C6.5.1. Reconciliation. Cases need to be reconciled throughout their life cycle to identify and correct any issues or problems as they occur. Case Managers are responsible for the timely reconciliation and closure of cases, regardless of how these activities are delegated within the responsible IA. Case Managers should not wait until a case is ready to be closed to reconcile the case. Case Managers should reconcile and close lines of accounting, requisitions, Project Directive Line Items (PDLIs), funding documents, and other program documents as material is delivered and services are performed. The IA informs the purchaser when a case is “supply or services complete (SSC)” using either the Security Cooperation Information Portal (SCIP) or a Notice of Supply/Services Completion (NSSC) letter. The Case Manager and the Financial Manager conduct reconciliation of Military Department (MILDEP) and DoD systems to ensure the systems are in balance and all relevant case information is synchronized.

C6.5.2. FMS Case Reviews. FMS case reviews should be conducted at least once per calendar year but they can be done more frequently if needed. The Case Manager is responsible for determining the type of review appropriate for the case. Instruction and a checklist for conducting these reviews can be found in Chapter 2 of DoD 5105.38-M, FMS Case Reconciliation and Closure Manual. These checklists are signed and dated by the person accountable for the review, and should be retained in the official FMS case file. Some key areas that should be reviewed include: accessorial costs, billings, closure issues, commitments, obligations, expenditures, un-liquidated obligations, open contracts, credit values, deliveries, disbursements, liquidated progress payments, LOA values, obligation authority, payment schedules, quantities, Supply Discrepancy Reports (SDRs), and travel vouchers. Pertinent information can be found in the LOA, the Defense Integrated Financial System (DIFS), MILDEP-specific systems, case directives, case files, funding documents, shipping documents, vouchers, and other systems or documents of relevance. If, as often happens, a case review identifies the need for payment schedule revisions, see Table C9.T10. of this Manual for additional guidance on payment schedules.

C6.5.3. Reasons for Case Review. The following items influence a decision about the need for a case review: USG resources, desires or requirements of the FMS purchaser, political visibility or sensitivity, political-military changes in a region, and the size and complexity of the program. Review objectives must be clearly identified, including why the FMS review is being conducted, as well as post-review deliverables and desired outcomes. A purchaser nation's internal policy or legislation may require periodic information about the status of country accounts, issues, cases, and programs. The preferences and desires of the purchaser regarding the conduct of reviews should be accommodated to the greatest extent possible. See Section C6.5.5. for guidance about appropriate funding for these reviews. All actions should be documented in the LOA, as explained in the manpower matrix in Table C9.T2. of this Manual.

C6.5.4. Representation at Case Reviews. Senior officials can co-chair case reviews, but detailed discussions require the participation of the managers who are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the program or weapon system under review. The rank of the lead USG review participant should be equivalent to that of the lead purchaser participant. Controlling the number of participants at each review is important, but it is also important to include subject matter experts who can adequately cover anticipated topics or issues. The USG meeting chair ensures each participant has a distinct, active role in the review. If topics beyond participants' expertise are discussed or issues are raised that cannot be resolved during the review, participants should research answers/solutions after the review and follow-up appropriately to all within a week. For FMS purchaser-hosted reviews, Security Cooperation Organizations (SCOs) coordinate the administrative arrangements, including lodging and transportation, and they help the visiting team as appropriate and necessary.

C6.5.5. Timing and Frequency of Case Reviews. The frequency and timing of reviews depend on the urgency of the review, the meeting purpose, purchaser funding, budget timelines, and program events. For external reviews (those that involve the purchaser), the frequency and timing are coordinated with the purchaser. Table C6.T5. shows the normal frequency and timing of each review. When scheduling a review, purchaser and USG holidays, weekends, and personnel changes (e.g., SCO, purchaser leadership) should be considered. Because FMS reviews for a specific purchaser or program often involve many of the same people, reviews should be consolidated whenever practical.

Table C6.T5. Timing and Frequency of Reviews Matrix

C6.5.6. Review Funding. The funding source for a review depends on the type of review and the level of participation. The manpower funding matrix is used to determine funding sources, see Table C9.T2. of this Manual.

C6.5.7. Standardized Review Formats. Standard formats, meeting procedures, and terminology help participants clearly understand the review processes. Figure C9.F5. of this Manual provides the standard format for use in all DSCA Financial Management Reviews (FMRs). Standard formats are preferred, but changes and deviations are acceptable when other critical program or financial information must be discussed. Submit requests for changes and deviations to this format to DSCA (Business Operations Directorate).