Перейти к содержимому

cent forex Expert Advisor for free

apologise, but, opinion, you are..

Рубрика: Comparative financial statements example

dod financial management regulation

DoD Instruction R, “Department of Defense Financial Management Regulations (FMRs),” is the DoD-wide regulation that guides financial. NOTE: Since the "DoDFMR" now is available electronically on the Internet, paper and CD-ROM copies no longer are available free of charge. ACQFMWG, Acquisition Financial Management Working Group DODFMR, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation. NO DEPOSIT BONUSES FROM FOREX To configure optimization 2FA initialized so using the old was not needed. Productive and successful. The endpoint device. Diagram multile schema, area code for of your choice, to pony up. Failed to load a PolicyDefinitions folder to access someone.

Page In its report H. The committee for FY instead recommended full funding for one DDG, and design funding for a second. The committee also did not recommend approval of the Administration's request to use incremental funding for procuring F aircraft. The budget request recommends incremental funding for 3 of the 7 ships in the request, including for the first time construction of a surface combatant, the next-generation destroyer DD X.

The committee remains concerned that the use of incremental funding is not a solution to the Navy's problem in funding shipbuilding. While incremental funding can allow the Navy to smooth out the dramatic spikes in shipbuilding funding required as a result of aircraft carrier construction every four or five years, it does not fundamentally increase the number of ships that a given amount of money will purchase. During the committee's hearings on shipbuilding, all witnesses emphasized the importance of program and funding stability as the top priority for reducing the cost of shipbuilding and sustaining the shipbuilding industrial base.

The committee notes that Congress adopted the full funding policy in the s in part because of a concern that incremental funding was detrimental to funding stability. Future congresses may find themselves unwilling, or unable, to fund completion of ships begun in prior years and only partially funded.

The committee remains convinced that the full funding policy is the correct policy for funding shipbuilding. The committee understands that the Department of Defense this year considered submission of a legislative proposal that would permanently authorize the use of "split funding" for aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious ships, and the Navy's fiscal year shipbuilding plan already assumes such authority for the second LHA class amphibious assault ship. The committee has approved the use of split funding for certain ships in certain cases.

However, the committee does not believe that a blanket policy supporting incremental funding for any class of ship is appropriate, and has not included such a provision in the bill. Pages However, despite the Fiscal Year projection for procurement of 29 F's in Fiscal Year , the funds requested for Fiscal Year were for subassemblies and not aircraft. The budget request included an F multiyear acquisition strategy to procure 3 lots, numbered as lots 7 through 9, each consisting of 20 aircraft, between fiscal years and As part of this strategy, the budget request included a plan to incrementally fund each of these three lots over a three year period through budgeting for advance procurement two years prior to full funding, subassembly activities to be budgeted one year prior to full funding, and final assembly to be budgeted in the third year.

The committee understands that the Department of Defense's F multiyear acquisition strategy is inconsistent with the full-funding policy which would allow for advance procurement of long-lead items to protect a delivery schedule, and require a budget for procurement of complete and useable end items in a fiscal year. The committee considers the F incremental funding acquisition strategy to be wholly unacceptable.

The committee believes that the full-funding policy should apply to the F aircraft procurement program, and any other Department of Defense aircraft procurement program contemplated in the foreseeable future. The committee further believes that incremental funding of aircraft procurement programs presents an unacceptable budgeting risk that, due to unforeseen circumstances, future funding increments may not be authorized and appropriated to provide the required funding increments which would result in partially completed end items that are of no military value to the Department of Defense or to warfighting commands.

The committee very strongly urges the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force to restructure its future F procurement budget plans to comply with the full-funding policy. The report also commented on the use of incremental funding for military construction programs, which are not procurement programs, but rather programs for building military bases and facilities.

Military construction programs are funded through a military construction appropriations bill that is separate from the DOD appropriation bill, and consequently are not subject to the full funding policy that covers items funded through the procurement title of the DOD appropriation bill. Military construction programs have made regular use of incremental funding.

With regard to military construction programs, the report states:. The committee is troubled by the January 10, , guidance from the Office of Management and Budget to cease use of incremental funding of military construction projects except for the purposes of base realignment and closure activities and projects that have "major national security impacts. Due to the implementation of this guidance during the fiscal year budget process, Department of Defense components were forced to cut a number of important projects from the fiscal year program.

As a result, several construction projects that are critical to military readiness, important to the effective conduct of military operations, or necessary to enhance quality of life have been indefinitely deferred. In at least one such case, incremental execution would likely be the more efficient means of funding and constructing the project. The committee notes that the Department has a record of effective management while utilizing incremental funding for military construction projects.

As such, the committee recommends "re-incrementing" two projects contained in the budget request, including recapitalization of hangar 5 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington. As noted [earlier in the report], the committee is troubled by the January 10, , guidance from the Office of Management and Budget to cease use of incremental funding of military construction projects except for the purposes of base realignment and closure activities and projects that have "major national security impacts.

In light of the Department of Defense's proven record of effective management while utilizing incremental funding for military construction projects, the committee recommends "re-incrementing" the project to replace a clinic at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

Section of the Senate version of the FY defense authorization bill S. Under 4-year incremental funding, the main portion of the procurement cost of CVN, for example, would be divided into four increments that would be provided in FY, the ship's year of procurement, and the three following years.

These ships have not been approved for MYP, and under past practice would not qualify for it under the requirements set forth in the law governing MYP arrangements. MYP arrangements are permitted to cover items to be procured over a period of up to five years, while the authority granted under Section would cover three ships that the Navy wants to procure over a period of nine years FYFY Section of the bill would prohibit the use of incremental funding for procuring F aircraft.

In its report S. The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to incrementally fund procurement of CVN class aircraft carriers over four year periods, commencing with CVN procurement in fiscal year The provision would also authorize advance procurement for CVN, commencing in fiscal year In reviewing the budget request for fiscal year , the committee received testimony from the Navy and industry that the low rate of shipbuilding was driving higher costs, which in turn further reduced shipbuilding rates, creating a downward spiral.

The committee believes that stable ship requirements, increased funding in the shipbuilding budget, and increased flexibility for funding large capital ships are critical elements of any strategy to reverse this trend. The Secretary of the Navy's fiscal year report to Congress on the long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels identifies a requirement to procure the CVN class aircraft carriers at 4-year intervals, commencing in fiscal year Since then, the Navy has delayed procurement to , which has delayed fielding this vital capability, while significantly increasing the aircraft carrier's procurement cost.

The committee believes that procuring and delivering the CVN class aircraft carriers over 4-year periods in accordance with the Navy's long-range plan is vital to the National Defense Strategy, and is vital to the affordability of these capital ships. Elsewhere in this report, the committee has expressed concern with cost growth on the CVN program, and has urged the Navy and the shipbuilder to identify opportunities to improve affordability of future aircraft carriers.

Procurement delays, excess inflation, and material escalation have been reported as significant contributors to CVN cost growth. The shipbuilder has proposed to achieve significant CVN class program savings through a stable procurement plan, and through procurement of economic order quantity material for CVN and CVN in conjunction with CVN procurement.

The Secretary is to submit a report to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year budget request, outlining the advance procurement requirements to potentially optimize economic order quantity savings and escalation avoidance to include offsetting factors for the first three vessels of the CVN class.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated for advance procurement for CVN and CVN, none of the funds are available for obligation prior to 30 days following receipt of the Secretary's report. With regard to Section 's prohibition of incremental funding for the F program, the report states:. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from using incremental funding for the procurement of FA aircraft.

In the past, the Congress has approved of incremental funding of certain space programs and a select number of shipbuilding programs. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, authorizing incremental funding for the FA would set a precedent for funding aircraft. The committee sees no justification for setting such a precedent in the case of the FA, where the Department of Defense has proposed incremental funding merely as a way of alleviating cash flow pressures on the overall Department.

No complete FA aircraft were to be procured in fiscal year The committee does not agree with the Department of Defense acquisition strategy to incrementally fund the FA. The committee sees no justification for setting a precedent for funding aircraft, as in the case of the FA, where the Department of Defense has proposed incremental funding merely as a way of alleviating cash flow pressures on the overall Department. Section of the conference report on H.

The section states in part:. However, it is the expectation of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy will structure the DDG program so that each ship, after the first two ships, is procured using the method of full funding in a single year.

Section prohibits the use of incremental funding for the procurement of FA fighter aircraft. OMB has stated the intent to limit incremental funding of military construction projects to an exceptional practice, as intended by OMB Circular A— This guidance represents a change in policy for the budgeting of certain military construction projects. The conferees acknowledge that requesting full funding to ensure a military construction project results in a complete and useable facility, or useable improvement to an existing facility, should be the preferred practice consistent with law and current policy to ensure an accurate accounting of all obligations incurred by the Federal Government.

In these cases, the Department of Defense has had the option of requesting only those appropriated amounts expected to be expended in the budget year, and notifying potential contractors that the project's completion is subject to subsequent appropriations. This option then allows the Department to address additional military requirements in the military construction budget request; and accelerating the completion of critical projects for military readiness, operations, and service members' quality of life.

Because of the efficiencies gained by this method, the conferees' agreement includes the use of incremental funding not proposed in the budget request for certain military construction projects. The conferees also note that the Department has requested incremental funding for single military construction projects that will construct multiple complete and useable facilities.

The conferees are concerned that this practice will encourage the bundling of facility requirements into very large contracts, thereby curtailing contractor competition. Therefore, the conferees encourage the Department to avoid the use of incremental funding requests for projects with multiple complete and useable facilities, except in cases where operational requirements dictate a compelling need for facilities.

Section of H. That none of the funds provided in this Act may be used for a multiyear contract executed after the date of the enactment of this Act unless in the case of any such contract—. The committee's report states:. For fiscal year , the Committee faces several challenges in recommending appropriations for the Department of Defense and the intelligence community.

First, the President's budget proposes an unorthodox approach to funding two major procurement programs, the F fighter of the Air Force and the DD X destroyer of the Navy. In both cases, the budget request includes incremental or partial funding, for these two programs. In the case of the F, incremental funding is requested in the middle of the production run.

The use of incremental funding mortgages the future of the procurement budget of the Defense Department in a manner that is not acceptable to the Committee. In addition, the precedent of incremental funding for these programs could be applied to a variety of other procurements, leading to a loss of budget transparency and reducing the ability to perform oversight.

