PROCURE-TO-PAY p2p... · – Sub-group under Procure-to-Pay Process Advocates Working Group...

PROCURE-TO-PAYTRAINING SYMPOSIUM 2019

Contract Vendor Pay Pain PointsFinancial Management Perspective

Presented by: Erica Thomas (OUSD(C)), Ed Burke (OUSD(C)), Elizabeth Gibbs (DFAS)

12019 Procure-to-Pay Training Symposium

Agenda

• Vendor Invoice & Payment Working Group Overview

• Cancelled Funds Working Group Overview• Questions


Vendor Invoice & Payment Working Group Overview

3

Current Contract Vendor Pay Landscape

• The Office of the Chief Management Officer (OCMO) Enterprise Cost Management (ECM) effort identified FY17 Financial Management Line of Business (FMLOB) costs and aligned $532M to Payables Management

– Approx. 58% aligned to DFAS– Does not include all the upstream cost (HS 1-5) or Contract Close Out (HS 9)

• In FY18, 4.5M contract actions executed for a total of $355B (excludes USTRANSCOM) 1

• From Oct’18 to Feb’19:– Electronic posting of contract obligations (HS3) into primary accounting systems2 averaged = 57%– Electronic posting of contract data to legacy entitlement systems3 (HS4) averaged = 43%

• Approximately 4.5 million WAWF invoices processed annually4

• Approx. 30% of invoices received at DFAS are processed electronically/ “hands-free”5

1 Based on FPDS data provided by DPC2 Based on Monthly HS3 Pass/Fail rate submissions (DIA, DEAMS, GFEBS, NERP, SABRS)3 Based on Monthly HS4 Pass/Fail rate submissions (MOCAS, CAPS-W, IAPS)4 Based on FY19Q1 invoice data provided from the DPC DATA Lake5 Based on the DFAS FY18 Full Electronic Commerce Metrics

Pre-Award Funds Check

Post Obligation Data

Post Entitlement

Data

Confirm Receipt and Acceptance

Perform Entitlement

Pay the Vendor & Record

Disbursement

Report Disbursement

to Treasury

Contract Closeout /

Final Payment

Define & Fund Requirement

Contract Vendor Pay Handshakes

HS1

FY17: $532M Cost

HS2 HS3 HS4 HS5 HS6 HS7 HS8 HS9

4

Contract Vendor Pay• OUSD(C) worked with the MILDEPS, DLA, representatives of the 4th Estate,

and DFAS to identify common Contract Vendor Pay (CVP) Pain Points across the Department

– Manual initial entry: a transaction that is manually initiated by design of the process– Swivel chair: manual transaction that requires the user to take data from one system and

input it into another to process the transaction – Rework: occurs when electronic data exchanges fail and require manual intervention to

be corrected

• OUSD(C) established the Vendor Invoice and Payment Working Group for the FM Community to collectively identify pain points and associated root causes behind invoice/payment failures and develop corrective actions to improve.

5

Overview of Vendor Invoice & Payment Working Group

• Governance– Sub-group under Procure-to-Pay Process Advocates Working Group (P2PPAWG), co-

chaired by: OUSD(C) DCFO and OUSD(A&S) Defense Pricing and Contracting.

• Establishment– The working sub-group consists of senior financial and procurement personnel from the

Military Departments (MILDEPs) and other Defense Agencies, as well as subject matter experts of the logistics and property communities, as needed.

• Objective– (FM Focused) Collectively identify pain points and associated root causes behind

invoice/payment failures that result in manual work, rework, swivel chair activities, etc. and develop corrective actions to improve. This includes maximizing electronic posting/hands-free, seamless data exchanges, and the elimination of rework.

• Scope– P2P business processes, resources, and systems that provide capabilities to generate or

manage financial transactions or events, to include those of the MILDEPs, 4th Estate, and DFAS, are within scope.

