate. 

This causes manual work, and increased the bill processing charge from DFAS to 

the Services. Air Force indicates that this is a problem for them, while Army and 

Navy indicate that it is not a problem for them. 

b. Some possible solutions identified include: 

i. Fix EBS not to bill until the shipment is complete. Susan Eldridge, DLA, 

indicated that it is not feasible to modify EBS in the near term to correct 

this problem. DLMSO (Ellen Hilert) noted that business process 

improvements now under consideration will likely increase the overall 
4 

number of depot partial shipments. She asked that a long term solution be 

considered to recognize partial shipments initiated by the depot and 

consolidate billing, if bill processing fees are applicable. 

ii. In DLMS, add the TCN to the bill or add a partial shipment indicator for 

future use. The inclusion of the TCN in the bill under DLMS is included 

in ADC 290; however, this is a long term solution. 

iii. Change DFAS systems to accommodate partial billings by accumulating 

the billed dollar amount, so that bills based upon partial shipments are not 

rejected unless the dollar total exceeds the amount obligated. Shirley 

Reed, Air Force was to talk with Ronnie Daniels, Army, regarding the 

Army process, and look at the Air Force edit to determine if the Air Force 

edit can be modified to resolve this problem. Subsequent to the meeting, 

DLMSO recommended that AF provide a DLMS Change proposal to 

establish DoD rules for billing of partial shipments if internal AF solution 

is not acceptable and/or volume of billing associated with partial supply 

actions is shown to be a significant expense to the Service resulting from 

DFAS charges for processing of electronic separate bills for each partial 

action including surcharge for manual research. 

c. The Air Force wrote an SCR to change the way incoming interfund bills are zero 

balanced and has a Discrepancy Report to exclude certain Document Identity 

Codes to prevent the erroneous deletion of duplicate detail billing records. 

d. ACTION. Components and DLA provide the following information to DLMSO 

by 15 January 2010: 

i. Process used for handling these bills, which appear as duplicate bills, i.e. 

are they processed manually? 

ii. What is the estimated frequency of occurrence per month? 

iii. Are there charges for each interfund bill, as this process would increase 

the number of detail bills? 

iv. Are there additional charges for processing these bills manually? 

6. GSA-Directed Shipments Lost at DLA-Operated Consolidation and 

Containerization Point (CCP).

a. GSA directs vendor shipment to customers through the DLA CCPs. If material is 

lost and GSA has transporter proof of delivery (TPD) from the vendor neither the 

vendor nor GSA will reimburse the customer. DLA has no policy/process to 

provide credit for CCP losses based upon submission of a Supply Discrepancy 

Report (SDR) to DLA. GSA does not accept responsibility for CCP losses. Ellen 

Hilert, DLMSO, suggested that the best way for the credit to occur is to have 

GSA reimburse the customer and then have DLA reimburse GSA. GSA would 

bill DLA for the customer’s credits. Buz Sawyer, DLA, indicated that this would 

have to be negotiated between GSA and DLA. The volume of these types of lost 

items is small, but users get upset when they don’t get credit. Much additional 

time is lost due to lack of published procedures governing this scenario, resulting 

in repeated follow-ups from the customer seeking resolution. 

b. On 8/31/09, a GSA team was set up to review the DRAFT PDC 314 developed 

by Ellen Hilert (team includes Robert R. Blake, Director, National Customer 

Service Center, Douglas French, and Denise Webster. 
5 

c. ACTION. GSA provide comments on draft PDC 314, or provide 

recommendation for alternative procedures, to Ellen Hilert by 15 January 2010. 

7. DOD Activity Address Code (DoDAAC) Edits on Logistics Bills and Requisitions 

a. Bob Hammond (DLMSO) provided a briefing on PDC 368, DOD Activity 

Address Code (DoDAAC) Edits on Logistics Bills and Requisitions, which 

includes procedures for deleted DoDAACs. 

b. ACTION. All, review PDC 368 and provide comments to DLMSO by 31 

December 2009. 

