|
In selecting which instrument to use to implement a results-oriented foreign
assistance activity, it is important to understand the differences among the
available options. Assistance instruments and procurement contracts are not
interchangeable. Statutory requirements, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
guidance (OMB, "Implementation of Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
of 1977" (Pub.1, 95-224), 43 Federal Register 36860-36865 (August 18, 1978)
(the 1978 OMB Guidance), and USAID policy (see ADS Chapters 200 (PDF 1MB)
and 300 (PDF 75KB)) provide criteria
and a collaborative procedure for choosing the right instrument for an activity.
This page provides information to help USAID Teams, Activity Managers, and Agreement
Officers make the right choice.
How different are "Assistance Instruments" and "Procurement
Contracts"?
Paul Dembling and Malcolm Mason, two of America's foremost authorities on the
legal aspects of grants and cooperative agreements, have summarized the differences
between assistance instruments and procurement contracts by writing that they:
"Serve different purposes;
Are entered into through different procedures;
Carry different conditions;
Permit different remedies;
Are enforced differently;
Are administered, generally and properly,
by different groups of people
and in a different spirit; and
On significant issues, have totally contradictory rules."
Essentials of Grant Law Practice (ALI ABA 1991), p. 3.
|
Do these differences make one type of instrument more suitable for results-oriented
activities than the other? No. As a general matter, both types are equally
appropriate and effective for use in results-oriented activities.
Can the type of instrument be selected on the basis of such considerations
as cost or administrative convenience? No. The criteria for selecting
an assistance instrument or a procurement contract are based on statute and
mandatory policy. It is not permissible to utilize one type or the other based
on subjective reasons, or merely to avoid certain requirements.
What do the differences between assistance instruments and procurement
contracts mean in practice? The following table notes some of the terminological
and substantive differences between assistance instruments and procurement contracts:
|
Issue
|
Assistance Instruments
|
Procurement Contracts
|
| Instrument Type(s) |
Grant or Cooperative Agreement |
Contract |
| General Nature |
Assistance |
Acquisition |
| Purpose |
Support or Stimulate a Public Purpose |
Purchase for Government's Direct Benefit or Use |
| Relationship |
Partner |
Vendor |
| Can It Be Results-Oriented? |
Yes! (Results-Oriented Assistance Instruments) |
Yes! (Performance-Based Service Contracts) |
| USAID's Role |
Donor/Funding Agency |
Purchaser/Client |
| Implementor's Role |
Implement Program |
Provide Goods or Services |
| M/OP Officer |
Agreement Officer ("AO") |
Contracting Officer ("CO") |
| Main Implementor |
Recipient |
Contractor |
| Sub-Implementors |
Subrecipients |
Subcontractors |
| Offer |
Application |
Bid or Proposal |
| Offeror |
Applicant |
Bidder or Offeror |
| Activity |
Program |
Work or Services |
| Solicitation |
Request for Applications (RFA) or Annual Program Statement (APS) |
Request for Proposals (RFP) or Invitation for Bids (IFB) |
| Description of Activity |
Program Description |
Statement of Work |
| Cost-Sharing |
Often |
Very Rare |
| Competition |
Encouraged by Policy |
Mandated by Statute |
| Award Protests |
No formal procedure; handled informally within USAID |
Can be filed with USAID, GAO, the Court of Federal Claims, or the Federal
District Courts |
| Activity Manager Administrative Authority |
Limited by regulation to selected essential aspects |
CO delegates broad Technical Directions Authority to "Technical Representative"
("CTO") |
| Basis of Payment |
Costs |
Usually Fixed Price or Rate, or Costs Plus Profit or Fee |
| Timing of Payment |
Reimbursement, Normally in Advance |
Reimbursement, normally after expense incurred |
| Performance Disputes |
AO Decision May be Appealed Within USAID Only |
CO Final Decision May Be Appealed to Armed Services Board of Contract
Appeals or Court of Federal Claims |
| Termination Rights |
For Cause, Mutually, or Changed Circumstances |
For Default or Unilaterally by USAID for Convenience |
Choosing Between "Assistance Instruments" and "Procurement
Contracts" to Implement an Activity: Law, Policy and Procedure
As noted above, selection of the appropriate type of instrument with which
to implement a foreign assistance activity is governed by statute and by OMB
and USAID policy and procedure. Grants must be used, by statute, when two criteria
apply:
-
the principal purpose of the relationship between USAID and an implementor
to be created by the agreement "Is to transfer a thing of value to the...recipient
to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a
law of the United States..."; and
-
substantial involvement by USAID is not anticipated in the conduct of the
activity. See 31 U.S.C. 6304.