6

Enterprise Wide CVP Pain Points• The VIPWG collectively reviewed and prioritized initial enterprise wide pain

points and determined the initiatives underway, or to be planned, to solve them

7

Pain Point Initiatives (existing or upcoming):

Lack of Discrete SLOA (Foundational) • OUSD(C) is championing the efforts to update the FM ANSI X12 Standards

• DPC to update their 850 and 860 standards thereafter.• Further discussions on updates to PRDS and PDS to accommodate

discrete SLOA to follow

Contract Structure (Foundational) • OUSD(C) is meeting with the MILDEPS to gather specific examples and review with DPC

Failure to electronically post Obligation and Contract Data in the Accounting System (HS3)

• USMC SABRS xProc Effort• Simplifying GEX process to identify and share contract data with

accounting systems• DAI system changes to improve HS 3 success rates• Continuing work with the MILDEPS to define root causes and build

corrective actions

Failure to electronically post Obligation and Contract Data in MOCAS and CAPS-W (HS 4)

• PDS Direct to MOCAS UDF Maps for Contracts (850) and Modifications (860)

• Kicking off effort with DFAS to identify improvement areas for CAPS-W

FM ANSI X12 Standards Update• Background

– DoD has several dated electronic transactions sets in Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) format that are approved by the X12 committee (established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)). Unique DoD versions of the transaction sets are called implementation conventions (IC). Current IC’s do not have discrete SLOA data elements, relying instead on outdated discrete accounting elements or strings of unstructured text commonly referred to as the ‘blob’.

• Problem– Blob data is complex and difficult to parse, resulting in a large number of costly

translations with complex parsing, of which many fail to post properly (or are altogether missing). This results in costly delays, rework, interest penalties, audit findings, etc…, which negatively impacts mission readiness and commercial trading partners.

• Solution– Update IC’s to include discrete SLOA data elements to support the proper and timely

posting of accounting data to financial systems.• Current Scope

– The current scope includes updates to DoD’s most recent release of FM IC’s (e.g., 810C Commercial Invoice - Release 8)

8

FM ANSI X12 Standards Update (cont.)

• The FA201 segment of the 4010 series for the 810C uses three codes to create the LOA, with the ZZ code as user defined blob data.– 18, L1, and ZZ

• 18: Funds Appropriation– Use this code in conjunction with codes L1 and ZZ when the individual components of the

LOA cannot be generated by the application. When used, provide the basic appropriation number (department code through appropriation limit). Example: 1717979818100400.

• L1: Accounting Installation Number– Use to indicate the Accountable Station Number.

• ZZ: User Defined (Trading Partner Agreed Upon)– Mutually Defined

• Next Steps– Resolve conflicting 810 FA2 codes– Conduct stakeholder review– Present to DoD FM IC board for review / approval– Publish for use

9

DoD needs to move towards discrete SLOA data to avoid

building complex parsing rules to decipher blob data, as well as to

address non-standard data elements.

Enterprise Wide CVP Pain Points• The VIPWG collectively reviewed and prioritized initial enterprise wide pain points

and determined the initiatives underway, or to be planned, to solve them

10









corrective actions




11

Handshake 3 Pass/Fail Rates for Accounting Systems

1 These ERPs have self-entitlement for a portion of their obligations; figures may represent rates for both Handshake 3 & 4 for the self-entitled obligations. 2 GFEBS figures are limited to SPS contract actions. Army is working to provide PADDS related data.

Contact Actions

ElectronicPass

Electronic Pass Rate

DAI1 4th Estate PDS 8,139 1,437 18%DEAMS1 Air Force PDS 6,635 1,340 20%Navy ERP1 Navy XML 35,231 23,933 68%

SABRS Navy UDF 9,338 2,942 32%GFEBS12 Army X12 23,113 17,429 75%

82,456 47,081 57%

Accounting System

OwnerData

Exchange

Oct'18 to Feb'19

Totals for Handshake 3

Handshake 3 Metrics

FY2019 Monthly Summary

Accounting SystemOwnerDataExchangeOct'18 to Feb'19

Contact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass Rate

DAI14th EstatePDS8,1391,43718%

DEAMS1Air ForcePDS6,6351,34020%

Navy ERP1NavyXML35,23123,93368%

SABRSNavyUDF9,3382,94232%

GFEBS12ArmyX1223,11317,42975%

Totals for Handshake 382,45647,08157%

HANDSHAKE 3

Accounting SystemOwnerDataExchangeOctober 18November 18December 18January 19February 19

