Financial Audit Tricks of the Trade: Tying Out a Transaction … · Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Financial Audit Tricks of the Trade: Tying Out a Transaction
Post on 12-Apr-2018
222 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Financial Audit Tricks of the Trade: Tying Out a
Transaction Universe
Ms. Margo Sheridan, OUSD Ms. Michele Gaw, DFAS
2
• There is no one agency that has authority over the various entities that execute Defense-wide funds
• Defense-wide funds that are material for the audit are executed by approximately 40 Other Defense Organizations (ODOs)
• All 3 Military Services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 9 of the 16 Principal Staff Assistant (PSA) Offices execute Defense-wide funds
• Defense-wide funds are executed in 21 general ledger (G/L) systems for the General Fund alone
Defense-wide ODO Audit Strategy Complexities
3
Execution of Material Defense-wide Funds
OUSD(AT&L)
Legend
Non-ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
Does not execute a material amount of Defense-wide funding, but included to show hierarchy
Other PSAs
Military Services OUSD(P&R)
4
Military Services
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Department of the Army
Transportation Command Military
Surface Deployment and Distribution
Command
Service Medical Activity Army
Department of the Navy
Service Medical Activity Navy
Department of the Air Force
Service Medical Activity Air Force
Transportation Command Air Mobility
Command Defense Health Agency
United States Special Operations Command
Legend
Non-ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
5
Office of the Secretary of
Defense
Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense Personnel & Readiness
Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense Readiness and
Force Management
Defense Commissary Agency
Department of Defense Education
Activity
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Health
Affairs
Defense Health Agency
Service Medical Activity Army
Service Medical Activity Navy
Service Medical Activity Air Force
Department of Defense Human
Resources Agency
OUSD(P&R)
• Medicare-eligible Retiree Healthcare Fund (MERHCF)
• Payment to MERHCF • Uniformed Services
University of Health Sciences
Legend
Non-ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
Does not execute a material amount of Defense-wide funding, but included to show hierarchy
• Military Trust Fund
6
Office of the Secretary of
Defense
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
Acquisitions, Technology and
Logistics
Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense
Acquisition
Defense Acquisition University
Defense Contract
Management Agency
Missile Defense Agency
Department of Defense
Test Resource
Management Center
Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense
Logistics and Materiel
Readiness
Defense Logistics Agency
Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense
Nuclear & Chemical & Biological Defense
Programs
Defense Threat
Reduction Agency
Chemical Biological Defense Program
Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense Research
and Engineering
Defense Advanced Research
and Engineering
Defense Technical
Information Center
OUSD(AT&L)
Legend
Non-ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
Does not execute a material amount of Defense-wide funding, but included to show hierarchy
7
Office of the Secretary of
Defense
Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense Policy
Defense Security
Cooperation Agency
Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense Comptroller
Defense Contract Audit
Agency
Defense Finance and Accounting
Service
Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense Intelligence
Defense Security Service
Office of the Director
Administration and
Management
Washington Headquarters
Services
Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense Public
Affairs
Defense Media Activity
Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information
Officer
Defense Information
Systems Agency
Office of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff
Office of the Department of
Defense Inspector General
Other PSAs
Legend
Non-ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
ODO which executes material Defense-wide funding
Does not execute a material amount of Defense-wide funding, but included to show hierarchy
8
Fourth Estate Systems Landscape
Complex / Dynamic systems environment with dependencies on multiple organizations.
• Dependency on financial information from 21 general ledger systems.
• Over 70 financial, mixed, and non-financial feeder systems and micro-applications including personnel, time & attendance, payroll, purchasing, contracting, entitlement, disbursing, billing, collections, treasury reconciliation, equipment, etc. which are:
• “Owned” by multiple Service Providers and Military Services including DFAS, DLA, DCMA, WHS, DCPAS, DHA, AT&L, Army, Navy, and USAF.
• Comprised of a variety of hardware / database / operating system technology platforms including both legacy and ERP systems.
• Hosted in data centers “owned” by multiple Service Providers and Military Services including DISA, DFAS, DLA, DCMA, WHS, DCPAS, Army, Navy, USAF, and external commercial organizations.