8. Billing Issues

a. Andrew Daniel (DFAS) provided a briefing on instances for Air Force bills where 

the bill number in the summary bill did not match the bill number in the detail bill 

for billing reversals. This appeared to be an internal Air Force training issue and 

no PRC action was recommended at this time. 

b. Abby Savoy (DFAS) provided a presentation on efforts to clear aged DLA bills 

that have rejected at DAASC for invalid DoDAACs. A spreadsheet of rejected 

summary bills is posted on the meeting agenda. 

c. ACTION. 

i. Diana Robinson (DLIS) will check to see if the DLA call in center can 

match any of the DoDAACs to call in orders and will advise DLMSO and 

Abby Savoy (DFAS) by 15 January 2010. 

ii. Components. Review the spreadsheet of rejected DLA bills to ascertain 

the correct bill-to DoDAACs and provide comments on to DLMSO and 

Abby Savoy by 15 January 2010. 

9. DLA Hazardous Waste Billing.

a. Navy discovered that on their June billings for hazardous waste from DLA the 

MILSBILLS document ID changed from FC1/FC2 (Billing for Decentralized, 

Non-catalogued and Non-Stocked Items) to FA1/FA2 (Billing for Issue from 

Stock). Research indicated that on 1 April 2009 DRMS was brought under the 

DLA Enterprise Operations Accounting system and that the FC1/2 transaction 

was not programmed for hazardous waste billings. In addition, the Routing 

Identifier Code (RIC) changed from S9D to SMS. In the case of Navy, this caused 

bills to go to individual Navy activities instead of being billed to a central 

working capital fund. Finally the optional Type of Bill Code indicator “HW” for 

hazardous waste was not being used. 

b. Bruce Wright (DLA) indicated that a change was put in place in September 2009 

to restore use of the document identifier FC1/FC2 document identifier and the use 

of “Type of Bill Code” indicator HW. Additionally, Bruce indicated that DLA 

has begun putting “GM01” in the first four record positions of the “Stock 

Number” field (MILS record positions 8 – 22) to identify hazardous waste 

billings, which is an undocumented process. Ellen Hilert suggested that there is a 

change proposal in development for a DLMS ‘Catalog ID’ which may be 

appropriate for this procedure, in lieu of using the “Stock Number” field. 

c. ACTION. Bruce Wright (DLA), will by 15 January 2015
6 

i. Confirm that Type Bill Code of HW is now being passed in the hazardous 

waste bills. Subsequent to the meeting, Bruce Wright (DLA) confirmed 

that Type Bill Code HW is being passed in hazardous waste bills. 

ii. Discuss with DLA leadership the possibility of reversing the bills to Navy 

billed under documents identifier FA1/FA2 and rebilling them under 

FC1/FC2. 

iii. Determine if there is a need to pass GMO1 needs to be passed external to 

DLA, and if so document the use in a Proposed DLMS change. 

10. DLMS Manuals.

a. DLMSO will be working to revise the DLMS Manual (DoD 4000.25-M) to 

incorporate both DLMS and MILS procedures from the MILSBILLS Manual 

(DoD4000.25-7-M toward the goal of eventually eliminating MILSBILLS. 

Revisions will be done through a series of Proposed DLMS Changes (PDCs). 

PRC support in carefully reviewing these PDCs needed. 

b. DLMSO also discussed the proposed move toward Defense Logistics Manuals to 

replace the MILS manuals. 

c. ACTION. All, review chapters 2 and 3 of Draft DLM 4000.25-3 MILSBILLS, 

DLM 4000.25 V4, (linked on the agenda) and provide proposed changes to 

DLMSO, Bob Hammond, by 15 January 2010 for PDC development. 

11. DLMS Migration Status. Dale Yeakel (DLMSO) provided a briefing regarding the 

migration from fixed 80 record position MILS transactions to the variable length Defense 

Logistics Management System transactions. DLMS transactions as a percent of total 

transactions have gone from 12% in April 2006 to 57% in September 2009 and are 

projected to reach 98% in 20015. 

12. Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System. Beverly Veit (Navy) provided an 

overview of Navy ERP. 

Enclosure