Contact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass RateContact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass RateContact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass RateContact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass RateContact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass Rate

DAI4th EstatePDS1,20621518%1,59330619%1,53831420%1,73130017%2,07130215%

DEAMSAir ForcePDS2,42863126%1,09323522%5299518%1,28217914%1,30320015%

Navy ERPNavyXML5,2322,37345%7,4094,87266%6,5634,97676%8,1946,09874%7,8335,61472%

SABRSNavyUDF1,041273%1,25239331%1,45442729%2,72998436%2,8621,11139%

GFEBSArmyX124,8463,71577%4,6353,45475%3,8352,90476%4,3493,25875%5,4484,09875%

Totals for Handshake 314,7536,96147%15,9829,26058%13,9198,71663%18,28510,81959%19,51711,32558%

Oct-18Nov-18Dec-18Jan-19Feb-19

Total Contract Actions14,75315,98213,91918,28519,517

Electronic Pass6,9619,2608,71610,81911,325


% of electronic Pass47%58%63%59%58%

HANDSHAKE 4

Standalone Entitlement SystemOwnerDataExchangeOctober 18November 18December 18January 19February 19

Electronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting RateElectronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting RateElectronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting RateElectronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting RateElectronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting Rate

MOCASDFASUDF12,0864,2507,56446%10,5534,6926,11440%14,6424,6229,14547%11,8574,7377,35544%11,4564,2186,69943%

CAPS-WDFASUDF1,3551,71076325%1,7441,7671,17333%1,4524731,21163%1,4175121,18862%1,4194961,17962%

IAPSDFASUDF1,70417652128%1,25524342428%81920920420%6962229610%1,01518416214%

Totals for Handshake 415,1456,1368,84842%13,5526,7027,71138%16,9135,30410,56048%13,9705,4718,63944%13,8904,8988,04043%


Electronically Received15,14513,55216,91313,97013,890

Manually Received6,1366,7025,3045,4714,898

Electronically Posted8,8487,71110,5608,6398,040

42%38%48%44%43%

Handshake 3

(DAI, DEAMS, NERP & GFEBS)

Total Contract Actions

43374434054343543466434971475315982139191828519517Electronic Pass

[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]

4337443405434354346643497696192608716108191132547%58%63%59%58%

Handshake 4 (MOCAS, CAPS-W, IAPS)

Electronically Received43374434054343543466434971514513552169131397013890Manually Received433744340543435434664349761366702530454714898Electronically Posted[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]

433744340543435434664349788487711105608639804042%38%48%44%43%

USMC SABRS xProc Effort• Background/Problem

– USMC received an audit finding in 2017 regarding the timely posting of obligations for contract awards and modifications

– Contract awards and modifications citing the USMC LOA’s were not getting to the USMC accounting system (SABRS) to post the obligation.

• On-going Effort– USMC & OUSD(C) are building enhanced crosswalk logic to send the contract awards

and modifications (PDS v2.5.1) for SABRS to post obligations• Limited feeds in production - more routes being added as Interface Agreement

Requirements are worked with DLA-TS

12

GEX and Routing Channels• GEX Requirements

– Interface agreements must clearly state which target systems GEX is permitted to share data with (supports monitoring, audit trails, etc…). Currently the target accounting systems associated with contract writing systems are noted in the agreement by accounting system name.

• Proposed Enhancements– Apply universal language to permit sharing of contract data with

target accounting systems based on the Agency Accounting Identifier (AAI) contained in the approved contract. The AAI list is an authoritative list of target accounting systems, which can be referenced to achieve the requirement to clearly identify target systems for data sharing.


