DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

HEADQUARTERS

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

 August 17, 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS), DoD Activity Address Directory

 (DoDAAD) Process Review Committee (PRC) Meeting of July 13, 2016

The attached minutes of the DoDAAD PRC of July 13, 2016 are forwarded for your 

information and action as appropriate. 

The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office point of contact is Mr. Tad DeLaney,

703-767-6885, DSN 427-6885; or email thomas.delaney@dla.mil.

HEIDI M. DAVEREDE

Director

Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office

Attachment

As stated

cc:

ODASD(SCI)

ODASD DPAP (PDI) 
2

 August 17, 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR DOD ACTIVITY ADDRESS (DODAAD) PROCESS REVIEW 

COMMITTEE (PRC)

SUBJECT: DoDAAD PRC Meeting, July13, 2016

1. Purpose: Defense Logistics Management Standards Office convened a focused meeting of the

DoDAAD PRC on July13, 2016 at DLA Headquarters, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Defense 

Collaboration Services (DCS) was used to provide real-time screen sharing of the presented 

materials with remote participants. Specific discussion topics are noted below. The agenda with 

briefings and a list of attendees and materials presented are available on the DoDAAD PRC web 

page at: http://www.dlmso.dla.mil/Programs/Committees/DoDAAD/dodaad.asp

2. Brief Summary of Discussion: The focus of this PRC was to introduce changes and future 

enhancements to the DoDAAD which are critical to enabling procurement business system 

functionality for use of the DoDAAC by Federal Agencies for contract actions, funding, payments 

and grants. Tad Delaney, DoDAAD PRC Chair, facilitated the meeting discussions. The discussion 

topics and resulting action items are below.

a. Introduction, DoDAAD PRC 101, and the DoDAAD Web Page

(1) Discussion: The DoDAAD Chair opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and then 

introduced the Director of DLMSO who provided some opening remarks. The Chair introduced 

principals attending from ODASD SCI and ODASD DPAP, provided a few administrative 

comments and presented the meeting’s opening series of charts. The Chair “level-set” the 

committee by covering the PRC policy chain of authority, governance process, stakeholders, and 

their respective roles in the governance of the DoDAAD. Inclusive in this portion of the brief was a 

summary of both Department and Service-level policies and their roles in proper governance and 

administration of the DoDAAD. The Chair also provided some metrics on the number of DoDAACs 

and RICs currently in use, and provided a brief synopsis on the topic of RIC shortage. The Chair 

concluded this portion of the PRC with references to the DoDAAD PRC webpage, and final

comments on the purpose of this particular PRC. 

(2) Action Items: There were no specific action items from this portion of the meeting. The 

only item worth noting is the shortage of RICs, but no shortage of DoDAACs.

b. Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA)

(1) Discussion: Ms. Lisa Romney of ODASD DPAP provided an overview of the DATA

Act. The DATA Act is the nation's first legislative mandate for data transparency. It requires the 

Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to transform U.S. 

Federal spending from disconnected documents into open, standardized data, and to publish that data 

online. New requirements starting in January and May of 2017 require the financial community to 

augment the reporting of awards with expenditure data and balances. Concern for protecting the 
3

aggregation of data was mentioned and the effort to define authoritative data sources for the new 

data requirements/standards. In the past, Federal Agencies used DoDAACs for supply and property 

transactions, but now, Federal Agencies are expanding use of the DoDAAC into other business 

areas. Consequently, there was a significant growth over the past year in the number of Federal 

DoDAACs. This trend is expected to continue as more civilian agencies adopt the DoDAAD for 

procurement and requisitioning.

(2) Action Items: There were no specific action items from this portion of the meeting, but 

it is clear there is a need to apply stringent data requirements going forward.

c. Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR)

(1) Discussion: The Chair provided an overview of FIAR and its impact to the DoDAAD. 

FIAR is an amalgamation of three acts: First, the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA) which requires agencies to evaluate their system of internal accounting and administrative 

controls and to report on the effectiveness of these controls in an annual statement of assurance. 