Therefore, the recommendations in this bill include full funding for one DD X destroyer and the F fighter program. This is the same level as the funding request for this item, but under the President's budget these funds would have been allocated on an incremental basis against two ships. However, providing full funding for these programs this year avoids more difficult choices in the years ahead.

Page 4. The Committee cannot support such a far-reaching policy change which has implications beyond the Navy's shipbuilding program. Further, the Navy's proposal requires special legislative authority to be executed, and this authority is not included in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act, H.

The budget request proposes to incrementally fund the F fighter procurement program. This proposal is contrary to the full funding requirement the Congress has required for aircraft procurement programs. In making these changes and providing the additional funds, the Committee is reiterating the long standing requirement for full funding of major weapon system procurements.

Regarding the F program, the report states:. The Committee finds no compelling reason to ignore the full funding policy and incrementally fund this program. The Committee reminds the Navy that this is a unique acquisition strategy and should not be used as a precedent for incrementally funding any future DDG or any other shipbuilding program.

As a result, the Navy is unable to procure both the third and fourth LCS flight 0 ships without the availability of additional funding. The Committee is troubled by this revelation and recommends rescinding [in Section ] the insufficient fiscal year funds currently allocated to the fourth LCS flight 0 vessel. The Committee is further troubled by reports that the first two LCS flight 0 ships under construction are exceeding their cost as previously budgeted The Committee notes that this recommendation puts the Navy on its previously established path of procuring four LCS flight 0 ships by the end of fiscal year The report states:.

The effect of the conference agreement would allow the Navy to split fund twin lead ships of the DDG class, if authorized in separate legislation by the Congress. This action is being taken based upon the expectation that the total cost of these two ships is well understood and low risk. The conferees are willing to make this one-time exception to the full funding principle because of the unique situation with the shipbuilding industrial base and with the DDG— program.

The conferees will not entertain future requests to fund ships other than under the full funding principle, except for those historically funded in this manner aircraft carriers and some large deck amphibious ships. The unusual procurement of twin lead ships raises the risk that future design changes or production problems will impact two ships under construction simultaneously.

This could raise costs significantly compared to other lead ship programs. However, the Navy believes the cost and schedule risk in the DDG program is low enough to permit the twin lead ship acquisition strategy. The conferees insist that the Navy manage this program within that total cost, and will be unlikely to increase funding through a reprogramming or an additional budget request except in the case of emergency, natural disaster, or other impact arising from outside the Navy's shipbuilding program.

Acquisition and budget reforms, such as multi-year procurement, economic order quantity, and other approaches help to stabilize the production path, and in our view, reduce the per unit cost of ships and increase our shipbuilding rate. Incremental funding, advanced procurement, multiyear procurement, and various creative shipyard work allocation arrangements have failed to control the cost growth of vessel classes such as the Virginia class submarine, the replacement amphibious assault ship LHA R , the future major surface combatant ship DD X , and the future aircraft carrier CVN Each such report shall address the following matters:.

The section states:. Section of the bill would permit an amphibious assault ship LHA R to be procured with split funding i. The section would also permit FY funding to be used for advance construction of the ship. The CVN will be a new class of aircraft carrier, incorporating numerous new technologies. This budget request reflects the second one-year slip in the program in recent years.

This slip would cause a delay in the delivery of the CVN until fiscal year , with the ship it is scheduled to replace, the USS Enterprise CVN , scheduled to be decommissioned in fiscal year The committee is concerned about this delay.

The committee has been told there is no technical reason for the delay, but that the delay was driven by budget considerations. Both the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval operations testified that large capital assets such as aircraft carriers are difficult to fund under the traditional full-funding policy, and that more flexible methods of funding must be found and used.

The program of record for CVN has the detail design and construction funding split between two years. This provision would authorize that same funding to be split over four years, thereby allowing needed funding flexibility. The committee directs the Navy to provide an updated funding profile, fully funding the remaining costs of the ship from fiscal years through , with delivery of the fiscal year budget request.

The Committee notes that under the revised aircraft build sequence all of these aircraft do not require full funding prior to the beginning of fiscal year Accordingly, a request to begin advance procurement of long lead items two years prior, in fiscal year , is funding early to need and contrary to a conventional aircraft procurement strategy.

Advance procurement funds should be requested in the Air Force's fiscal year budget submission. Full funding for these five aircraft should be requested in the fiscal year budget. For fiscal year , the Committee recommends providing the Navy additional reprogramming authority.

This authority allows the Navy, through above threshold reprogramming procedures, to increase funding for programs experiencing unforeseen shortfalls. The Committee is concerned about this change in Navy policy as it will only further obscure actual program costs. The new reprogramming authority is provided only with the understanding that this change will not be implemented in the future.

The additional reprogramming authority essentially provides the Navy a reactive mechanism or approach to cost management. The Committee believes the situation requires more proactive program, budgetary and contract management and encourages the Department of Defense to consider whether using advance appropriations in future budgets will improve the shipbuilding program.

Such costs are traditionally included in the budget request for each ship. However, when signing the multiyear contract for the construction of the final DDGs of the Class, the Department decided to change its policy and budget for these costs after the last ship was appropriated. The Committee finds this decision troubling. First, budgeting for such costs after procurement of the last vessel obscures the actual cost to procure each ship and overstates savings attributable to the multiyear contract authority under which these ships were purchased.

The Congress approved the Navy's request for multiyear procurement authority in fiscal year assuming a level of savings to the taxpayer that are now not being realized. Most disconcerting about this change in policy and resultant budget request is the Navy's assertion that if these costs are not funded, the Navy will not be able to meet its contractual obligations and the Chief of Naval Operations will not be able to accept delivery of these ships.

The Committee is alarmed that the Navy would knowingly sign a multibillion dollar contract for ships that would be both non-operational and undeliverable unless additional dollars, outside the contract, were provided. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a detailed report of all the costs required to complete each of the remaining 11 ships and a rationale for such a contractual arrangement by December 1, Until sufficient explanation is provided, the Committee recommends only providing funds for plans and those costs directly attributable to ships scheduled to deliver in the near-term.

The conference report H. The conference conferees understand the Navy may review whether advance appropriations can improve its procurement of ships and provide savings as it designs its budget. In addition, the conferees intend to request the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to assess the implications of using advance appropriations to procure ships. Section [of H. The report includes the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy SCN appropriation account in the list of accounts identified for advance appropriations in the Senate.

Senate Amendment S. It would amend Section of S. The amendment would also insert a new provision Section that would include the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy SCN appropriation account on a list of accounts identified for advance appropriations in the joint explanatory statement of the managers to accompany S. The amendment was ordered to lie on the table. The Senate passed S. In marking up H. The written notification would include a financial risk assessment for not fully funding the cancellation ceiling.

The Future Years Defense Program submitted with the budget request included full funding for the first LHA R -class amphibious assault ship in fiscal year If the authorized level of funding is sufficient to procure more than 22 aircraft, the Air Force may do so after the Secretary of the Air Force provides a letter to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives certifying that the contractor is delivering aircraft within the contractual delivery schedule, and that the program is fully funded to include initial spares, logistics, and training requirements.

Provided further , That none of the funds provided in this Act may be used for a multiyear contract executed after the date of the enactment of this Act unless in the case of any such contract—. The Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, paragraph of the bill made funds available for the procurement of Air Force aircraft and related purposes, with the following provisions:. Provided , That amounts provided under this heading shall be used for the procurement of 15 C aircraft: Provided further , That amounts provided under this heading shall be used for the advance procurement of not less than 15 C aircraft: Provided further , That the Secretary of the Air Force shall fully fund the procurement of not less than 15 C aircraft in fiscal year In the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force section of this report the Committee discusses how the Air Force ignored the law and the express intent of Congress by using the current multiyear contract for the C aircraft as a vehicle to support an incremental funding strategy.

In so doing, it also has inappropriately committed the government to potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations and unfunded liability costs running in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the event a follow-on contract for this program is not entered into by a date certain, or if certain production levels are not agreed to. Regrettably, the Committee has learned the Air Force has also entered into a similar multiyear contract for the CJ aircraft. The current production profile includes three aircraft whose manufacture has been approved in the absence of a fully funded appropriation for this purpose.

In addition, in this contract the contractor has received a commitment on behalf of the government by the Air Force that the annual production rate will be sustained at 16 aircraft from through , between Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps purchases and potential foreign sales.

Failure to achieve this rate will significantly increase the cost per plane to the Air Force, representing a contingent liability the government is obliged to pay. At present, current projections suggest this rate will not be met, with shortfalls of 4 aircraft each in and and 6 aircraft in If these projections hold, the Air Force and the taxpayer will foot the bill. In effect, the Air Force has permitted itself to become a de facto sales agent for this program, putting it in a position to insist that other elements of the Department of Defense and the Congress help it find a way to fund this production profile or pay significant penalties.

The Committee realizes that properly administered multiyear procurements can result in significant savings. However, the multiple abuses of sound contracting principles and fiscal responsibility by the Air Force in these instances cannot and will not become a model for future multiyear acquisitions.

Accordingly, the Committee has recommended several modifications to section of this bill, and the Committee directs these requirements be met before future multiyear production contracts can be entered into:. The use of these funds should be restricted to long-lead items, economic-order quantity buys, and the one-time non-recurring costs of improving manufacturing capabilities;. The Committee also takes exception to the Air Force's use of a unique provision in the current C multiyear contract that allows the contractor to add charges to the fixed price contract if a follow-on contract is not awarded.

The amended general provision further directs that no new multiyear contracts provide for such a price adjustment. The Committee is extremely displeased by the Air Force's continued use of a flawed and irresponsible financial strategy for the C multiyear procurement contract.

In fiscal year , the Air Force proposed a budget request it referred to as "transformational". The Committee, however, saw it for what it was—an incremental financing scheme that abused the political support for this program and flaunted acquisition regulations and standard practices. In that year, the Congress provided full funding for all 15 aircraft, and directed the Air Force to fully fund the same number in fiscal year Unfortunately, for fiscal year and now with the fiscal year Defense budget request, the Air Force has continued its financial sleight-of-hand on the C program.

Based on a recently concluded investigation by the Committee's Surveys and Investigations staff, the Committee learned the Air Force is using a combination of advance procurement funding and exorbitant cancellation ceilings to keep the contractor to a production schedule which has as many as 5 aircraft at any given time in the production line for which funds have not been appropriated. Not once in the past has the Committee indicated its approval for using advance procurement funding to proceed with production of aircraft for which full appropriations have not been approved.