SPS1

PADDS

SPS2

Current GEX Routing Example

PDS-VAL Out Channel EDA

Primary Route to EDA

PR Builder UI

In Channel

PDS-VALIn Channel

PDS-VALIn Channel


AAI Route to Acc Sys

Pay DoDAAC Route to Entitle Sys


CAPS-WOut Channel

Out Channel

SPS1

PADDS

SPS2

PDS-VAL Out Channel EDAIn Channel

PDS-VALIn Channel

PDS-VALIn Channel


Out Channel

Route Map

Potential Future GEX Routing Example

PR Builder UI

CAPS-W

Out Channel

Out ChannelPay DoDAAC Route to Entitlement System

AAI Route to Accounting

System





GEX Routing: Current v. Proposed Future

14

Enterprise Wide CVP Pain Points• The VIPWG collectively reviewed and prioritized initial enterprise wide pain points

and determined the initiatives underway, or to be planned, to solve them

15









corrective actions




16

Handshake 4 Pass/Fail Rates for Entitlement Systems (non-ERP)

*OnePay not reported for Handshake 4 metrics as it does not require contract data

Electronic Receipt

Manual Receipt

Electronic Posting

Electronic Posting

RateMOCAS DFAS UDF 60,594 22,519 36,877 44%

CAPS-W DFAS UDF 7,387 4,958 5,514 45%

IAPS DFAS UDF 5,489 1,034 1,407 22%

73,470 28,511 43,798 43%

Standalone Entitlement

SystemOwner

DataExchange

Oct'18 to Feb'19

Totals for Handshake 4

Handshake 4 Metrics

FY2019 Monthly Summary

Accounting SystemOwnerDataExchangeOct'18 to Feb'19

Contact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass Rate

DAI14th EstatePDS8,1391,43718%

DEAMS1Air ForcePDS6,6351,34020%

Navy ERP1NavyXML35,23123,93368%

SABRSNavyUDF9,3382,94232%

GFEBS12ArmyX1223,11317,42975%

Totals for Handshake 382,45647,08157%

HANDSHAKE 3

Accounting SystemOwnerDataExchangeOctober 18November 18December 18January 19February 19

Contact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass RateContact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass RateContact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass RateContact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass RateContact ActionsElectronicPassElectronic Pass Rate

DAI4th EstatePDS1,20621518%1,59330619%1,53831420%1,73130017%2,07130215%

DEAMSAir ForcePDS2,42863126%1,09323522%5299518%1,28217914%1,30320015%

Navy ERPNavyXML5,2322,37345%7,4094,87266%6,5634,97676%8,1946,09874%7,8335,61472%

SABRSNavyUDF1,041273%1,25239331%1,45442729%2,72998436%2,8621,11139%

GFEBSArmyX124,8463,71577%4,6353,45475%3,8352,90476%4,3493,25875%5,4484,09875%

Totals for Handshake 314,7536,96147%15,9829,26058%13,9198,71663%18,28510,81959%19,51711,32558%


Total Contract Actions14,75315,98213,91918,28519,517

Electronic Pass6,9619,2608,71610,81911,325


% of electronic Pass47%58%63%59%58%

HANDSHAKE 4

Standalone Entitlement SystemOwnerDataExchangeOctober 18November 18December 18January 19February 19

Electronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting RateElectronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting RateElectronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting RateElectronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting RateElectronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting Rate

MOCASDFASUDF12,0864,2507,56446%10,5534,6926,11440%14,6424,6229,14547%11,8574,7377,35544%11,4564,2186,69943%

CAPS-WDFASUDF1,3551,71076325%1,7441,7671,17333%1,4524731,21163%1,4175121,18862%1,4194961,17962%

IAPSDFASUDF1,70417652128%1,25524342428%81920920420%6962229610%1,01518416214%

Totals for Handshake 415,1456,1368,84842%13,5526,7027,71138%16,9135,30410,56048%13,9705,4718,63944%13,8904,8988,04043%


Electronically Received15,14513,55216,91313,97013,890

Manually Received6,1366,7025,3045,4714,898

Electronically Posted8,8487,71110,5608,6398,040

42%38%48%44%43%

Standalone Entitlement SystemOwnerDataExchangeOct'18 to Feb'19

Electronic ReceiptManual ReceiptElectronic PostingElectronic Posting Rate

MOCASDFASUDF60,59422,51936,87744%

CAPS-WDFASUDF7,3874,9585,51445%

IAPSDFASUDF5,4891,0341,40722%

Totals for Handshake 473,47028,51143,79843%

Handshake 3

(DAI, DEAMS, NERP, SABRS (Navy) & GFEBS)