USAID policy adds a third criterion, which flows from the first two:
-
that the recipient will have "substantial freedom to pursue its stated
program." See ADS 304.5.1c (PDF 75KB). Cooperative
Agreements, again by statute, must be used when the "principal purpose of
the relationship" test (same as for grants) is met; and substantial involvement
by USAID is anticipated in the conduct of the activity. See 31 U.S.C. 6305;
ADS 304.5.1b. (PDF 75KB)
USAID policy does not permit the use of either grants or cooperative agreements
in connection with activities over which "USAID plans to exercise a substantial
degree of operational control". See ADS 304.5.2. (PDF 75KB)
As a general rule, OMB does not favor the reservation of such control ("Agencies
should limit Federal involvement in assisted activities to the minimum consistent
with program requirements." 1978 OMB Guidance, Sec. C2.) USAID policy also imposes
limits on the permissible degree of substantial involvement under cooperative
agreements.
Procurement Contracts must be used when:
- the principal purpose of the instrument is "the acquisition, by purchase,
lease, or barter of property or services for the direct benefit or use of
USAID or any other Federal Government entity." See 31 U.S.C. 6303; ADS 304.5.1a (PDF 75KB)
Are certain types of activities linked to specific types of instruments?
No! As OMB's 1978 Guidance notes, "the selection of the appropriate legal instrument
[must] be based on the character of the specific transaction (i.e., procurement
or assistance) rather than on a functional activity or class of Recipient."
(P 36860, col.3) Thus, for example, federal funding for research is not always
provided through assistance instruments and construction, studies, and technical
assistance can occur under either assistance or procurement. It is not the activity
but rather the U.S. Government's primary purpose in funding it, and the nature
of the relationship intended to be created by the funding.
The chart below depicts the criteria for choosing among implementing instruments.
| |
Contract Agreement |
Cooperative Agreement |
Grant Agreement |
| Commonly-used Synonyms |
Acquisition instrument or award |
Assistance instrument or award |
| Role expected of USAID during activity implementation |
USAID states what goods/services/results it wants to buy and then monitors
and evaluates the Contractor's performance in providing these goods/services/results.
USAID decides on the requirements and standards and, depending on the
type of contract, may provide significant technical direction during contract
implementation.
|
By contrast, USAID has more limited management control
when an activity is implemented through assistance awards (grants
or cooperative agreements), because the nature of these instruments
prohibits USAID from exerting day-to-day operational control over
the recipient. The program remains largely the recipient's; with USAID
ensuring (prior to award) that the proposed program supports an SO. |
| "Substantial involvement** is anticipated between USAID and the
recipient during the performance of the proposed activity." |
"The recipient is to have substantial freedom to pursue the stated
program." "Substantial involvement is not anticipated between USAID
and the recipient during the performance of the proposed activity."
|
| Nature of the activity " |
A contract shall be used when the principal purpose of the instrument
is the acquisition ... of property or services for the direct benefit
of USAID or any other Federal Government entity." |
There are no clear categories of activities that are
better suited for one type of assistance instrument over the other.
|
| Type of implementing organization |
There is no general restriction, but most profit-making firms seek
and propose for acquisition awards (contracts). |
There is no general restriction, but most non-profit
organizations and universities seek assistance awards (grants or cooperative
agreements). |
| Trends from history |
40% of awards |
55% of awards |
**In the case of cooperative agreements, USAID may exercise "substantial involvement"
in prescribed areas, which provides some additional management control as opposed
to a straight grant. Unless a deviation is approved in accordance with ADS 303.5.3
and ADS 303.5.11, substantial involvement is limited to:
- Approval of the recipient's implementation plan.