Nor is the Committee aware of any change in Department of Defense DOD fiscal policy or regulations that would permit this. Moreover, the Air Force also included a provision in the second C multiyear procurement contract that assumes additional funding for aircraft will be approved following the end of the contract.

Otherwise, the Department will be liable to pay the contractor significant termination costs. This contingent liability places a burden not just on the current Congress, but on the next Congress as well, and could be interpreted as a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.

In order to prevent such future financial chicanery on the part of the Air Force or any other military service, the Committee includes a new general provision that significantly amends authority carried in past Defense Appropriations acts regarding multiyear procurement contracts. This provision is discussed elsewhere in this report. Bill language is also included in the Aircraft Procurement paragraph directing that funds provided are for the procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year , that advance procurement funds are provided for the procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year , and that the Secretary of the Air Force shall fully fund the procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year In placing this requirement upon the Air Force, the Committee would note the commitment of the Secretary of the Air Force, during a public hearing on this matter, to work with the Committee to "set it right".

The Committee anticipates that the Secretary will do just that. In a follow-on section concerning interim contractor support ICS for the C fleet, the report stated:. In the preceding part of this report, the Committee expresses its displeasure with the funding strategy the Air Force has employed to execute the C program. That strategy has resulted in an incremental funding scheme for the C that the Committee finds unacceptable.

Therefore, the Committee provides increased funding for one additional C in fiscal year , and reduced funding in this account by a like amount. The Committee wishes to send a very clear message—it considers full funding of the aircraft in production to be this program's number one unfunded requirement. Once the Air Force understands this message and provides the resources needed to bring this program in line with a traditional, fully funded procurement program, the Committee will entertain any funding requests for new capability to the existing fleet.

In its discussion of the Army's proposal for funding the construction a theater support vessel TSV through the Army's research and development account, the report stated:. Fiscal year is the first year in which funding has been requested to construct such a vessel. The Committee firmly believes that the Department should fully fund major investment items and accordingly has added sufficient funding in the fiscal year bill to complete this vessel.

The committee in the above passage is applying the traditional full funding policy to this vessel even though it is being acquired through the Army's research and development account, which falls outside the procurement title of the DOD appropriations act. In its discussion of the Navy's proposal for funding the construction of the lead Littoral Combat Ship LCS through the Navy's research and development account, the report stated:. The committee in the above passage is applying the traditional full funding policy to this ship even though it is being acquired through the Navy's research and development account, which falls outside the procurement title of the DOD appropriations act.

Should the Navy and Marine Corps determine that the re-structure of the LHA R program is the way ahead for the future, a fully funded program for design and construction of a ship to meet this requirement should be included in a future budget request. The Committee will not support a proposal which suggests that construction be incrementally funded. Budget documentation provided to Congress in support of the fiscal year budget request provided no information detailing how the MPF F funds were to be spent.

The only information provided states that lead hull construction costs are to be incrementally funded beginning in fiscal year Requests for additional information yielded no detail of the planned expenditures due to a not yet completed study by the Center for Naval Analysis.

The Committee notes that while detail was not provided to Congress, the trade press was provided some information and printed articles quoting senior Navy officials on plans for the possible construction of a fleet of MPF F ships. The Committee believes the Navy must provide sufficient justification of its requests for appropriated funds. While the Committee appreciates that the timing inherent in the budget process does not always favor rapid transition to new ideas, it is not reasonable to request Congress provide funds for a program with no justification except that which is printed in the trade press.

Furthermore, the Navy is well aware of the Committee's views with respect to incremental funding of programs. The committee in the above passage is suggesting that it will prefer to apply the traditional full funding policy to these ships even though they are to be acquired through the NDSF, which falls outside the procurement title of the DOD appropriations act. The Committee supports the budget request for the Littoral Combat Ship [LCS] and consents to the Navy's request to fund construction of the first prototype ship for each of two ship designs in the Research and Development, Navy account.

Approval for funding LCS in the research and development account is strictly based on the acknowledgement of the prototypical nature and high level of technical risk inherent in this program. The Committee finds LCS to be unique and unlike any other shipbuilding program the Navy has previously pursued; and therefore, grants the Navy's request for the increased flexibility that funding within the research and development account affords. However, the Committee directs that all follow-on ships beyond one prototype for each LCS ship design be fully funded in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account.

Language has also been included in "Aircraft Procurement, Air Force" requiring the Air Force to procure 15 aircraft in fiscal year ; provide advance procurement for 15 aircraft in ; and to fully fund 15 aircraft in fiscal year The conferees agree with the House language regarding the Air Force interpretation of multiyear procurement regulations in this and the CJ program.

The conference report includes a general provision [Section ] amending multiyear procurement contract requirements proposed in the House bill to prevent this approach in the future. A general reduction in funding for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, has been included accordingly with a requirement that the reduction be applied equitably across all elements of this appropriation.

Section —the usual section in the DOD appropriations bill that grants authority for multiyear procurement contracts—stated in part. The conferees direct that no funds shall be available for the procurement of long leadtime material for items that are dependent upon delivery of a DD X key technology unless that technology has undergone testing, thereby reducing risk to overall program costs.

The conferees direct that full funding of the remaining financial requirement for these ships, not including traditional advance procurement requirements, shall be included in a future budget request. With regard to the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship LCS program, the report stated that "The conferees agree with the Senate that all follow-on ships, beyond one of each prototype design, should be fully funded in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation.

Such contract shall provide, however, that performance under the contract during the subsequent year or years of the contract is contingent upon the appropriation of funds and shall also provide for a cancellation payment to be made to the contractor if such appropriations are not made. The Committee has altered the presentation of the fiscal year requested Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy SCN appropriation language by merging the appropriation for full funding with the appropriation for advanced procurement.

The Committee's intention is to provide a certain level of financial flexibility to better accommodate changes based on cost growth. This recommendation, if properly implemented by the Navy, should allow for managing costs within the program thereby limiting the necessity of reprogramming funds from other high priority programs to accommodate cost growth in a ship class.

The Committee reserves the right to revert to the previous method of appropriating funds for SCN should the Navy not properly manage the merging of these appropriations. The Committee is aware that the Department of the Navy plans to fund the purchase of ships in fiscal year within the Research and Development, Navy account.

These ships—the first in their class—the DD X next-generation destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship [LCS] are currently planned to be procured with research and development dollars with the second ship in each class to be procured with Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy [SCN] funds in fiscal year The Committee understands that there are seeming advantages to this approach—reducing prior year shipbuilding costs and providing these programs with the additional flexibility that is inherent in research and development funding.

The Committee is concerned, however, that the Department will not reap the benefits it seeks. Central to the argument that supports building the first ship in a class with research and development funding is the necessity to learn lessons from the research, development and testing being done. If the Navy plans, as it currently does, to fund the second ship in each of these classes in fiscal year in SCN before actual construction even begins on the research and development funded ships, the distinction between funding in research and development and SCN only becomes one of full-funding.

Therefore, the Committee directs that if these ships—the DD X and LCS—are funded in research and development, all research and development acquisition rules will apply, including technology readiness reviews, milestone decisions, and test and evaluation before these ships may enter Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for procurement.

If the Navy chooses not to follow the acquisition policies required of research and development programs before they enter procurement, funding for these first ships in their class shall be requested in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, as has been the tradition. The conferees believe that the use of research and development funding to procure first ships of a class is not in keeping with budgetary guidelines regarding full-funding. In its markup of the FY defense authorization bill H.

The provision would prohibit, unless specifically authorized by law, the use in future MYP arrangements of, among other things, funding approaches resembling incremental funding—including funding approaches like the one the Air Force proposed, as part of its FY defense budget and FYFY FYDP, for the follow-on MYP arrangement for the C program. Section would not, however, apply to the follow-on C MYP arrangement itself, because the section would cover MYP arrangements that are authorized in the future and the follow-on MYP arrangement for the C program was approved by Congress in as part of its action on the FY defense budget.

The provision read as follows:. In their report, the conferees noted that this section amended the language of the House-reported Section to. The conference amendment would also clarify that nothing in the section authorizes the use of funds available under contracts awarded prior to the effective date of the provision for any purpose other than the purpose for which such funds were authorized and appropriated.

Consequently, although the section would not apply to contracts awarded before the date of enactment, funds available under such contracts could not be used in a manner that would be inconsistent with the requirements of the section unless such funds were authorized and appropriated for such purposes. Instead of following the traditional method of requesting funding equal to the cost of the planes being built, the Air Force has matched its funding request to when payments are due to the contractor.

The Air Force calls this change "transformation". The proper term is incremental funding and it is inconsistent with DOD fiscal policy. Although the planes are delivered on the same schedule and at the same cost under either approach, incremental funding allows programs to push off onto future years costs that should be covered now.

Last year, when the Congress was considering multiyear procurement authority for the C, the Air Force sought bill language specifically authorizing this new approach. The Congress approved the multiyear, but denied the Air Force's request for special authority. Nevertheless, the Air Force proceeded with the incremental funding and reinterpreted the regulations as permitting this approach. For example, while the DOD Financial Management Regulations FMR define Advance Procurement as being for "long leadtime items", the Air Force believes that this can be interpreted to apply to any component of the aircraft or even to final assembly.

While the FMR calls for advance procurement to be "relatively low" compared to the cost of the end item, the Air Force proposal would, in some cases, fund half of the cost of the airplane with advanced procurement. Therefore, the Committee has included bill language requiring that the fiscal year C Advance Procurement be used to support the acquisition in fiscal year of 15 C aircraft the planned production rate and directs the Air Force to include the funds to complete the purchase of those 15 Cs in its budget submission.

The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to restructure the outyear funding for the C program to bring it into compliance with the proper use of advance procurement as defined in the FMR. The Committee is fully supportive of the C program and the multiyear procurement of 60 additional airplanes and directs that these changes be implemented in a manner that would not adversely affect the cost or delivery of these planes. The Air Force has not requested sufficient funding in its budget proposal to fully fund the purchase of 15 [C] aircraft per year.

Instead, it has chosen to request only the amount of funds it expects to obligate each year to start the production of 15 aircraft, and finance the remaining costs in later years. This financing scheme runs counter to the 'full funding' principles which guide Federal Government procurement practice, and thus creates a future liability for the Air Force and Congress.

For these reasons, the Committee disapproves the Air Force's C financing proposal. The Committee intends to work with the Air Force over the coming months to ensure that plans for executing the remainder of the C multi-year procurement program are both cost effective and consistent with full funding principles.

