Financial Management Systems and Reporting
Financial Management Systems and Reporting tests how transactions move from feeder systems into auditable statements and budget reports, and the standards those systems must meet.
Systems
DoD operates several accounting systems of record, including GFEBS (Army), DEAMS (Air Force), Navy ERP, and the Defense Agencies Initiative, supported by entitlement and payment systems such as WAWF/PIEE and MOCAS, and reporting layers such as Advana. All must use the Standard Financial Information Structure (SFIS) so data aggregates consistently across components.
Standards
The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 requires systems to comply with federal financial management systems requirements, applicable accounting standards, and the USSGL at the transaction level. The CFO Act of 1990 and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 set financial statement and audit requirements; FISMA governs information security.
Reports
- SF 132 records OMB apportionment; SF 133 reports budget execution and budgetary resources quarterly and cumulatively.
- Statement of Budgetary Resources is the audited statement that must reconcile to the SF 133.
- Agency Financial Report includes the balance sheet, statement of net cost, statement of changes in net position, statement of budgetary resources, and custodial activity, prepared under OMB Circular A-136; budget justification material follows Circular A-11.
- GTAS/CARS is Treasury's central reporting point where agency trial balances are submitted and confirmed.
Reconciliation
Each month the activity reconciles Fund Balance with Treasury, its USSGL trial balance, and the SF 133, researching undistributed and in-transit disbursements held in suspense rather than leaving them unexplained.
Worked example
An auditor finds that a new accounting system records obligations in a subsidiary ledger but does not assign USSGL accounts at the transaction level, so the SF 133 cannot be generated from the trial balance. Analysis: FFMIA requires transaction-level USSGL posting, so the system is noncompliant even though individual obligations are valid and the bottom-line total is correct. The remedy is a system change with a corrective action plan, not a manual workaround at year end.
Traps that cost marks
- Confusing SF 132 (apportionment) with SF 133 (budget execution report).
- Treating budget reports and financial statements as interchangeable products.
- Assuming a modern ERP automatically achieves FFMIA compliance.
- Reporting a variance as "timing" without documenting each reconciling item.