Tele-briefing Feb. 8, 2012

PVS Update and What You Can Do

1

Introduction

Kay Guinane, Director, Charity & Security Network

• Presentation by Robert M. Lloyd • Logistical information on how to comment• Q&A• Conclusion

2

Robert M. Lloyd, Consultant

• Expert on federal acquisition, administration and audit of federal grants and contracts

• Adjunct faculty at American University and South Carolina University

• Author

• Advises nonprofits

3

4

Telebriefing on RMA/PVS

PresentedBy

Bob LloydGovernment Relations Associate, Inside NGO

February 8, 2012

5

Current Issue

• U.S. Department of State,

Bureau of Administration

Information Collection Request

Risk Analysis and Management (RMA)*• Published in the Federal Register• January 18, 2012 (77 FR 2601)

* [also known as Partner Vetting System (PVS)]

6

Information Collection Request

• Affecting Potential Contractors, Subcontractors, Grantees and Subgrantees

--- Directors

--- Officers

--- Key Personnel

7

Previous Timeline

• July, 2007—USAID proposes PVS based on two occurrences in West Bank/Gaza

--- Proposal to establish system--- Proposal to exempt from Privacy Act

protections--- Proposed information collections• October, 2007—USAID identifies operational

details of proposed information collection• January, 2009—Final rule issued• February, 2009—Comment period reopened

8

Previous Timeline

• Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY 2010 (Division F, PL 111-117), 12/16/09

• GAO Report on Vetting in Afghanistan (GAO 11-355, 6/8/11)

• Joint State Department-USAID Status Meeting, 9/8/11

• State Department Information Collection Notice, 76 FR 65317, 10/20/11 (60 Day Comment Period)

9

Inside NGO Activities

• Seven sets of comments (July, 2007-December, 2011)

• Targets--- USAID, Privacy Act Officer--- USAID, Bureau of Management--- USAID, Counterterrorism Coordinator--- OMB/OIRA, USAID Desk Officer--- DOS, Bureau of Administration

10

Previously Stated Objections

• Unjustified programmatically—no evidence that funds are going to terrorist groups

• Challengeable on constitutional grounds• Lacking in comprehensive legal authority• Circular A-110 class deviation needed• Inconsistent with Administration policy• Detrimental to development and foreign

assistance objectives• Flawed public burden estimates

11

Known Operational Details

• Pilot Program• Restricted by Statutory Language in

FY2010 Appropriations Act• Use of National Security Databases• Proposed DS Form 4184• Creation of a Secure Portal for the

PVS/RMA Database• Affected Organizations Would Submit

Information Directly to Database

12

Five Countries

• Testing Awards in These Countries --- Ukraine--- Philippines--- Lebanon--- Kenya--- Guatemala

• Criteria--“Range of Risk”

13

Unknown Operational Details

• Timing of Information Collection

--- Initial Application?

--- As “Lower Tier Organizations” Join?

• Obligation to Respond: “VOLUNTARY”

14

“Stated” Objectives of the Pilot

• Determine cost and benefit of expansion

• “Validation” of risk based model

• Collection of data on:

--- Number of awards affected

--- Financial information for cost-benefit analysis

15

What Parallel Action Has USAID Pursued?

• Extension of Previously Approved Information Collection No. 0412-0577

• Original Expiration Date: 8/31/11

• “Pilot” PVS

• Original Asserted Scope: 2,000 people; 500 organizations; $0 cost

• See OIRA link at www.omb.gov

16

Why is DOS Required to Obtain Comment?

• Requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and its regulations (5 CFR 1320)

• Process:

--- State collects comments

--- Sends them to OMB along with justification

--- OMB can obtain additional comments *

--- OMB can approve, disapprove, or require agency to modify the request

17

Criteria for Current Comments

• Whether the collection of information is necessary for proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• The accuracy of the burden estimates;• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

of the information collected;• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of

information on respondents, including use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology

18

Suggested Challenges

• Not necessary--- West Bank Gaza incident = isolated--- No indication of occurrences since--- Chilling effect on participation in USG

programs--- Scope of “pilot” program being broadened

without justification; expansion appears to be a foregone conclusion (DOS/USAID Status Report, 9/8/11)

19

Suggested challenges

• Burden estimates--no way to judge accuracy

• Previous USAID program approved for 2,000 individuals and 500 organizations

• USAID proposal sought use for 40,000 individuals and 4,000 organizations; 15 minutes per transaction

• DOS estimates• Number of organizations (e.g., 541 registered PVO’s,

subawardees)• Number of individuals (Board, Management, Staff)

20

Suggested Challenges• Ways to enhance quality, utility and clarity of information and

minimize burden:

--- Potential duplication of information if collected contemporaneously with application or proposal submissions

--- Substantial duplication of information being collected under ARRA (2 CFR 176), FFATA (2 CFR 25, 2 CFR 170)

--- No apparent attempt to coordinate with those information collection or to utilize screening mechanisms available under 2 CFR 180 (EPLS) and 31 CFR 598 (OFAC)

• Significant data security questions

21

What You Should Do…

• Review FR announcement and previous letters• Draft your own letter with as much specificity as

possible• Send a copy to Charity & Security Network and

to Inside NGO• Send a copy to your Senators and

Representative explaining the basis for your submission

• Keep Charity & Security Network and Inside NGO informed about ongoing vetting developments

22

Why Bother?

• Continued engagement in opposition!

• The audience is OMB!

Conclusion

The more comments OMB receives the more likely the problems with PVS will get some attention.

Added bonus: remember that your comments are on the public record, and can be read by the media, Congressional staff and others.

23