Second, the Chief Financial Officers Act charged OMB with overseeing various managerial 

functions and policy for information, procurement, and property management. In particular, OMB is 

charged with establishing government-wide financial management policies and requirements as well 

as monitoring the establishment and operation of financial management systems, amongst other 

provisions. Third, the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) requires agencies 

to implement and maintain financial management systems substantially compliant with Federal 

financial management systems requirements, applicable Federal accounting standards, and the U.S. 

Standard General Ledger (USSGL) at the transaction level.

Nearly every business event transaction in the DoD is created with a DoDAAC. Traceability 

is further facilitated by common data standards (of which the DoDAAC is but one, albeit nearly 

universal, code). Auditability relies upon effective management internal controls, and it is critical 

that policy and procedures identify how and when DoDAACs are used to facilitate a Service’s 

various business processes in systems, and how that data supports auditability.

The Chair stated accurate data depends on using discrete data elements and not hidden 

information embedded in address data. Management internal controls are required to meet FIAR. 

Component business rules need to define how the DoDAAC is used, making sure Component use of 

the DoDAAC is documented in Service issuances and not only defined at the DoD level. 

Collectively, DLMSO and the Components need to work together, but Services need to put business 

rules in place to meet FIAR requirements.

(2) Action Items: Components need to document their own unique DoDAAD processing 

rules. Those rules can only enhance, not replace, DoD policy guidance. 

d. GSA Updates 

(1) Discussion: Mr. Troy Gruver discussed GSA efforts over the past year. Between the 

middle of 2015 through March 2016, GSA created 3,378 new DoDAACs and modified 2,287 

existing DoDAACs for use in FPDS-NG reporting, as part of the DATA Act implementation. 
4

Mr. Gruver further discussed a change to GSA Advantage that will no longer utilize 

internally-created “G” series AACs, but will require all GSA Advantage customers to use their 

Component/Agency-provided DoDAACs/AACs. This is a huge shift and will impact CSPs as 

customers are directed by GSA to the CSPs for DoDAACs to use. 

Ms. Romney noted DoD eMALL is undergoing a modernization to FedMall and when 

complete, will require DoDAACs for purchasing by Federal Users. The goal is to remove all 

pseudo DoDAACs and implement a requirement to validate the DoDAAC with the authoritative 

source and ensure it is authorized for purchasing. This ties to further expansion of purpose codes 

within the DoDAAD (e.g., Purchasing flag, Funding flag, Payment flag).

(2) Action Items: USTRANSCOM had a question for DLMSO: “If you are a tenet agency 

and you are using the Executive Agency GPC card to place an order, do you use the Executive 

Agency DoDAAC or your own DoDAAC?” Consensus at the meeting was Services should use their

own DoDAAC.

e. Task Analysis from Last PRC 

(1) Discussion: The DoDAAD Chair introduced the Analysis Task from the last PRC for 

CSPs to review their records for new fields added to the DoDAAD (i.e., Org Type Code, Contractor 

Flag, Procurement Authority, CGAC, and Agency Code). 

The Chair disclosed that DLMSO analyzed all records for Org Type Code and Contractor 

Flag and noted the number of changes that still need to be made by CSPs and provided that data to 

them separately, as applicable. All-in-all, the necessary changes to the DoDAAD for these new data 

elements is progressing, and will require ongoing attention by the CSPs. 

(2) Action Items: The Chair requested the CSPs take the data sets provided for action, and 

to stay on top of ensuring these new data elements are maintained accurate. 

f. Recent Changes, ADC 1218 CAGE Code Display. The Chair highlighted some of the 

recent published changes, most of which were covered in the previously discussed Analysis Task; 

however, one recent change, intended as an enabler for the CSPs to ensure data accuracy, was ADC 

1218 - Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) Address Display Feature (DoDAAD). 

(1) Discussion: ADC 1218 provides a real CAGE Code lookup capability within the 

DoDAAD Update Application for CSPs to ensure greater validity of not only the CAGE Code, but 

the address information from the CAGE that could be used for the DoDAAC. 