- Approval of specified key personnel.
- Agency and recipient collaboration or joint participation.
- Agency authority to halt a construction activity immediately.
(See ADS 303 (PDF 542KB), Grants and Cooperative Agreements, for further information on substantial involvement.)
What is the procedure by which the appropriate instrument is selected,
and who has the authority and responsibility for the choice?
USAID policy provides the following guidance: (see ADS 304.3 (PDF 75KB)
and Series 300 Interim Update #17 (Word 36KB) "Choosing Between Acquisition and Assistance Instruments")
The Strategic Objective Team makes the initial call when it formulates
the elements of planned activities. The Team determines the purpose of the
transaction and the intended nature of the relationship. In some cases, it
will be quite clear from the outset which type of instrument is best suited
for a particular activity. In other cases, clarity will only be achieved through
an iterative process, or following consultations with the cognizant Agreement
Officer.
The Agreement Officer reviews the proposed document describing the activity
(a program description for assistance instruments, or a statement of work
for procurement contracts) and either approves or questions the method selected.
He or she may already have had input at the requirements formulation stage.
It is essential that discussions between the Strategic Objective Team and
the Agreement Officer concerning the appropriate instrument be collaborative.
All participants in the process must share the objective of full compliance
with applicable law and USAID policy, without preconceived preferences.
In the event of a disagreement between the Strategic Objective Team and
the Agreement Officer that cannot be resolved through discussions, the Agency
Procurement Executive in USAID/Washington has the authority to make the final
determination. (The 1978 OMB guidance specifically requires (Sec. D) that
decisions between assistance and procurement be "made or renewed at a policy
level.")
Sample Concerns and Requests for More Sources and Resources
As a strategic objective team, when do we choose between assistance instruments
(grant or cooperative agreement) and procurement contracts?
As early in the strategic planning process as possible, or as soon as the team
has begun its activity planning and is ready to respond to the following series
of questions: What is the principal purpose of the transaction? Is it to accomplish
a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute? If
so, how much substantial involvement is expected between the recipient and the
Strategic Objective Team when carrying out the activity contemplated in the
agreement? Or is the principal purpose acquisition of property or services for
the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government?
We have several registered non-governmental organizations (NGO) that
have existing relationships in-country but have limited resources. How do we
choose which NGO can best produce results that are aligned to USAID's strategic
objectives? What are the competition requirements related to choice of recipients
for grants and cooperative agreements?
It is USAID policy to compete all grants and cooperative agreements. Competition
is defined as being met when the requirement has been announced and award was
made following an impartial review and evaluation of all applications received.
USAID shall announce its assistance requirements by publishing an Annual Program
Statement (APS) or a Request for Applications (RFA). APS and RFAs shall be posted
on the USAID Internet Site, as well as in local publications, Mission Bulletin
Boards or local websites.
Our team knows of only one NGO with an existing relationship and with
predominant capability in achieving the results we want. Can we waive competition
requirements? What are the other instances when we can waive competition requirements?
Competition is not required for the following categories of assistance awards:
- amendments to existing assistance awards;
- follow-on awards intended to continue or further develop an existing assistance
relationship;
- awards based on unsolicited applications, provided that the Strategic Objective
team or the head of the Operating Unit certifies that the proposals were not
solicited by USAID; that based on a review by an appropriate technical specialist
and an Agreement Officer they are unique, innovative, or proprietary; and
that they represent appropriate use of USAID funds to support or stimulate
a public purpose and that they fit within strategic objectives;
- awards for which one recipient is considered to have predominant capability
based on experience, specialized facilities or technical competence, or an
existing relationship with the cooperating country or beneficiaries;
- situations which the cognizant Assistant Administrator, or the Office Director
who reports directly to the Administrator, deem to be critical to the objectives
of the foreign assistance program;
- certain small awards (estimated to total $50,000 or less and not to exceed
one year); and
- activities that respond to specific Congressional mandates (earmarks).
Where can I find the Code of Federal Regulations, circulars and OMB-prescribed
grants management standard forms? What about guides for best-practices?
|