CONPVA — EDIFACT Payment Valuation Message (D.24A)

The CONPVA message conveys the payment valuation issued in the context of a staged works or supply contract: it records a milestone, certifies the amounts eligible for payment, identifies retentions and conditional clauses, and underpins the subsequent issuance of an invoice or INVOIC. Used in construction, public procurement and large industrial programmes. This page summarises the segment structure as published by UN/CEFACT for directory D.24A.

Purpose

The CONPVA message conveys the payment valuation issued in the context of a staged works or supply contract: it records a milestone, certifies the amounts eligible for payment, identifies retentions and conditional clauses, and underpins the subsequent issuance of an invoice or INVOIC. Used in construction, public procurement and large industrial programmes.

This page focuses on the structure published by UN/CEFACT for directory D.24A. The segments listed, their status (M / C), position and repetition factor are extracted from the official file conpva_c.htm hosted on service.unece.org.

Segment structure

The CONPVA D.24A message has 86 header entries, 38 detail entries and 6 summary entries (segments and groups combined). Groups are shown in bold and their members are indented by actual nesting depth.

Header

Detail

Summary

Changes vs D.96A

Top-level differences between D.96A and D.24A for the CONPVA message (segments directly inside header / detail / summary, ignoring nested groups). The comparison is indicative: a given tag may have evolved inside nested groups without showing up in this synthesis.

Segments added vs D.96A

• PYT in the header section (status C, repeat ×1) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.
• GEI in the detail section (status C, repeat ×5) — not present at the top of the corresponding D.96A section.

Segments removed vs D.96A

• PAT in the header section — present in D.96A but missing in D.24A at the same level.
• GIS in the detail section — present in D.96A but missing in D.24A at the same level.

Status changes (M ↔ C)

• PCD (header): status M in D.96A → C in D.24A.

Max-repeat changes

• PCD (header): repeat ×1 in D.96A → ×9 in D.24A.

Structural example

Minimal example of an CONPVA D.24A message with mandatory segments only. The goal is to show the exact version declared in UNH (CONPVA:D:24A:UN) — not to replicate a full business case (see the CONPVA D.96A page for an annotated example).

UNB+UNOC:3+5410000000123:14+5410000000456:14+260514:1430+CTRL024001'
UNH+1+CONPVA:D:24A:UN'
BGM+500+CONPVA-2026-PV-0042+9'
DTM+137:20260514:102'
DTM+155:20260514:102'
RFF+CT:CONTRACT-WORKS-2026-A18'
NAD+EM+5410000000123::9'
NAD+EN+5410000000456::9'
LIN+1++PHASE-3:STAGE'
MOA+9:182500.00:EUR'
MOA+165:9125.00:EUR'
UNT+11+1'
UNZ+1+CTRL024001'

Common errors

• Misaligned UNH tokens — The UNH+...+CONPVA:D:24A:UN token must reflect exactly the directory in use — a mismatch between the UNH release and the release agreed with the partner is rejected by every strict validator.
• Wrong UNT segment count — The value after UNT+ must include UNH and UNT themselves. By far the most common sender-side error, regardless of the directory in use.
• Stale code lists — Between D.96A and D.24A, several code lists received new qualifiers (DTM status, RFF qualifier, NAD codes…). Reusing an older directory’s code tables triggers warnings or even rejections depending on the partner’s strict-conformance mode.

Related messages

Other versions of this message available on ediverse.io: CONPVA D.96A, CONPVA D.10A, CONPVA D.16B, CONPVA D.21B.

← All EDIFACT versions