• Multiple ODOs are in a transitional state between legacy systems and ERP systems (i.e., DAI).
• IT controls testing must be completed by the ODOs for self-owned systems and for systems owned by others (Complementary User Entity Controls).
10
Number of Reporting Entities by Category Under Different Materiality Analyses
Material Reporting Entities Determined Based on Total Budgetary Resources
Material Reporting Entities Determined Based on Material SBA Line Items
FY 2009 SBR Data - FIAR Guidance Analysis
FY 2012 SBR Data - FIAR Guidance Analysis
FY 2013 SBR Data - 2014 Approach - Analysis of Three High Priority SBA Line Items (Appropriations Received,
Obligations Incurred, Outlays)
Immaterial Reporting Entities 28 29 18
ODO General Fund - Material Reporting Entities (Under Audit or Consolidated)
25 28 40
Military Retirement Trust Fund (MRF) 1 1 1
Military Services (Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, USACE)
4 4 4
4 4 4 1 1 1
25 28
40
28
29
18
Nu
mb
er
of
Re
po
rtin
g En
titi
es
11
Amount of Total FY13 Budgetary Resources Associated with Each Material Reporting Entity*, Organized by G/L System
Trust Fund Reporting System $91,176,093,737.43
41%
Various $26,516,876,677.33
12%
Army Service G/Ls $23,303,895,015.08
10%
DAI $19,152,699,031.42
9%
Oracle Federal Financials $15,614,485,216.89
7%
WHS WAAS $11,052,521,684.89
5%
Air Force Service G/Ls $9,729,561,390.72
4%
Navy Service G/Ls $7,225,833,734.86
3%
DFAS WAAS $4,964,601,638.01
2%
DoDEA WAAS $3,907,641,415.65
2%
DBMS $2,901,726,944.99
1%
DISA WAAS $2,566,915,929.05
1%
EBS $1,891,718,149.15
1%
Misc. - Unobligated Balances/DFAS Adjustments/etc.
$1,770,207,566.74 1%
EBAS-JCS Instance $822,866,990.08
0%
CEFMS $373,424,067.72
0%
Marine Corps Service G/Ls $127,004,388.39
0%
Unknown $119,414,435.85
0%
eBiz $16,588,916.45
0%
General ledger systems noted in red text are not in the top 99% of total budgetary resources.
**The “Various” general ledger system includes the DoD Component Level Account and the Emergency Response Fund, Defense.
*Based on a materiality level established using only the ODO General Fund, without considering the impact of the Military Services, USACE, or MERHCF on materiality. The Military Retirement Trust Fund and all DoD working capital funds have been excluded from this analysis.
**
12
Amount of Total Budgetary Resources for Material ODO Reporting Entities Associated with Service G/L Systems
SMA Army $12,249,772,403.41
29%
Other '97' Funds Provided to the Army by OSD
$4,381,796,643.55 10%
US Special Operations Command $4,302,188,443.00
10%
Chemical Biological Defense Program
$1,303,673,215.26 3% Defense Acquisition University
$1,066,464,309.86 3%
SMA Navy $5,558,132,523.99
13%
US Special Operations Command (Navy)
$978,025,330.00 2%
Other '97' funds provided to the Navy by OSD
$685,986,565.99 2%
Chemical Biological Defense Program (Navy)
$3,689,314.88 0%
US Special Operations Command (Marine Corps)
$127,003,348.00 0%
Chemical Biological Defense Program (Marine Corps)
$1,040.39 0%
US Special Operations Command (Air Force)
$5,108,447,786.00 12%
SMA Air Force $3,538,467,841.77
8%
Other '97' Funds Provided to the Air Force by OSD
$1,080,645,762.95 3%
Chemical Biological Defense Program (Air Force)
$2,000,000.00 0%
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR)
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
14
Audit challenges noted during FIAR review of 3/31 ODO Assertion Packages:
– Feeder System to SBR Reconciliations
• Not completed or submission requires walk through with Defense Agency
– End-to-End Process Coverage
• Pervasive control gaps and deficiencies noted (e.g. controls not identified, lack of documentation for attributes reviewed and evidence of reviews):
– Purchase Requisition, Commitment and Obligation, Receipt and Acceptance, Accruals, Tri-Annual Review, Reconciliations
• CAPs not adequately documented to cover GAPs or deficiencies:
– Inadequate documentation to support outcome, No CAP implementation plan, Missing CAPs
Even with support from the FIAR office, reconciliations (feeder system to GL) and accruals may still be an issue after 9/30/14
ODO SBA Audit Challenges
15
• Incomplete System Inventory: One or more important components/ pieces of the system environment excluded from audit readiness testing
• Audit-Relevant Control Objectives Not Included: Audit-relevant IT General and/or Application control objectives not documented or excluded from the scope of testing
• Incomplete Documentation of Controls: Written description of controls do not provide enough information for the reader to understand the design of the actual control in place
• Improperly Designed Tests of Controls / Unsupported Reliance on Test Results: Selection of incorrect testing techniques(s), incorrect testing population, or inadequate sample sizes. Concluding control is effective when test results indicate otherwise or the control was not tested.