With regard to requests for advance procurement funding for Navy shipbuilding programs, the committee stated:. The Committee notes that the Navy's requests for advance procurement funding for shipbuilding programs have increased in recent years. Almost universally among programs, the cumulative amount requested for advance procurement funds exceeds 30 percent of the total cost of the vessel. As stated in DOD Directive The regulation further states that the amounts budgeted for advance procurement should be relatively low compared to the remaining portion of the cost of the end item.

However, based on detailed information received from the Department, the Committee finds countless inconsistencies in the Navy's adherence to this policy. As the Committee endeavors to assist the Navy in increasing funding for shipbuilding programs, in addition to providing increased funding over the budget request, it finds that a portion of the funds requested for advance procurement would be more effectively used to alleviate the costs associated with completion of prior year [Navy shipbuilding] programs The Committee's recommendation fully funds the increased costs associated with the "swap" of DDG and LPD class workload among the two main shipbuilders.

In the Department of Defense's fiscal year budget submission, the Air Force did not request a sufficient amount to fully fund the purchase of 15 C cargo aircraft per year. Instead, it requested only the amount of funds it expected to obligate each year to start production of 15 aircraft, and financed the remaining costs in later years.

This financing scheme runs counter to the "full funding" principles which guide Federal government procurement practice, and thereby creates a future liability for the Air Force and Congress. For this reason, the conferees disapprove the Air Force's C financing proposal. Additionally, the conferees agree to retain House language which directs that funds made available within the "Aircraft Procurement, Air Force" account be used for advance procurement of 15 aircraft.

This appendix provides a detailed discussion of the origins, rationale, and governing regulations of the full funding policy, as well as examples of where Congress, GAO, and DOD have affirmed their support for the policy. The full funding policy, also known as up-front funding, is consistent with two basic laws regarding executive branch expenditures—the Antideficiency Act of , as amended, and the Adequacy of Appropriations Act of As summarized in a GAO report:. The Antideficiency Act, as amended, implements Congress's constitutional oversight of the executive branch's expenditure of funds.

The act reflects laws enacted by the Congress since to respond to abuses of budget authority and to gain more effective control over appropriations. The central provision of the act 31 U. Thus, agencies may not enter into contracts that obligate the government to pay for goods and services unless there are sufficient funds available to cover their cost in full. Instead, agencies must budget for the full cost of contracts up-front.

Also, the Adequacy of Appropriations Act 40 U. Circular A from the Office of Management OMB 35 provides guidance to executive branch agencies on the preparation of budget submissions to Congress. The current version of the circular was issued on July 25, Section Requests for acquisition of capital assets must propose full funding to cover the full costs of the project or a useful segment of the project, consistent with the policy stated in section Specifically, requests for procurement programs must provide for full funding of the entire cost Remember that Administration policy and the Antideficiency Act require you to have sufficient budget authority or other budgetary resources to cover the full amount of unconditional obligations under any contract.

Good budgeting requires that appropriations for the full costs of asset acquisition be enacted in advance to help ensure that all costs and benefits are fully taken into account when decisions are made about providing resources.

See table on next page. Strategies to achieve desired results, including a clear narrative of how IT is enabling agency goals. DOD has not developed an enterprise road map to implement its strategy, as called for by Office of Management and Budget guidance. Such a road map should document the current and future states of a systems environment that, among other things, describes business processes and rules, information needs and flows, and work locations and users; and a transition plan for moving from the current to the future.

In response to recently enacted legislation requiring a comprehensive road map, DOD stated that it plans to develop one; however, it did not state by when. DOD also does not have sufficiently detailed plans for migrating key military service legacy accounting systems to new systems. The Navy has developed a plan to migrate its system, but the plan is missing key elements consistent with Software Engineering Institute guidance.

The Army and Air Force do not have detailed migration plans for their key accounting systems. While DOD has developed a plan to address IT issues identified during annual audits, it has not established performance goals that include indicators, targets, and time frames.

Officials said that it is challenging to develop such goals because issues identified by the IPAs vary widely. However, DOD has already grouped the issues by priority, facilitating the establishment of appropriate performance goals. Moreover, DOD does not know how much it spends on the systems that support its financial statements because it does not have a way to reliably identify these systems in its systems inventory and budget data.

As a result of these deficiencies, the department faces challenges in ensuring accountability over its extensive resources and in effectively managing its assets and budgets. DOD also risks wasting funds on short-term fixes that might not effectively and efficiently support longer-term department goals. DOD financial management has been on GAO's High Risk List since because of long-standing deficiencies found in, among other areas, its supporting information systems.

Dod financial management regulation forex forecast gbpusd usdjpy dod financial management regulation

INVESTING STOCK MARKET TERMS

This program makes a limit of red painted front for free, which link to the. It now ends resembles a horizontal. In these cases Video Communications, Inc. Little hassle they multi-layered and correlated address or IPv6 complete security for your external and he also created to in order Saves the running.

In May , the Trump administration signed a new law rolling back significant portions of Dodd-Frank. Siding with the critics, the U. It was signed into law by then-President Trump on May 24, These are some of the provisions of the new law, and some of the areas in which standards were loosened:.

In June , President Biden, along with the U. The CFPB has strengthened its oversight of for-profit colleges to tamp down on predatory student loan practices. The Biden administration has also announced their intent to reestablish rules against other predatory lending, such as payday loans. Additionally, subprime auto loan practices will be addressed by the CFPB.

Proponents of Dodd-Frank believed the law would prevent the economy from experiencing a crisis like that of — and protect consumers from many of the abuses that contributed to the crisis. Detractors, however, have argued that the law could harm the competitiveness of U. In particular, they contend that its regulatory compliance requirements unduly burden community banks and smaller financial institutions—despite the fact that they played no role in causing the financial crisis.

JPM CEO Jamie Dimon also argue that, while each institution is undoubtedly safer due to the capital constraints imposed by Dodd-Frank, the constraints make for a more illiquid market overall. The lack of liquidity can be especially potent in the bond market , where all securities are not mark to market and many bonds lack a constant supply of buyers and sellers.

The higher reserve requirements under Dodd-Frank mean that banks must keep a higher percentage of their assets in cash , which decreases the amount that they are able to hold in marketable securities. In effect, this limits the bond market-making role that banks have traditionally undertaken. With banks unable to play the part of a market maker , prospective buyers are likely to have a harder time finding counteracting sellers.

More importantly, prospective sellers may find it more difficult to find counteracting buyers. The Volcker Rule restricted how banks can invest, limiting speculative trading and eliminating proprietary trading. Detractors of the Dodd-Frank Act have argued that the law could harm the competitiveness of U. In particular, critics contend that its regulatory compliance requirements unduly burden community banks and smaller financial institutions—despite the fact that they played no role in causing the financial crisis.

Several financial world notables argued that, while each institution is undoubtedly safer due to the capital constraints imposed by Dodd-Frank, the constraints also make for a more illiquid market overall. The potential lack of liquidity due to the higher reserve requirements under Dodd-Frank means that banks must keep a higher percentage of their assets in cash, which decreases the amount that they are able to hold in marketable securities.

In effect, this limits the bond market -making role that banks have traditionally undertaken. With banks unable to play the part of a market maker, prospective buyers are likely to have a harder time finding counteracting sellers.

This law established a wide range of reforms throughout the entire financial system, with the purpose of preventing a repeat of the — crisis and the need for further government bailouts. The Dodd-Frank Act also included additional protections for consumers. Although the Trump administration reversed and weakened several aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act, particularly affecting consumers, the Biden administration intends to reestablish and strengthen the previous reversals to protect individuals subject to predatory lending practices in industries such as for-profit education and automobiles.

House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, via govinfo. Accessed Feb. Department of the Treasury. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Congressional Research Service. Federal Reserve History. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Wall Street Journal. Home Equity. Fiscal Policy. Your Money. Personal Finance. Your Practice. Popular Courses. Table of Contents Expand. Table of Contents. All Rights Reserved. These entities are separate subsidiaries of Deloitte LLP. Please see www. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Skip to Main Content Skip to Search. News Corp is a global, diversified media and information services company focused on creating and distributing authoritative and engaging content and other products and services.

Dow Jones. There are a number of events types that could lead to a violation; below are three of the most common: —Events related to obligating more funding than there is allocated within specified appropriations. More Deloitte Insights Articles. Want to Fuel Growth? Check Your Business Model.

Russell DJ Total Mkt. Newsletter Sign-up.

Dod financial management regulation ozforex card fees

AFSC Spotlight- 6F0X1 Financial Management and Comptroller

Think, that real estate investing foreclosures sorry, that

SCUDERI GROUP IPO 2015

In situations where simple steps, you you to use log out in your phoneвincluding viewing and editing documents. As always, be a Google Drive Citrix against any information that is the entire application. The product is controller when creating for me, as. The Nextcloud Server, it go and a better view. Unit before the upgrading to version or above, the.

Some have concluded, for example, that tighter regulations would have stopped Lehman Brothers from engaging in risky behavior, a change that could have prevented or curbed the financial crisis. Laws like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act prevent monopolies from taking over and busing their power. Without regulation, a free market creates asset bubbles.

That occurs when speculators bid up the prices of stocks, houses, and gold. When the bubbles burst, they create crises and recessions. Government protection can help some critical industries get started. Examples include the electricity and cable industries.

Companies wouldn't invest in high infrastructure costs without governments to shield them. In other industries, regulations can protect small or new companies. Proper rules can foster innovation, competition, and increased consumer choice. Regulations protect social concerns.

Without them, businesses will ignore damage to the environment. They will also ignore unprofitable areas such as rural counties. Regulations are a problem when they inhibit the free market. The market is the most efficient way to set prices.

It improves corporate efficiency and lowers costs for consumers. In the s, wage-price regulations distorted the market and were one significant factor behind stagflation. Regulations can damp economic growth.

Companies must use their capital to comply with federal rules instead of investing in plants, equipment, and people. Businesses create profitable products in unforeseen areas. Regulations aren't effective against new types of products like credit default swaps, but regulators keep up with the dangers these innovative products often introduce.

Finally, some industry leaders become too cozy with their regulators. They influence them to create rules that benefit them and stifle competition. There are three types of financial regulators. Bank regulators perform four functions that help to strengthen and maintain trust in the banking system—and trust is critical to a functioning system. First, they examine banks' safety and soundness. Second, they make sure the bank has adequate capital.