(2) Action Items: There were no specific action items from this discussion; however, 

there was a discussion between DLMSO (Mr. Larry Tanner) and Army (Mr. Matt Rushing) 

regarding copying the CAGE Code address information directly into the DoDAAD. There needs to 

be a follow-on meeting with Army to discuss how Army is handling the Military Shipping label 

(MSL) character limits for each line of the address.

 
5

g. Forthcoming Changes. The Chair introduced several forthcoming changes, a few of which 

have been ongoing for some time, but have not yet been fully developed/ready for 

publication/implementation. The following is germane: 

(1) PDC 1046: Routing Identifier Code (RIC) and DoD Address Code (DoDAAC) 

Relationship (DoDAAD) 

i. Discussion: This PDC was originally drafted and published in 2013. It 

required every RIC to be associated to a DoDAAC and a reciprocal agreement that deleting a RIC 

would delete the corresponding DoDAAC. This would have eliminated orphaned RICs and enforced 

the original purpose of the RIC as a routing indicator for a DoDAAC. The Services did not agree

due to the longstanding practice of misusing RICs as “mini-DoDAACs” to identify CTRs in 

possession of GFP. This PDC is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of ADC 1116 (one 

DoDAAC/one contract).

ii. Action Items: No action items were levied at this time, except that this PDC 

is tied to ADC 1116, which, once published, would necessitate publication of this PDC as well. 

(2) ADC 1116: Administrative Updates to DoDAAD contract fields (DoDAAD)

i. Discussion: The purpose of ADC 1116 was to limit a contractor (CTR) 

DoDAAC to a single contract number. This would allow systems to referentially use the DoDAAC 

to provide visibility of USG property in the custody of contractors, and facilitate traceability of GFP. 

More importantly, it tied the CTR DoDAAC to the authority permitting a CTR to have a DoDAAC –

the awarded contract – thus reducing the incidence of fraud, waste, and abuse tied to unauthorized 

use of the DoDAAC. This ADC was withdrawn due to gaps in DoD policy between functional 

domain uses of the DoDAAC, which, once addressed, will enable this ADC to be published. 

Implementation of this ADC, however, remains a challenge due to the Services misuse of the RIC. 

ii. Action Items. No specific tasks were levied; however, guidance was 

reiterated that the Services need to aggressively develop process/system changes that eliminate 

reliance upon the RIC. 

(3) PDC 1212: Contractor DoD Activity Address Code (DoDAAC) Contract Period 

of Performance End Date (DoDAAD/Supply)

i. Discussion: This change was drafted with the purpose of implementing a 

second date for contract period of performance. It was intended to allow the DoDAAC to continue 

to be used after the period of performance ended for collecting outstanding bills and warranty 

service. This PDC is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of ADC 1116. 

ii. Action Items: There were no specific action items from this portion of the 

meeting. 

(4) PDC 1197: Front End Enabler (DoDAAD)
6

i. Discussion: This PDC was drafted as an enabler to centralized management 

and decentralized execution of the DoDAAD. Workflow was discussed back in 2010, but the 

capability requirements and security restrictions made it all but impossible to implement. An 

alternative approach is being proffered to allow an automated front-end for data entry to be moved 

down to the end user, but keep validation and approval at the Central Service Point (CSP). This 

decentralizes execution and should improve both the timing and accuracy of DoDAAD data. This 

front-end enabler is critical to data accuracy, auditability, and the Federal Agencies’ successful 

implementation of the DATA Act. 

ii. Action Items: There were no specific action items from this portion of the 

meeting.

(5) PDC 1145: DoDAAD Output Processing (DoDAAD)

i. Discussion: The Chair reiterated the ongoing challenge of ensuring enterprise 

systems are obtaining data from authoritative sources. Regarding DoDAAD data, CSPs should be 

working to ensure their respective Components’ systems are obtaining the data directly from the 

DoDAAD via an automated process (i.e., web service). 

ii. Action Items: There were no specific action items from this portion of the

meeting. CSPs should continue to identify systems that use DoDAAD data to ensure they are setup 

with an automated means to obtain the data. 