• Corrective Actions Not Implemented: Assertions of audit readiness before important / key controls have been remediated
IT Audit Readiness Challenges
16
• Complex and undefined system landscape (many systems – multiple service providers)
• Significant interdependencies with Service Providers
• Complexities related suballotments
• Ill-defined chain of command; lines of authority and communication are not codified
• Lack of entity level controls including Defense-wide management structure
• Limited experienced audit personnel throughout DoD infrastructure
Other Strategic Challenges
18
DoD Current State Overview Current State Summary: DFAS is heavily dependent on manual reconciliation processes to validate the completeness and accuracy of the various
Legacy and ERP general ledgers and accounting details. To meet the FIAR requirements, DoD customers, in collaboration with DFAS centers, have
developed, or are developing, custom reconciliation tools targeted at specific processes (e.g. FBwT tools such as CCAS & DRRT). Significant data
architecture and information management challenges exist in consolidating the disparate reconciliation efforts into a single process.
Lack of visibility into the reconciliation process and a clearly defined audit trial
Limited availability of reports to monitor and review outstanding items on a timely basis
Manual audit requests and review of account reconciliation
Difficulty validating the completeness of a transaction population based on feeder system inputs
Difficulty drilling down from the Financial Statements to the lowest transaction detail level
DFAS Auditability Pain Points Manual intensive process (matching, processing, follow-up on outstanding items, and corrective actions)
Reliance on Excel and Access as the primary tool for performing matching which is time consuming and error prone
Starting to develop reconciliations using tools like ACL and SAS
Review and approval processes performed outside the system using paper reconciliations including supporting documents
Custom FBwT tools provide a more mature reconciliation process at a significant investment to DFAS
Each reconciliation tool is dependent on unique data extraction methods – both manual and automated
Minimal standardization of reconciliation reports and issue identification, investigation, and resolution
Reconciliation Current State
DFAS Reconciliation Tool Maturity
Developing
(Manual and Labor Intensive)
Defined
(Analytical Focused)
Advanced
(Automated & Recon-Targeted)
Leading
(End-to-End Recon Process)
• +80% of DFAS Recon Processes
• Report, Excel, or Access-Focused
• Some ACL, SAS, and Informatica
efforts across DFAS
• Does not integrate analysis with issue
tracking, investigation, and resolution
• Custom developed FBwT Tools align
here
• BAM Workbenches
• DFAS does not have any leading
reconciliation tools or processes
6/11/2014
19
• Focus on current activity on the SBR (SBA)
• Determine a medium for centralizing all current month activity from necessary entitlement, disbursing, accounting, and reporting systems for each activity.
• Establish procedures for all necessary systems to submit current month files to the centralized medium, including a standard reporting format.