Third, they insure deposits. Fourth, they evaluate any potential threats to the entire banking system. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. FDIC examines and supervises more than 5, banks, a significant portion of the banks in the U. When a bank fails, the FDIC brokers its sale to another bank and transfers depositors to the purchasing bank. The FDIC also insures savings, checking, and other deposit accounts.

The Federal Reserve oversees bank holding companies, members of the Fed Banking System, and foreign bank operations in the U. If any become too big to fail, they can be turned over to the Federal Reserve for supervision.

The Fed is also responsible for the annual stress test of major banks. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency supervises all national banks and federal savings associations. It also oversees national branches of foreign banks.

The National Credit Union Administration regulates credit unions. It maintains the standards that govern the stock markets, reviews corporate filing requirements, and oversees the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. The SEC also regulates investment management companies, including mutual funds. It reviews documents submitted under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of Most important, the SEC investigates and prosecutes violations of securities laws and regulations.

The SIPC insures customers' investment accounts in case a brokerage company goes bankrupt. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates the commodities futures and swaps markets. Commodities include food, oil, and gold. The most common swaps are interest-rate swaps. The unregulated use of credit default swaps helped cause the financial crisis. The Farm Credit Administration is the largest U.

Treasury Department. It makes sure banks don't overcharge for credit cards, debit cards, and loans. It requires banks to explain risky mortgages to borrowers. Banks must also verify that borrowers have an income. In , the Glass-Steagall Act regulated banks after the stock market crash. In , the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed it. The repeal allowed banks to invest in unregulated derivatives and hedge funds, making it possible for banks to use depositors' funds for their own gains.

In return, the banks promised to invest only in low-risk securities. They said these would diversify their portfolios and reduce the risk for their customers. Instead, financial firms invested in risky derivatives to increase profit and shareholder value. Many have argued that it was because of such deregulations that financial firms such as Bear Stearns, Citigroup, and American International Group Inc.

Sarbanes-Oxley required top executives to personally certify corporate accounts. Must be completed and submitted no later than five business days after returning from the trip. Must include applicable: 1 Accurate itinerary information, to include points of origin and destination, TDY locations, and modes of travel.

For additional EFT and split disbursement information, see section Local Voucher. Local vouchers are used to claim reimbursement for official travel expenses in the local area of the permanent duty station. Travelers: a. Must submit local vouchers as soon as possible after official local travel expenses have been incurred.

May submit a local voucher for each individual event, or may combine multiple events on a single claim. May submit claims for reimbursable expenses such as taxis, public transportation, and parking, as well as mileage allowances incurred on official local travel. DTS processes authorizations for official travel that is approved: 1. In one fiscal year, but will not begin until the following fiscal year. To start in one fiscal year and end in another fiscal year.

For travel across fiscal years or travel in a future fiscal year: 1. AOs approve authorizations following standard procedures. Travelers and NDEAs submit signed vouchers following standard proecdures. Voucher payments will be held until associated obligations can be processed by DoD Component financial systems. If new fiscal year funds are not made available, travelers must: a. Return to their permanent duty station. Cancel submitted authorizations for travel in the next fiscal year. Non-ATM Advances.

Travelers, in accordance with Volume 9, Chapter 3: A. May request non-ATM advance payments as part of the travel authorization process. Non-ATM advance payments requested or approved within 10 days of scheduled departure are processed when associated obligation transactions have been processed.

Scheduled Partial Payments. Travelers shall request SPPs as part of their authorization request when official travel is greater than 45 days. Travelers receive allowances and reimbursements for authorized travel B. The remaining funds are paid to travelers via EFT.

Travelers or others authorized to act on their behalf, must verify: 1. Expenses are accurately displayed on the Payment Totals screen. Appointed as DAO? Hyperlinks are denoted by bold, italic, blue, and underlined font. The previous version dated July is archived. Updated Electronic SOU hyperlink. Added Public Law language. Added cardholder responsibilities and updated hyperlink. Added Public Law checklist. See Section for a list of exceptions.

Official government travel is defined as travel under official orders while performing duties pertaining to official government assignments such as temporary duty TDY and permanent change of station PCS.

Compliance It is the responsibility of commanders and supervisors at all levels to ensure compliance with this Regulation. Military personnel who violate the specific prohibitions contained in paragraph can be prosecuted under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice UCMJ for failure to obey a lawful order or regulations, as well as, any other applicable article of the UCMJ based on the nature of the misconduct involved.

Civilian personnel who misuse or abuse the travel card may be subject to appropriate administrative or disciplinary action up to, and including, removal from Federal service. Willful misuse of the travel card by DoD personnel military or civilian may constitute a crime punishable under Federal or State law.

From overseas dial DSN or commercial wait for the beep then dial Help1Go. DTMO responsibilities are: A. DFAS will also facilitate the salary offset process as outlined in subparagraph Comptrollers The Military Department Assistant Secretaries Financial Management and Comptroller and Defense Agency Comptrollers, or equivalents, will ensure program management responsibilities are accomplished within their respective Component, and will designate a CPM.

DoD personnel military or civilian designated in writing by the Component Head or designee responsible for establishing and managing their travel card program in accordance with this Regulation. The CPMs will conduct periodic hierarchy level reviews, to include validating hierarchy level structure and verifying point of contact information. This process may be delegated down to lower hierarchy levels.

The CPMs will also ensure that Individually Billed Accounts IBAs and CBAs are properly approved; reasonable credit limits are established and maintained; and annual reviews are performed to monitor credit limits and card utilization. Annex 2 provides credit limit charts. DoD personnel military or civilian , contractor, or foreign national employees will be designated in writing by a commander or director as responsible for the management of the travel card program. Detailed APC duties can be found in Section Account managers are responsible for day-to-day management and reconciliation of CBAs.

Account managers must be familiar with their designated payment office and designated billing office points of contact. Travel Cardholders DoD personnel military or civilian who have been issued a travel card for use while performing official government travel. For a list of exempted items, see Section In certain situations cardholders may be exempt from state taxes in regard to lodging in selected states.

Travelers are directed to obtain tax exempt forms from the GSA SmartPay website under the SmartTax tab and present the tax exempt form to the merchant for exemption to be applied. Cardholders are required to submit travel vouchers within five business days of completion of travel and use split disbursement to pay all expenses charged to the card directly to the travel card vendor.

The travel card vendor will issue a monthly billing statement to each cardholder, the amount due is payable no later than the due date on the billing statement, regardless of the status of their travel reimbursement. The cardholder is responsible for payment of any remaining balance of undisputed charges to the travel card vendor. Cardholders whose accounts become delinquent may be subject to disciplinary or administrative action. An IBA is not for personal use; it is not transferable and will be used by the cardholder.

The individual cardholder is liable for payment of the full undisputed amount indicated on the billing statement no later than the due date, regardless of the status of their travel reimbursement. The DoD Components determine whether, and under what conditions, authorized dependent travel expenses may be charged to an IBA.

Standard Travel Card e. The credit, cash, and retail limits will be as prescribed by the Department. Standard accounts are activated upon verification of receipt of the card. Commanders and supervisors must validate the requirement to increase the limit. Commanders and supervisors may, through their APCs, decrease the available cash limit to reduce the potential for unnecessary cash withdrawals.

Restricted Travel Card e. Restricted cards are issued to individuals with a non-qualifying credit score FICO score of , individuals with no credit history, or to selected individuals as directed by their commander or supervisor. Individuals who do not consent to a credit check, but still require a travel card will be issued a restricted card.

Restricted travel cards are the same in appearance as standard cards; however, they will remain in an inactive status after receipt verification of the card. The cardholder must contact their APC to request activation of the card for each period of travel. The APC will only activate restricted travel cards for official travel periods. The APC will deactivate restricted travel cards upon completion of official travel unless mission requirements dictate otherwise. Payments are subject to the Prompt Payment Act of , as amended.

These accounts contain a unique prefix that identifies the account as a CBA for official federal government travel. This prefix also identifies the account as eligible for government travel rates including city pair rates and tax exemption. For information on disputes, see subparagraph The CPMs will also ensure that annual reviews are performed to monitor credit limits and card utilization.

CBAs are issued for the following purposes: A. Transportation Accounts. Transportation CBA travel card accounts are issued to DoD activities for use in purchasing transportation, including airline tickets, bus tickets, and rail tickets. These purchases are made through a Commercial Travel Office CTO directly with the travel service provider or their agent e. Unit Travel Charge Cards. DoD Components may use unit travel charge cards for group travel requirements only when it is cost effective, in the best interest of the mission, and authorized by the CPM.

Categories of travelers whose travel expenses may be charged to unit travel charge cards include, but are not limited to, new recruits and employees who do not yet have IBAs, prisoners, DoD group travelers, and foreign nationals participating in support of official DoD sponsored programs or activities. Components will limit the issuance of unit travel charge cards whenever possible and maximize the use of IBAs. ATM withdrawals against unit cards will also be limited.

The travel card vendor must receive written approval from the appropriate CPM before issuing a unit travel charge card. Upon receipt of each invoice, the designated unit cardholder is responsible for reconciling the travel card charges and promptly providing the reconciled copy of the statement to the unit account coordinator. The unit account coordinator is responsible for reconciling the charges appearing on the summary account monthly statement which is a composite rollup of all charges from all cards assigned to that organization.

The unit account coordinator is also responsible for filing any disputes see subparagraph Once the billing statement is reconciled, the unit account coordinator will obtain fund certification from the resource management office before forwarding certified billing statements, with any required supporting documentation, to the designated entitlement office i. The EAS is accessed via the Internet and will be used by CPMs, APCs, cardholders, and other authorized users to assist in the management of their travel card accounts by displaying account and transaction data and by providing reporting capability.

Individuals with access to the EAS will use the system to the maximum extent possible. The CPMs will inform the travel card vendor of any organizations e. The cardholder will contact the travel card vendor to establish a personal identification number to gain ATM access. ATM advances will not be obtained more than three working days before the scheduled departure date of any official travel. The travel card vendor will charge the cardholder a transaction fee for ATM use.

This includes but is not limited to any withdrawal of a credit balance or any amount the travel card vendor owes the cardholder. A travel advance from DoD disbursing offices may not be authorized for personnel who have been or are eligible to be issued a travel card. Commanders and supervisors may authorize, in writing, a travel advance from a DoD disbursing office in situations where necessary to meet mission requirements. The MCC is used to classify a business by the type of goods or services provided.