6) PDC 1196: Implementation of DoDAAD GSA Bureau Codes (DoDAAD)

i. Discussion: The Chair identified a pending change intending to help resolve 

internal GSA business processes which rely upon the GSA Bureau Code, a temporarily “borrowed” 

pseudo-sub tier for the Federal Agencies to use until such time as they actually implement the new 

Sub Tier field in the DoDAAD. 

ii. Action Items: No specific action item levied. This topic will be re-visited 

once the Federal Agencies adopt the actual Sub Tier code. 

h. Ongoing CSP Tasks. The Chair identified ongoing tasks that CSPs are to be actively 

working to resolve, including: Service Unique Processing Rules, COMMRI management, 

implementation of discrete data, and correcting the root conditions that lead to Interfund billing 

rejections and unmatched disbursements. 

(1) Service Unique Processing Rules

i. Discussion: Over the years, various points of contact from within the 

Services reached out to Transaction Services to have Service-unique rules programmed within the 

DoDAAD. Many of these rules exist but are not documented anywhere, thus impeding future 

changes. 
7

ii. Action Items: CSPs are to ensure they work with Transaction Services to 

identify where these rules are implemented to ensure (a) they are properly documented, and (b) revalidate their utility. 

(2) COMMRI Management

i. Discussion: COMMRI Management is a joint responsibility of the sender and 

receiver. While Transaction Services may assign the COMMRI, it is the responsibility of the 

Services (specifically the CSP) to manage the COMMRI for assignment/use. Recently Transaction 

Services created a file to track the current owner (Service/location) of a COMMRI, but the majority 

exist with no record or ownership documentation. Services need to take responsibility for tracking 

down this information and providing it to Transaction Services so the master list can be updated.

ii. Action Items: Services need to determine: 1) COMMRIs they are using, the 

system using it and point of contact information. This information needs to be sent to the DoDAAD 

chair and Transaction Services, 2) Identify COMMRIs that are no longer valid, so they can be 

removed. This information should be gathered and supplied within the next 60 days (due date: 

October 1, 2016). 

(3) Discrete and Enhanced Data Usage

i. Discussion: As part of the mandate in DODD 8190.01E to migrate from 

legacy MILS to Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Standards, it is necessary to adapt that same 

migration from legacy DoDAAD data (i.e., MILS-based rules) to use of discrete data elements that 

enable modernization and the ability to referentially derive data. This will require the Services to 

stop embedding data in the address line (e.g., FSN in the third line of the address, starting in record 

position 30) and update the discrete fields.

ii. Action Items: Services need to identify instances where EDI could be used 

and make appropriate changes. Services should always be actively looking at ways to modernize the 

DoDAAD to proffer new fields that could harness the power and functionality of the database.

(4) DoDAAC Rejects for Interfund Bills

i. Discussion: The root cause of the problem with rejected bills is DoDAAD 

validation at the front end of the process. Components/Agencies do not get real-time updates of the 

DoDAAD data or they are not getting all the data. Many Components have not implemented the 

DoDAAC Authority Code edits for offline requisitioning processes (e.g., call centers). The result of 

that oversight is rejected bills because the DoDAAC was invalid or not authorized to make the 

purchase. 

ii. Action Items: Offline requisitioning (e.g., EMALL, EBS) needs to eliminate 

“FauxDAACs” (i.e., unauthorized DAACs) and validate the DoDAAC used for requisition against 

the authoritative source. This cannot be a “cleanup”, but a foundational change to the way business 

is done. Removing the “FauxDAACs” for a specific point in time will not solve the problem.
8

i. DoDAAC Day

(1) Discussion: DoDAAC Day was originally slated for June 2016 but was postponed 

until September 2016. The intended audience is senior staff with an agenda to provide a high-level 

review of procurement and financial management issues. Plenary sessions will be led by OSD 

leadership and participants will be looking into expanding the use of the DoDAAC beyond current 

uses.

(2) Action Items: There were no specific action items from this portion of the meeting.

3. The DoDAAD PRC Chair extends his sincere appreciation to those who participated in the PRC. 

The discussions were very productive. Thank you. 

_______________________ Approved _________________________

THOMAS A. DELANEY HEIDI M. DAVEREDE

Chairman Director

DoDAAD PRC Defense Logistics Management 

Standards Office