• Align IPA identified reconciliations to categories and rank based on risk
• Identify elements from each system that can be used to reconcile between them
• Identify AU’s responsible for each reconciliation and researching out of balances
1. Determine requirements and prioritize
• Determine population of reconciliations residing with each AU and how they are performed
• Identify gaps and deficiencies between reconciliation needed and what is being performed through FISCAM and FMFIA reviews
2. Identify current state of environment
• Determine the driver of deficiencies on recons currently established
• Identify most effective method of implementing remaining reconciliations
• Ensure proper documentation of all procedures to support MICP
3. Prioritize and close gaps
• Identify lingering deficiencies requiring elevation
• Identify additional deficiencies as they develop
• Obtained IPA validations of remediated state
4. Continuously monitor revised state
• Identify future opportunities for standardization across sites/services
• Eliminate redundancy across different operation levels
• Evaluate future need to create a common data repository for storage of data 5. Develop synergies
Reconciliation Strategy: The Five Phases
20
Maturity Model
6/11/2014 20
Companies typically mature from an unstructured approach towards information management and Business Intelligence and toward a more mature and structured process. At a high-level, the development often follows a path such as this:
Current Status
Short Term Goal
Long Term Goal
21
Ad-hoc
Tools
Analytic/
Repository Tools
• Manual Matching
• Manual Issue Tracking
Integrated
Solutions
Analytic
Tools
Defined Leading Advanced
Maturity
• Auto-matching and auto-certification logic • Automation and repeatability • Direct connection to data sources
•Manual Issue Tracking and supporting documentation external to tool •Non-standard reports
• Auto-matching and auto-certification logic • Automation and repeatability • Direct connection to data sources • Maturing standardization of report templates • Manual issue tracking • Supporting Documentation stored within tool • Integration with business processes
• Auto-matching and auto-certification logic • Automation and repeatability • Direct connection to data sources • Most Mature standardization of report templates • Auto-workflow integrated into tool providing issue tracking • Supporting Documentation stored within tool •Evidence for JVs produced within tool. •Dashboards and other reporting functionality integrated.
Developing
Key Activities
Key Activities
Key Activities
Key Activities • MS Access
• MS Excel
• ACL Desktop
• SAS
• ACL AX
• Informatica
• DFAS Custom Tools (CCAS,
ART, AFT, DRRT)
• SmartStream • Oversight
Workbench
(BAM)
• IDEA
• Arbutus
• ACL AX with GRC
• Chesapeake
• Trintech
• Checkfree
• BlackLine
This chart demonstrates the level of maturity of different reconciliation tools. Both the tools used by DFAS and the
commercial-focused 3rd party reconciliation tools are listed.
• SAS Enterprise GRC
DFAS Current State
• Archer eGRC
Potential Maturity Phases: Reconciliation Tools
21 6/11/2014
22
DFAS Current State – Beginning/Developing Phase
22
This diagram represents DFAS current approach to reconciliations. Processes are siloed; data source dependencies are complex and
over-lapping; minimal standardization of reconciliation reports and approaches; and, no central issue tracking.
*
6/11/2014
25
Required Levels of Reconciliation: Agency Level
6/11/2014 25
Legend
= Flow of Transactions = Required Reconciliations = New Processes/Reports
26
Required Levels of Reconciliation: AU Level
6/11/2014 26
Legend
= Flow of Transactions = Required Reconciliations
27
27
Integrity - Service - Innovation
Phase Actions Notes
1 GL UTB (Step 0)
1A) Field Level GL UTB compiled with validation that Proprietary Debits = Credits and Budgetary Debits = Credits
Reconcile The GL UTB should balance & reconcile
prior to transmission to DDRS-B 1B) Validate GL account balances crosswalk to GL UTB Test Posting Logic
2 Transmit GL UTB to DDRS-B and
Create DDRS-B UTB (Step 1-4)
2A) Validate interface control Key Control
The GL UTB should reconcile to DDRS-B UTB
2B) Reconcile GL UTB to DDRS-B UTB Perform data steps (0-4)
2C) Validate GL UTB to DDRS-B UTB cross-walks Identified through data steps (0-4); Working group