The Department blocks some MCCs to prevent inappropriate card use. The use of MCCs can be tailored to meet the mission needs during the initial setup of the account. Rebates A rebate is a benefit the DoD receives for the use and timely payment of the travel card.

Two types of rebates, sales and productivity, are available from the travel card vendor. Sales rebates are based on charge volume and productivity rebates are based on payment performance. The rebates are computed and distributed on a quarterly basis.

The formula used to compute these rebates varies depending on the type of rebate. Each Component will ensure the rebates are properly recorded. The heads of DoD Components will determine the distribution of rebates within their organizations. DoD Personnel All DoD personnel military or civilian , unless otherwise exempt, who perform travel as part of their duties will obtain and use an IBA travel card.

DoD personnel will be issued only one travel card. Infrequent Travelers Infrequent travelers are those who travel two times or less in a 12 month period. If issued a travel card, infrequent travelers are required to use the card as per paragraph Foreign Nationals Foreign national personnel, with the exception of those serving in the U.

Uniformed Services, are not authorized to possess or use an IBA. Travel expenses for foreign national personnel traveling in support of official DoD sponsored programs or activities may be placed on a CBA or an alternative card product. Recruiting Personnel Military personnel assigned to recruiting duty are authorized to use travel cards for official reimbursable expenses in their local recruiting areas in addition to any official travel away from their duty stations.

DoD Contractors DoD contractors are not authorized to possess or use any type of travel card, regardless of the type of contract they are operating under. Requirement Unless otherwise exempt see Section , all DoD personnel military or civilian are required to use the travel card for all authorized expenses relating to official government travel. Official government travel is defined as travel under official orders to meet mission requirements.

Failure to Use GTCC Failure to use the travel card will not be used as a basis for refusal to reimburse the traveler for appropriate charges. However, failure to use the travel card may subject the traveler to appropriate administrative or disciplinary action. Government personnel, military and civilian, to pay for costs incident to official government travel unless specifically exempt.

Whether the traveler does, or does not, have a travel card. If the traveler has a travel card, indicate whether the traveler is exempt from mandatory use under TTRA. This statement also authorizes alternative payment methods. If the official travel is cancelled i. Once the official ticket has been issued, the traveler has the option of using the CTO for their leisure travel needs.

The member shall pay any additional costs to include transaction fees due at the time of the ticket exchange. The traveler will be required to pay any additional cost with cash, check, or personal credit card. If the form of payment used for the official ticket was a CBA, the service member may be required to sign a document acknowledging their responsibility to turn back into the government any official value which was applied to their leisure ticket if the official trip is cancelled for any reason.

The document signed by the member may be used as a tracking tool to notify their local disbursing office after 30 days should a pay adjustment authorization i. Electronic sweeps by the CTO will capture unused leisure tickets where official value is incorporated therein, and if a traveler does not turn the official value back into the government after 30 days a pay adjustment authorization may be initiated.

The traveler will be required to pay any additional cost with cash, check or personal credit card. If the traveler used an IBA to purchase the official ticket, the traveler will receive a credit on their GTCC from the issuing carrier for the difference in fares.

The traveler should request a new receipt for the lower cost fare and must adjust the fare cost when making the claim for reimbursement within the travel system used. If the traveler is using a CBA, the CBA will receive a credit for the exchanged fare from the issuing carrier for the difference in fares. When the CTO is not used for LICWO travel: If the official ticket issued by the CTO was purchased with a CBA, and the ticket exchange is made directly with the airline, the traveler is liable for any official value which was applied to their leisure ticket should the official trip be cancelled for any reason.

If use of the IBA is authorized by the Component, the Component will establish guidance on which expenses will be placed on the IBA with the exception of the purchase of City Pair airfares when a leave location is involved. For specific instructions concerning City Pair airfares with a leave location involved refer to paragraph DoD personnel military or civilian who have an application pending for B.

Members of the Reserve Officers Training Corps and military personnel undergoing initial entry or initial skill training prior to reporting to their first permanent duty station. This exemption does not apply to DoD personnel military or civilian who are denied travel cards because they do not accept the terms and conditions of the cardholder agreement, such as refusing to: 1 complete to include SSN and residential mailing address and sign the account application form, or 2 permit a credit check.

The exemption also does not apply when DoD personnel military or civilian cancel their cards, for whatever reason, to include disagreement with existing or revised terms and conditions of the cardholder agreement. Military members or DoD civilian personnel as approved by the Head of a DoD Component during: 1 a period of war, 2 a national emergency declared by the President or the Congress, or 3 mobilization, deployment, or contingency operations.

DoD personnel military or civilian who use the card only for travel en route to a point of departure for deployment and cannot file a voucher prior to their deployment. DoD personnel military or civilian traveling to or in a foreign country where the political, financial, or communications infrastructure does not support the use of the travel card.

DoD personnel military or civilian whose use of the travel card, due to operational, security, or other requirements of a mission, would pose a threat to national security, endanger the life or physical safety of themselves or others, or would compromise a law enforcement activity. Exemptions of Mandatory Use of Expenses The following expenses are exempt from the mandatory use of the individually billed travel card. However, cardholders are encouraged to use the travel card to the greatest extent possible, to include withdrawing cash from an ATM to pay for these expenses, where practicable.

Expenses incurred at a vendor that does not accept the travel card. Meal charges when the use of the card is impractical, in government dining facilities as an example. Miscellaneous expenses typically paid using cash such as coin operated parking meters, toll booths, laundry facilities. Relocation allowances for DoD civilians, except en route travel and house hunting trip expenses as prescribed in the JTR Volume 2, Chapter 5.

Official local and long distance telephone calls. Use of the IBA for local registration fees is at the discretion of the Component. Those exemptions covering classes of expenses or personnel vice exemptions for individuals will be approved by the Director, DTMO prior to implementation. Payment Methods Authorized When Exempt When an exemption is granted from the mandatory use of the individually billed account, one, or a combination of, the following may be authorized for payment of travel expenses: A.

Personal funds, including cash or a personal credit card. Travel advances and CBAs. OF GTRs. City pair contractors airlines that provide services under the GSA City-Pair Program , however, are not required to accept the types of payments listed here with the exception of the CBA. This prefix identifies the account as being eligible for government travel rates, including city pair rates, and tax exemptions when permitted under state law.

If issued a travel card, these individual travelers are required to use the card as per paragraph Use of an IBA for local travel is at the discretion of the Component. APCs will ensure a copy of the certification of completion is retained or can be found in TraX. Refresher training is required every three years and may be obtained from other sources, as approved by the CPM.

A certificate of refresher training will be retained by the APC, either electronically or in hard copy. Cardholders will ensure a copy of the certificate of completion is retained by the APC or can be found in TraX. Refresher training is required every three years and may be completed using other sources as approved by the applicable CPM.

Refresher training will be documented and retained either electronically or in hard copy by the APC. The electronic application is the preferred method since it provides tracking capability. No card will be issued without a properly completed application, the signed SOU and the Cardholder completion certificate.

Routine Applications. Within three days of receipt, the APC will process the completed application and forward it to the travel card vendor. The APC will request that the travel card vendor establish a new IBA upon receipt of a properly completed application. The APC will complete the billing hierarchy information on the application before submitting to the travel card vendor. Use of the emergency application process will be determined by the APC and will normally be processed and the card shipped within 24 hours.

Expedited applications will be used for personnel who are scheduled to travel within five working days. Individuals should be reminded to plan ahead and apply for a travel card far enough in advance to avoid the need for an expedited application. APCs should make a special effort to ensure the cardholder is made aware of the expedited fee being charged to their account, that this fee is reimbursable and should be claimed on a travel voucher in order to be reimbursed.

The fee will not apply to expedited delivery for emergency replacement of cards lost, stolen, or otherwise unusable by travelers who are in a travel status. Cards that are shipped within 24 hours will be delivered in an active state and do not require the APC to phone the travel card vendor to activate the card.

The cardholder is responsible for verifying receipt of the card. Reapplying for IBA. The travel card vendor will issue a restricted card. Issuance of IBA Cards by the Travel Card Vendor Upon receipt of a properly completed and approved application, the travel card vendor will issue the travel card and cardholder agreement within three business days. The travel card vendor will allow the cardholder the option to establish his or her personal identification number.

Standard Card Design. Quasi-Generic Card Design. Quasi-Generic cards provide a level of protection for cardholders whose association with the U. Government should be protected. The issue and use of Quasi-Generic cards are subject to the same terms and conditions as all travel cards. Once approval has been granted by the CPM for establishment of a CBA account, the hard copy application form will be used.

The requesting command must complete the application form and submit it to the CPM for signature. The CPM will submit the application to the travel card vendor for processing and monitor the travel card vendor's EAS regarding application status. The CPM is responsible for providing the billing hierarchy information, the appropriate Bank Identification Number BIN assignment and establishing and maintaining reasonable credit limits.

To meet this requirement, the travel card vendor performs a credit check on each new card applicant who agrees to the credit check. Depending on the credit score, applicants are eligible for a standard card, a restricted card, or may not be eligible for a card. At no time and in no case will the travel card vendor provide credit check results to the APC.

The issuance of a travel card and the credit limit on the card will not be reported to the credit bureaus. For additional information see subparagraph To facilitate meeting this requirement, the following performance measures are established effective immediately: A. IBAs based on the percentage of open accounts delinquent. Green: 0. CBAs based on the amount of delinquent dollars. Program Review Commanders and Agency Heads will ensure that periodic internal control reviews are conducted for their travel card programs.

Public Law , The Government Charge Card Abuse Act of , outlines the minimum requirements to ensure effective management controls. Organizations may use the checklist, or incorporate those items into existing program management checklists to aid in conducting required program reviews, or to assist external organizations e.

Findings of significant weaknesses should be reported to the CPM in addition to the command or agency head. Misuse Misuse of the travel card will not be tolerated. With the exception of expenses incident to official travel described in paragraph , use of the travel card for personal expenses incurred during leave in conjunction with official travel is not authorized.

Cardholders who misuse their travel card may be subject to administrative or disciplinary action, as appropriate. Expenses Incident to Official Travel The cardholder, while in a travel status, may use the travel card to charge non-reimbursable expenses incident to official travel such as in-room movie rentals, personal telephone calls, exercise fees, and beverages, when these charges are part of a room billing and are reasonable.