Total Contract Actions

43374434054343543466434971475315982139191828519517Electronic Pass

[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]

4337443405434354346643497696192608716108191132547%58%63%59%58%

Handshake 4 (MOCAS, CAPS-W, IAPS)

Electronically Received43374434054343543466434971514513552169131397013890Manually Received433744340543435434664349761366702530454714898Electronically Posted[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]

433744340543435434664349788487711105608639804042%38%48%44%43%

PDS Direct to MOCAS UDF Effort• Background/Problem

– Currently, a multi-layered data translation state (XML EDI UDF) exists between Contract Writing Systems (CWS) and the MOCAS entitlement system. Additionally, MOCAS cannot transform incoming PDS-compliant contract data into its native UDF for processing.

– DoD incurs higher operational costs maintaining redundant architectures and performing manual actions to correct the ingestion failures between system interfaces

• On-going Effort– Develop PDS direct to MOCAS UDF Maps for both 850 (contracts) and 860

(modifications) to reduce multi-level data translations to allow MOCAS to consume contract actions originating in PDS.

– Pilot is divided into two concurrent increments (award and mods) to develop PDS 2.5.1 to MOCAS UDF translation maps.

– Test Partners: Army/PADDS, AF/CON-IT, Navy/PRISM

17

PDS Direct to MOCAS UDF Effort (cont.)

• Next Steps– 850 (Award)

• Go/No Go Decision – June 4• Deployment – 18 July• Translation Map Full Operational Capability (FOC) - August

– 860 (Modification)• Go/No Go Decision – September 4• Deployment – 17 October• Translation Map Full Operational Capability (FOC) - September

18

Go/No GoDecision

Cut Build Release

Awards

Apr’19 May’19 Jun’19 Jul’19 Aug’19 Sep’19 Oct‘19

Modifications

Operational TestingCut BuildRelease Deploy

Map Development System Integration TestingDeploy

Operational Testing

FOC

FOC

Re-DeployAs Required

Go/No GoDecision

Other CVP Pain Points

19


Pre-Validation • DFAS has multiple projects to improve prevalidation success rateso MOCAS Data Analytics Preval Project (led by DFAS Columbus)o Transactions for Others (TFO) led by DFAS Limestone with the

target to leverage EUD for processing all TFO prevalidationo Transactions for Self (TFS) by led by Dawn Coulter

Unit of Measure • Working with the major ERPs to understand challenges faced in implementing the DoD authoritative list for UoM (if required under an updated SFIS)

Unit of Measure• Background/Problem

– DPC compared the DoD authoritative list of purchase Units of Measure (UoM) to the UoM in each of the major ERPs and SFIS

• The major ERPs only accepts a portion of the acceptable UoM from the Authoritative List• For example, GFEBS will accept 230 Units of Measure, however the Authoritative List has 593

UoM. The difference between the two numbers needs to be resolved ; 363 Units of Measure need to be added to GFEBS. This example holds true for DAI, Navy ERP, and SFIS Library as well

• On-going Effort– Working with the major ERPs to understand challenges faced in implementing the

DoD authoritative list if required under an updated SFIS

20

Cancelled Funds Working Group Overview

21

Overview of Cancelled Funds Working Group

• Governance– Subgroup under P2PPAWG– Executive sponsors from OUSD(C), DFAS, DCMA, and DPC

• Establishment– The team consists of SMEs and financial/procurement personnel at OUSD(C), DFAS,

DCMA, and DPC– Representatives from the military departments will be part of the larger group

• Objective– Identifying actions and activities to decrease cancelled funds risk within the department

• Scope– Cancelled funds related to contract pay– Initial efforts will focus on MOCAS contracts but solutions will likely apply across the

board

22

PresenterPresentation Notes

MOCAS Cancelling/Cancelled Fund Balances

23

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19Beginning Balance $2,098,412,8 $2,466,902,5 $2,885,077,7 $3,870,003,2 $3,911,715,6 $3,998,613,5 $4,215,927,71 $3,744,908,90Ending Balance $596,090,752 $754,911,945 $803,139,294 $1,199,589,5 $1,172,522,0 $1,634,044,8 $1,179,525,54