2D) Validate GL UTB to DDRS-B UTB exclusions Key controls
2E) Validate adjusting entries Key controls
3 Produce DDRS-B ATB and
generate SF-133 (Steps 5-7)
3A) Reconcile DDRS-B UTB to DDRS-B ATB Perform data recon (steps 5-10) for consolidated view of SBR
The DDRS-B ATB should reconcile to DDRS-AFS ATB
3B) Validate Journal Voucher entries Key control
3C) Validate proprietary to budgetary tie points Key control
3D) Validate DDRS-B ATB (debits = credits) Key control
3E) Reconcile DDRS-B SF-133 to FMB SF132 funding Key control
4 Transmit DDRS-B ATB to DDRS-AFS and produce DDRS-AFS ATB
(Steps 8-9)
4A) Validate interface control Key control
4B) Reconcile DDRS-B ATB to DDRS-AFS ATB Perform data steps (5-10)
4C) Validate DDRS-B to DDRS-AFS crosswalks Key controls
4D) Validate Journal Voucher entries Key controls
4E) Validate proprietary to budgetary tie points Identified for steps (5-10)
4F) Validate DDRS-AFS ATB (debits = credits) Key controls
5 Produce SBA
(Step 10)
5A) Reconcile DDRS-AFS ATB to the SBA and validate cross-walks Automated Process – FISCAM The DDRS-AFS ATB should reconcile to the SBA Financial Statement & the
Budgetary SF-133 report 5B) Reconcile SBA to SF-133 Automated Process – FISCAM
6/11/2014
Financial Reporting Business Process Summary – SBA
28
GL UTB to DDRS-AFS ATB Reconciliation
6/11/2014 28
FSCR GL UTB – DDRS-AFS ATB Reconciliation For SBAD
ata
Wit
hin
DD
RS-
ICe
Dat
a N
ot
Wit
hin
DD
RS-
ICe
Pictural Flow
3.0Memo Crosswalked
GL’s
4.0Unadjusted SFIS
Trial Balance
Start
2.0LOA Excludes
STARS-FL UTB 1.1
STARS-HCM UTB 1.2
NSMA UTB 1.3
Navy ERP UTB 1.4
PBIS Feeder File 1.5
DCAS Feeder File 1.6
(=)(-)
(=)
5.0DDRS-B UTB
Beg. Balance +Year to Date
7.0DDRS-B ATB
Ending Amount
8.0Crosswalks + Import Adjustments + AFS
JV Amounts+ Adjust Report
Mappings
9.0DDRS-AFS ATBEnding Amount
10.0Apply Report
Mapping
End
6.0DDRS-B Beg. Balance
Adj.+
Budget JV Amount
(+)
(=)
(+/-)
(=)
11.0SBA/FinancialStatements
(=)
(+/-)
29
UTB-ATB Process Flow
29
DDRS-ICe BE Beg Bal
Field Level Feeder Files
DDRS-ICe YTD
DDRS-ICe AFS Ending
Amount
Derived ICe SBR Line Items
DDRS-ICe Import Adj
DDRS-ICe BE JV Amount
DDRS-ICe BE Ending Amount
DDRS-ICe Unknown Feeder TB
DDRS-ICe BE Beg Bal Adj
DDRS-B Excluded TB
List
DDRS-ICe AFS JV Amount
DDRS-B JV Log
DDRS-B Ending TB
DDRS-AFS Import Adj Log
DDRS-AFS JV Log
DDRS-AFS Ending TB
Reconciliation (by DFAS/Component)
DDRS-B/AFS to DDRS-ICe Validation
DDRS-AFS SBR
31
• The following are the 9 of the 16 Principal Staff Assistant (PSA) Offices that execute Defense-wide funds:
– Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) Policy
– OUSD Personnel and Readiness
– OUSD Comptroller
– OUSD Intelligence
– Office of the Director of Administration and Management
– Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General
– Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs
– Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer
– OUSD Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Defense-wide ODO Audit Strategy Complexities: PSAs
32
• System landscape is complex and undefined
– Currently identified over 70 systems with significant financial statement impact, with several not FISCAM compliant
Many systems (e.g., GFEBS, EBS, etc.) are not ready to support the audit (i.e., FISCAM ready) or configured to support compliance with FFMIA requirements (e.g., ensuring accurate, reliable, timely financial management information)
• Significant interdependencies with Service Providers
‒ Multiple Services Providers at various stages of audit readiness
‒ Identification of key stakeholders, particularly those individuals/agencies external to ODOs, not happening early enough in the process
• Complexities related suballotments
– The ODOs who are suballotting the funds do not have control over the execution of the funds
Other Strategic Challenges
33
• Ill-defined chain of command
– Many of the Financial Statement Reporting Entities (FSREs) do not have the organizational authority to the agency that is executing the Defense-wide funds
Service Medical Agency (SMA) is comprised of three FSREs: SMA-Army, SMA-Navy, and SMA-Air Force. However, the funds are executed by MEDCOM, BUMED, and AFMS. These agencies are structured under the Military Services line of authority.