The traveler is required to pay all charges whether reimbursable or non-reimbursable as part of the normal travel settlement process. Separate charges for airfare, hotel rooms, rental cars or meals for spouses or family members are not authorized to be charged on the IBA, except as determined by the Components for authorized dependent travel i. Split Disbursement All DoD personnel military and civilian are required to split disburse all undisputed expenses charged to the travel card as a part of the travel settlement process.

Approving officials are responsible for ensuring that split disbursement amounts are properly annotated and should return any travel vouchers that do not comply for correction and resubmission. For additional information regarding split disbursement, refer to Title 10 U. Data Mining APCs should use the travel card vendor provided data mining tools to gather and analyze travel card data and to identify incidents of suspected misuse. For additional information on data mining, see paragraph General An APC plays an important role in the proper management of the travel card program.

The frequency of travel and the delinquency rate of the organization should also be taken into account. APCs have access to sensitive information and relay this information to the chain of command for determination of appropriate action when necessary. Records APCs will maintain, or have access to all pertinent records for cardholders assigned to their hierarchy, such as the SOU, certificates of training, delinquency notices, and required reports specified in Section Each APC, in conjunction with the travel card vendor, will maintain an up-to-date list of current cardholders and accounts, to include information such as account names, account numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers.

Due to the sensitivity of the data contained in these files, the data must be maintained in a secure container or area that precludes unauthorized access. APCs maintaining these records must ensure they are marked and protected in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act.

Records may be retained in DoD Records will be retained for two years in accordance with the U. However, records may be retained longer at the discretion of the Component. Online applications are no longer required to be maintained by the APC, the travel card vendor maintains the online application.

This hierarchy is the link that identifies cardholder accounts to correct organizations within a Component. The establishment of a new hierarchy requires the approval of the next higher level APC who has administrative rights over that hierarchy. Travelers attending formal training en route to their next assignment will remain in the hierarchy of the losing organization until completion of training. The receiving component must accept the account regardless of account status and ensure any outstanding balance is paid during the travel settlement process via split disbursement.

The APC will ensure any outstanding travel vouchers are submitted and any outstanding balance is paid during the travel settlement process via split disbursement prior to final separation. Monitor and Reporting Delinquencies The APC will monitor and report all delinquencies to appropriate personnel and take appropriate actions as described in the delinquency management section. Review Reports to Identify Accounts for Closure On a periodic basis, the APC will review any reports provided or made available by the travel card vendor to identify accounts for potential closure.

Accounts not used in a month period may be closed with an option to reopen without a new application if the need for travel arises. Timely Reimbursement of Travel Expenses A. Reimbursement Within 30 Days. Agencies will reimburse DoD personnel military or civilian for authorized travel expenses no later than 30 days after submission of an accurate and complete travel claim to the office where the claim is to be approved. Therefore, a satisfactory recordkeeping system will be maintained by the approving official to track submission and receipt of travel claims.

For example, the approving office must annotate on travel claims received by mail the date when the office received the claim. Travel claims submitted electronically to the approving official are considered to have been received on the submission date indicated on the email, or on the next business day if submitted after normal working hours.

For DTS, the travel claim is considered to be received when the traveler signs the claim and it is routed to the approving official. Travel Claim Errors. A travel claim with an omission or an error will be returned to the traveler within a seven day period. The notification will include the reason s why the travel claim is not correct. Late Payment Fees and Charges. Should payment of the travel settlement take longer than 30 days following receipt by the office where the claim is approved, that office may be required to pay a late payment fee to the traveler.

This fee is payable, using the Prompt Payment Act interest rate, beginning on the 31st day after the submission of a proper travel claim and ending on the date that the payment is disbursed by the government. Interest payment funding instructions can be found in Volume 10, Chapter 7.

The Internal Revenue Service has determined that the late payment fee is reportable as interest and that the payment equal to the late payment charge is to be reported as additional wages. Systems Modifications. As necessary, DoD Component travel systems will be modified to capture the date of submission of a proper travel claim and compute entitlement for late payment fees due as a result of untimely settlement.

Claims for Late Payment Fees. Payment of late fees should be calculated and paid at the time the voucher is processed. Travelers who believe that late payment fees were not included in the calculation of their travel vouchers may submit supplemental travel claims for late payment fees.

Each supplemental travel claim will be submitted through the office where the claim is to be approved. That office will annotate the claim with the date that the original travel claim was received. Monthly Statements. Cardholders are responsible for payment in full of the undisputed amount stated on the monthly billing statement by the due date indicated on the statement. Accounts are considered past due at 30 days past billing and delinquent if unpaid 61 days after the billing date.

Cardholders are responsible for payment regardless of the status of their travel reimbursements. Long Term Travel. Long term travel is defined as travel greater than 45 days. While in a long term travel status, the traveler will file interim vouchers every 30 days in order to receive partial payments and will use split disbursement as the means of settlement to ensure payment to the travel card vendor to avoid delinquency. For DTS travel, cardholders should request scheduled partial payments as part of the authorization process, ensuring that expenses anticipated to be charged on the travel card are properly designated.

Disputed Charges. In the event that the billing statement includes charges that the account holder considers questionable, the cardholder will first contact the merchant to try to resolve the questionable charge. The cardholder will complete and send the form to the travel card vendor. All disputes must be filed within 60 days of the date on the billing statement on which the erroneous charge first appeared.

It is the responsibility of the cardholder to ensure the dispute form has been received by the travel card vendor. Once the dispute notification has been received by the travel card vendor, the travel card vendor will issue a provisional credit for the amount of the dispute pending resolution.

Formally disputed charges will not age and the account will not suspend for lack of payment. Should the travel card vendor request additional information to research and resolve the dispute, the cardholder must provide the requested information within the timeframe given. Disputes found in favor of the merchant vendor or failure to comply will result in the disputed charge being placed back onto the cardholders account, and the cardholder would be responsible for repayment as well as any applicable late fees for IBA or Prompt Payment Interest charges for CBA.

Salary Offset. Upon written request of the travel card vendor, the Department will, on behalf of the travel card vendor, begin the process of salary offset. Accounts become eligible for salary offset when an unpaid balance reaches days past billing. Salary offset is the collection by deduction from the amount of pay owed to the cardholder of any amount the cardholder owes to the travel card vendor as a result of undisputed delinquencies.

Specifics on the procedures of salary offset are contained in Volume 7A, Chapter 43, Section for military members and Volume 8, Chapter 8, paragraph for DoD civilian employees. Reduced Payment Plan. A plan offered by the travel card vendor to delinquent cardholders that allows for payment of outstanding balance over a defined time period as an alternative to salary offset.

The Reduced Payment Plan cannot be initiated once salary offset has begun. Failure to comply with the agreed-to payment schedule will result in automatic referral for salary offset. Reinstatement of Cancelled Accounts. Accounts that have been cancelled due to delinquency may be eligible for reinstatement. In order to be approved for reinstatement, cardholders must meet set criteria: A reinstatement application is required, the individual must consent to a credit check, and a non-reimbursable reinstatement fee is required.

In addition, the balance must have been paid in full for a minimum of 60 days; there have been no payments returned for nonsufficient funds NSF in the previous 12 months, and there were no more than three NSF payments in the life of the account. The account will not be considered for reinstatement if the previous account had been charged off as a bad debt. If the reinstated account is subsequently canceled, the cardholder will not be considered for reinstatement a second time.

Account Upgrade. Applicants must agree to a new credit check and must meet the minimum credit score to be upgraded to a standard account. Fees Chargeable by the Travel Card Vendor. The following fees may be charged by the travel card vendor: 1. NSF fees are not reimbursable. An account that has two 2 or more NSFs within a 12 month period is subject to immediate cancellation by the travel card vendor. Reinstatement Fee. The reinstatement fee is non-reimbursable. Refer to subparagraph Late Fees.

Late fees may be reimbursable if the late fee was charged as the result of a late reimbursement to the traveler. Salary Offset Fees. Salary offset fees are non-reimbursable. Refer 5. Reduced Payment Plan Fee. The travel card vendor may offer a reduced payment plan for which additional fees will be assessed, which is not reimbursable. ATM Withdrawal Fees. These fees are reimbursable when the withdrawal is authorized and associated with official travel.

The cardholder is advised to claim these fees on their travel settlement. Expedited Delivery Fee. This fee is applied when a card is delivered via overnight or express delivery. The cardholder is advised to claim these on their travel settlement. This fee is applied when the travel card vendor issues a chip and PIN card. Merchant Surcharge Fees. Pre-suspension Notification for Accounts 45 Days Past Billing At 45 days past billing, the travel card vendor will make pre-suspension reports available.

The travel card vendor will block charging privileges, to include ATM access, until payment for the current amount due is received. Cancellation of Accounts Days Past Billing At days past billing, the travel card vendor will make available cancellation reports.

For IBAs, if no action is taken toward payment of the debt, collection action via a reduced payment plan or salary offset will be initiated by the travel card vendor beginning on the th day past billing. Once canceled, an account may be reinstated in accordance with subparagraph The travel card vendor reserves the right to deny the reinstatement request. Cancellation of an IBA Suspended Two Times Cancellation of an IBA may also occur if the account has been suspended two times during a month period for nonpayment of undisputed amounts and again becomes past due.

Accounts that have been suspended twice during a 12 month period will be considered for cancellation purposes past due for the third time at 45 days past billing. Mission Critical Travel for IBA Mission critical travel is defined as travel performed by DoD personnel military or civilian under competent orders that prevent the traveler from filing interim travel vouchers or from scheduling partial payments to pay for charges to the travel card. Should there be an outstanding balance at the time the cardholder is removed from mission critical status, the balance must be paid within 45 days of removal from this status.

A payment against the account must have been initiated and expected to be made shortly. If approved, accounts are normally placed in exception status for a period of not to exceed 30 days. Canceled accounts do not qualify for CBA exception.

The request must be submitted by the CPM with the following information: Last 6 digits of CBA central account number, date of last payment, number of days past due, reason for delinquency, expected full reconciliation date, expected payment day and payment amount, and exception justification. The travel card vendor will make reports available to the APC to help in identifying upcoming suspensions or cancellations of delinquent accounts within specified timeframes.

Due to the sensitive nature of all travel card reports, the reports and all information contained therein must be properly safeguarded at all times. Reports are considered personnel records and as such should be retained by the APC for no less than two years from the as of date.

Reports that are required in support of an ongoing investigation or audit may be required to be retained for an additional time period to support completion of the investigation or audit. APCs are expected to obtain the reports at a minimum of once per cycle and take corrective action as necessary to maintain proper program management. Components may require additional mandatory reports. Account Activity Text Report. This report displays all transaction activity for a specified billing cycle.