$-

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$3,500,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$4,500,000,000

Canc

ellin

g D

olla

rs

Beginning Balance Ending Balance


Preliminary Areas of Concentration

Excess Funding

Delivery Schedules

Contract Structure

24

3/18/2019


Usage of Cancelling Funds

• Q4 FY18 de-obligations of cancelling funds totaled $1B• FY18 cancelled funds totaled $1.2B (beginning balance was 4.2B)

25

$-

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,400,000,000

$1,600,000,000

$1,800,000,000

FY16 Q1FY16 Q2FY16 Q3FY16 Q4FY17 Q1FY17 Q2FY17 Q3FY17 Q4FY18 Q1FY18 Q2FY18 Q3FY18 Q4

DISPOSITION OF CANCELLING FUNDS FY18

Deobligation Disbursement

MOCAS Excess Funds: FY18 By the Numbers

– Lost opportunity to reuse funds• Limited if funds have expired

– Audit issue• Leads to inaccurate balances

– Inflates Replacement Funding Risk


Recommendations

27

Revisepolicy to include language

on excess funds management and

language on delivery schedules and funds

lifecycle

Increasethe visibility of

dormant accounts using dashboard

technology

Investigatefurther the overall impact of schedule

delays and problematic contract

structures

3/18/2019

DCMA Funds Life Cycle Management – Tri-Annual Review Update – Vendor/Contract Pay Working Group –Contract Closeout Initiatives – Individual Service Efforts


Cancelling Funds Dashboard

28

Additional Analysis• Delivery Date vs. Cancellation

– Administrative errors– Long Lead items– Schedule delays

• Cancelled Funds Invoices Root Causes – Delays due to closeout (final vouchers)– Rate settlement (active and closing contracts)– Schedule delays

• Payment Instruction Analysis– Sampling of multi funded CLINs shows widespread issues with

CLIN structuring and supply vs service designation– Review of current PGI Other shows need for proper CLIN

structures

29

3/18/2019

Recommendations

30

Revisepolicy to include

language on delivery schedules

and funds lifecycle

InvestigatePolicy changes that might discourage improper contract

structures

Investigatefurther the overall

impact of schedule delays (not limited to

cancelled funds impact)

3/18/2019

Next Steps

• Continue performing root cause analysis and pushing for solutions

• Establish project plan and timelines• Establish regular executive updates

31

3/18/2019

Questions?


Contact Information

• Erica Thomas (OUSD(C)): [email protected]• Ed Burke (OUSD(C)): [email protected]• Elizabeth Gibbs (DFAS): [email protected]


Contract Vendor Pay Pain Points�Financial Management PerspectiveAgendaSlide Number 3Current Contract Vendor Pay LandscapeContract Vendor PayOverview of Vendor Invoice & Payment Working GroupEnterprise Wide CVP Pain PointsFM ANSI X12 Standards UpdateFM ANSI X12 Standards Update (cont.)Enterprise Wide CVP Pain PointsHandshake 3 MetricsUSMC SABRS xProc EffortGEX and Routing ChannelsGEX Routing: Current v. Proposed FutureEnterprise Wide CVP Pain PointsHandshake 4 MetricsPDS Direct to MOCAS UDF EffortPDS Direct to MOCAS UDF Effort (cont.)Other CVP Pain Points�Unit of MeasureSlide Number 21Overview of Cancelled Funds Working GroupMOCAS Cancelling/Cancelled Fund Balances Preliminary Areas of ConcentrationUsage of Cancelling FundsMOCAS Excess Funds: FY18 By the NumbersRecommendationsCancelling Funds DashboardAdditional AnalysisRecommendationsNext StepsQuestions? Contact Information

PROCURE-TO-PAY p2p... · – Sub-group under Procure-to-Pay Process Advocates Working Group...

Documents

Transcript of PROCURE-TO-PAY p2p... · – Sub-group under Procure-to-Pay Process Advocates Working Group...