• Lack of entity level controls including Defense-wide management structure
‒ Several of the ODOs do not have entity level control (e.g., SMAs, SOCOMs, CBDP, etc.)
• Limited experienced audit personnel throughout DoD infrastructure
Other Strategic Challenges (cont.)
34
USAF Balance Sheet Drill Down
6/11/2014 Integrity - Service - 34
Balance Sheet -- Process and System Drill Down Analysis
** GAFS-R Public Civ Pay AP 387,857,276
Correct AP Postings (26,707) Processed Corrections (394,860,491) Pending Corrections 1,070,689 Further Analysis Required (5,959,233)
*** Mil Pay GAFS-R JVs 58,552,174,135
GAFS-R Detail 58,162,466,928 Net Mil Pay 389,707,207
Accomplishments:
• Accounts Payable FY14 Q1 balance “drilled down” to transaction detail
• GAFS-R FY14 Q1 USSGL 4901 (Delivered Orders-Obligations Unpaid) SBA transactions stratified and aged
• Confirmed MOCAS AP accrual JVs were posted to assigned native GLACs 2110.NFM and 2960.NUCM
• MOCAS – Aged public payable clean up actions processed 7 Apr.
Next Steps:
• Capture Vendor Pay (IAPS) accruals
• Implement USAF SBR-ART Leveraging Technology recons impacting Public AP
• Determine materiality of DARTS TBO Prevalidation public AP process
• Validate Mil Pay public AP GAFS-R detail postings
DD
RS-
AFS
Dri
ll D
ow
n
Fin
anci
al
Stat
em
en
t
Li
ne
Ite
m
DD
RS-
AFS
GA
FS-R
Dri
ll D
ow
n
Bu
dge
t Ex
ecu
tio
n
Acc
ou
nti
ng/
Fe
ed
er
Syst
em
s C
ate
gory
/ C
lass
ific
atio
n
Enti
tlem
en
t ES
S Q
uar
terl
y R
ep
ort
CEEMIS
$55,764,216
STARS
$15,279,942
Identified Other *
$771,282,177
Contract Pay (MOCAS & CPAS)
$1,747,496,905
Travel Pay
($105,392,358)
Vendor Pay
($246,851,890)
AFS JVs
$66,151,860
Civ Pay**
$387,857,276
Undistributed JVs
($979,873,021)
Imported TB to AFS
$3,254,537,407
* Identified Other includes PC Z, etc.
and may flow directly into GAFS-R
not through BL
SABRS
$2,568,336
ERP
$5,272,822
Amounts Requiring Additional Research
DEAMS
$5,272,822
Balance Sheet – USAF General Funds
(as of 1QFY2014)
$58,700,659,205** $753,303,887
$502,214,699
$105,392,358 ($557,644,923) ($89,326,899)
AP Public – 4B (Note12) 2110, 2120, 2140, 2960
$3,320,687,267
GAFS-R MOCAS Accrual JVs $849,724,760
GAFS-R Mil Pay JVs***
$58,789,941,955
DJMS
TBD
TBO/State Dept
$17,978,290
MOCAS
$1,245,282,206
DTS/RTS
TBD
IAPS
$310,793,033
DEAMS
$94,599,721
Mil Pay***
($58,700,659,205)
Legacy
($55,865,609,627)
GAFS-BL
($56,146,267,095)
OAC 60, CEEMIS,
STARS, SABRS
$275,384,647
OAC 60, CEEMIS, STARS, SABRS
TBD
$275,384,647
OAC 60
$201,772,152
GAFS-R Civ Pay JVs**
($394,860,491)
GAFS-R Other JVs
$855,511,830
top related