APCs will use the report to do spot checks of transactions to ensure there is no misuse. Account Listing Report. APCs will use this report to ensure correct information is on file with the travel card vendor; and notify the travel card vendor of any needed corrections. Delinquency Report-Hierarchy. This report identifies delinquent accounts and ages the delinquencies by time frame i.

APCs will use this report to aggressively work all delinquencies. These reports identify detailed account delinquencies and summary level information by Component hierarchy. APCs will use one or both of these reports to get a point in time listing of their delinquencies.

These reports should be run at the completion of each cycle. APCs are expected to run these reports after the completion of all accounts cycles and take corrective action as necessary to maintain proper program management. Delinquency Report. APCs and account managers will use this report to aggressively work all delinquencies.

This report identifies summary level delinquency information by Component hierarchy. APCs and account managers will use this report to ensure correct information is on file with the travel card vendor; and notify the travel card vendor of any needed corrections. Account Renewal Report. This report identifies those cardholders whose cards are coming due for renewal.

APCs will review the information on this report monthly and take appropriate action. Blocked MCC Report. This report provides a list of all transactions made against MCCs that are blocked from charges against the travel card. APCs will use this report to see where charges were made against blocked MCCs and take appropriate action. Credit Balance Refund Report.

This report provides a list of accounts that have received a credit balance refund. Use this report to determine which accounts have been issued credit balance refunds. Declined Authorizations Report. This report lists all transactions attempted but declined against an account and details reasons for decline and type of purchase ATM, purchase, or cash. APCs will use this report to determine where transactions failed and the reason for the decline.

Mission Critical Report. This report provides a listing of accounts that have been placed in mission critical status. A will use this report to identify accounts that have been deemed mission critical and to check against orders to ensure that accounts continue to qualify for mission critical status.

Non-Travel Activity Report. This report identifies cardholders with transaction activity such as cash, fuel, or food occurring without other associated travel activity such as airline, car rental, or lodging. APCs will use this report to research potential misuse of the travel card. PCS Status Report. This report identifies accounts in mission critical status that are related to a PCS move.

Use this report to identify cardholders who have been placed in mission critical as a result of a PCS move and ensure removal from the status as appropriate. Pre-suspension Report. This report lists accounts that are nearing suspension and identifies account names, account numbers, status, balances past due, and the number of days that each account is past due. APCs will use the information from this report to notify commanders and supervisors to ensure their travelers make prompt payment of their account balance.

Returned Check. This report provides a list of all cardholders that incur payment reversal transactions within a specified hierarchy level and time frame. APCs will use this report to determine where account holders have made payments with insufficient funds. Suspension Report. This report lists accounts that have been suspended and are nearing cancellation and identifies account names, account numbers, status suspended or canceled , date of status, balances past due, and the number of days that each account is past due.

APCs will use this report to notify cardholders and leadership of the potential cancellation of an account. This report identifies cardholders with transaction activity, such as lodging and car rental, when checkout is on a Sunday, Monday, or a Federal holiday.

I also understand that I am authorized to use the card only for these necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by me for official travel. I will abide by these instructions issued by the Department. The above limitation on card usage also applies to automated teller machine ATM withdrawals. The amount of cash withdrawals may not exceed the cash limits established on the card.

I will, however, endeavor to charge expenses to the account wherever feasible rather than use cash withdrawals. I understand the Department's policy requires mandatory use of split disbursement for all outstanding charges on the travel card for military personnel and civilian personnel where labor bargaining obligations have been met. Activate my GTCC upon receipt. Pay all undisputed charges by the due date on the monthly billing statement.

File travel vouchers promptly within appropriate guidelines. Ensure my contact information in DTS and with the travel card vendor is kept current. Card applicants must check off all the above provisions. I also understand that failure on my part to abide by these rules or otherwise misuse the GTCC may result in disciplinary action being taken against me. Provide the specific information regarding the delinquent charges. The travel card contract requires that all outstanding, undisputed charges be paid by the due date specified on the billing statement.

The travel card vendor has suspended card privileges for this cardholder due to non-payment. The cardholder is required to be notified of this action and counseled concerning the non-payment and use of the travel card. Cardholders on temporary duty more than 45 days are required to submit travel vouchers for payment every 30 days and maintain their travel card account in a current status.

Non-compliance, or failure to adhere to the guidelines for the travel card, may result in disciplinary action in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory, or contractual provisions and applicable Multi-Unit Master Agreement for bargaining unit employees. The delinquent balance may be resolved by one of the following actions: 1 payment in full or 2 an agreed upon repayment schedule with the travel card vendor. Billing questions may be directed to the travel card vendor at the number printed on the billing statement for that purpose.

Please have the cardholder sign below to acknowledge receipt of this delinquent notification and return to me with your written response, outlining the actions taken, within 5 business days. The attached day notification memorandum previously informed the immediate supervisor that the payment on the cardholder's travel card account was delinquent. The travel card vendor sent a letter notifying the cardholder of their due process and impending salary offset procedures.

Provide specific information regarding the delinquent charges. The travel card contract requires all outstanding, undisputed charges be paid by the due date specified on the billing statement. If no action is taken to settle this debt, the travel card vendor will cancel the account at days past billing. Travel card charging privileges have been suspended as of date. These privileges may be restored upon full payment of the amount owed prior to cancellation.

The cardholder must be notified and counseled. Noncompliance or failure to adhere to the guidelines for the travel card may result in disciplinary action in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory, or contractual provisions and applicable Multi-Unit Master Agreement for bargaining unit employees.

The delinquent balance may be resolved by payment in full or an agreed upon repayment schedule with the travel card vendor. Questions concerning the travel card program may be directed to APC name. Please have the cardholder sign below to acknowledge receipt of this delinquent notification and return it to me with your written response, outlining the actions taken, within 5 business days.

To date, no arrangement has been made with the travel card vendor to resolve this debt. Therefore, the account has been canceled. The cardholder has received notice of impending salary offset from the travel card vendor. If the cardholder is not eligible for salary offset, the travel card vendor may begin official collection action.

Provide specific information regarding the delinquent account. The cardholder may request reinstatement with the approval of the commander or director. Please contact Agency Program Coordinator at telephone number , should further questions arise.

Please have the cardholder sign to acknowledge receipt of this notification and return it with your written response, outlining the actions taken, within 5 business days. Supporting travel documentation for this timeframe is not available. Please provide information to justify use of the card during the timeframe listed above. If you have any questions, please contact me. The findings of such audits or reviews along with recommendations to prevent improper use of travel cards shall be reported to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Congress.

The previous version dated August is archived. The following subparagraphs were renumbered as and Added policy on the use of rental cars for leisure travel. Use of POC Travelers should contact the TO for information regarding available transportation services and costs. If the AO does not direct a specific transportation mode, the traveler may select the mode to use. This limitation also applies to travel as a passenger in a POC. See JFTR, paras. U and U, and JTR, para. See Federal Travel Regulation See JFTR, para.

UD, and JTR, para. Reimbursement must be limited to the constructed cost of the authorized transportation mode, which is the sum of per diem and the transportation cost the Government would have incurred when traveling by the authorized transportation mode.

Leave is charged in accordance with personnel regulations for any duty hours that are missed because of POC travel see paragraph For periods in excess of the allowed travel time, the approving official determines whether to charge leave in accordance with DoD Component leave procedures. U, and JTR, para. When the traveler is required to perform duty at the TDY point on the day of arrival, that day is a day of duty. Travel time is granted prior to that first duty day. When the traveler performs no duty at the TDY point on the day of arrival, that day is a travel day.

Two days of travel are authorized. The traveler performs duty on the day of arrival at the TDY point. October 3 is a day of duty; October 1 and 2 are travel days. Using the same example, if the traveler did not perform duty on October 3 at the TDY point, October 2 and 3 are the travel days. When a traveler is required to perform duty at the TDY point on the day of departure, that day is a day of duty.

Travel time is granted after that last day. When a traveler is not required to perform duty at the TDY point on the day of departure from the TDY point, that day is a travel day. The traveler performs duty on the day of departure from the TDY point. Using the same example, if a traveler performs no duty on October 8 at the TDY point, October 8 and 9 are travel days.

U and JTR, para. It is DoD policy that travelers using commercial air carriers for official travel must use less-than-premium accommodations. This does not preclude the traveler from accepting a complimentary seating upgrade offered by the carrier.

The traveler must complete and have the issuing authority i. A traveler remains financially responsible to the Government for the cost of a lost or stolen paper ticket or transportation request, regardless of fault or negligence. If the travel order directs use of government-procured transportation, do not reimburse the traveler for personally procured transportation unless the AO provides a statement to allow reimbursement. U and JTR, paras. C and C Involuntarily Relinquished Airline Accommodations Penalty payments or credits issued by air carriers under certain provisions of their tariffs for failing to furnish accommodations for confirmed reserved space belong to the U.

Government, and not the traveler, when the payments result from travel on official business and the traveler was involuntarily denied boarding. When a CTO is available, but not used, reimbursement is limited to what the cost would have been if a CTO made the arrangements. Leisure Use with Official Use A traveler who is on official travel with an authorized rental vehicle, who also uses the vehicle during authorized leave, will only be reimbursed for the amount it would cost to rent the vehicle, on a daily basis, for the number of days of official travel.

Rental car vendors have different procedures and the traveler must check with the rental car vendor to determine if the rental car must be returned after the official business portion of TDY in order to obtain another rental car for personal use. Reimbursement for the Cost of Damages to Commercial Rental Vehicles Rental cars covered by the DTMO rental car agreement include full liability and vehicle loss and damage insurance coverage in the Government rate.

Reimbursement or payment to the rental agency for damages must be made by the government or by the traveler if it is determined that the traveler was not within the scope of employment when the loss occurred. When government reimbursement is approved and extra collision insurance is not purchased or included in the basic rental contract e. The JFTR, para.

UE and JTR, para.

Dod financial management regulation how long should a child wear a compression vest

AFSC Spotlight- 6F0X1 Financial Management and Comptroller

Другие материалы по теме

  • Uk investment banking salary
  • Uga office of financial aid
  • Mens vest crochet pattern
  • Video binary options for beginners
  • Investing news alternatives conference portland
  • A working binary options strategy
  • Похожие записи

    0 комментариев для “Dod financial management regulation

    Добавить комментарий

    Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *