USPFO ADVISORY COUNCIL

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TRAINING

Cooperative Agreement Course Components

• Focus at user level, with emphasis on day-to-day administration

• Presented in a format that allows for student interaction

• Instructors are individuals who have experience with Cooperative Agreements

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MISSION STATEMENT

THIS COURSE IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A “BASIC KNOWLEDGE” OF THE POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES TO BE USED FOR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES

PROPERTY AND FISCAL OFFICES AND THE STATE, TERRITORY AND COMMONWEALTH ARMY AND AIR

NATIONAL GUARD AUTHORITIES.

INSTRUCTORS’ DESIREDOUTCOME

• THAT YOU OBTAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM.

• THAT YOU WILL OBTAIN SOME TECHNIQUES/IDEAS TO ASSIST IN THE MANAGEMENT OF YOUR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

• THAT YOU ESTABLISH A NEW NETWORK OF PEERS THAT YOU CAN LEVERAGE IN THE FUTURE.

• THAT YOU HAVE SOME “FUN” !!!

AUDIENCE

THE TARGET AUDIENCE FOR THIS COURSE IS THE UNITED STATES PROPERTY AND FISCAL

OFFICERS, GRANTS SPECIALISTS, FISCAL ACCOUNTING PERSONNEL, COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENT PROGRAM MANAGERS, INTERNAL REVIEW AUDITORS, JAGS, AND STATE

FINANCIAL PERSONNEL, WHO ADMINISTER THE AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ADJUTANT

GENERAL

COURSE FOCUS

THE FOCUS OF THIS COURSE IS TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTION AT THE USER LEVEL, WHICH WILL ENABLE THE STUDENTS, THROUGH INTERACTION WITH THE INSTRUCTORS AND OTHER STUDENTS, TO DEVELOP TECHNIQUES THAT THEY CAN USE IN THE DAY-TO-DAY ADMINISTRATION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

SOURCE MATERIAL

THE FORMAL SOURCE MATERIAL FOR THIS INSTRUCTION IS CONTAINED IN “DOD REGULATION 3210.6-R GRANTS AND AGREEMENT REGULATIONS”

AND NGR 5-1/ANGI 63-101. HOWEVER IT IS INTENDED THAT A MAJOR PORTION OF THE

INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL COME FROM THE PARTICIPANTS

IT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE INSTRUCTORS TO PASS

JUDGEMENT ON A PARTICULAR STATE’S

OPERATION (STATE OR FEDERAL)

THE PRESENTERS WILL NOT MAKE COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENT POLICY FOR NGB-ZC-PARC-A

WHILE THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A CERTIFICATION COURSE, YOUR SUPERVISOR MAY CERTIFY THIS

TRAINING FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION UNITS

TRAINING SITECASE STUDY

BACKGROUND1978 - 1990

• State Owned Training Site - Firing Ranges

• Training Site - CA (100% Federal)

• Separate Lease Agreement with Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM)

Determination Audit Cognizance

• State Requested Audit Of Training Site Agreement

• Dispute over Audit Cognizance

• Defense Contracting Audit Agency (DCAA) Reviewed All Reimbursement Vouchers Prior To Payment.

Audit Resolution

• Army Audit Agency (AAA) Would Audit Lease Agreement.

• Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Would Audit Training Site Agreement.

Audit of TSA

• DCAA Initiated Audit in 1986

• State Was Treated By Auditor As Defense Contractor

• DCAA Used Federal Contracting Cost Principles Vrs. Cost Principles of Grants & Cooperative Agreements.

Inherent Audit Problems

• TSA Treated As A Federal Contract

• Poor Relationship Between Training Site Personnel and DCAA Auditors

Audit Findings

• NGB Funds Expended For Purely State Operations

• NGB Funds Used To Improve Facilities That Directly Supported DCM

• State Did Not Use These Funds To Support Training of National Guard Soldiers

• Auditor Disallowed $4.1 Million in Costs

HOW DOES THE USPFO ADVISE THE TAG HE OWES

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT$4.1 MILLION?

USPFO WOULD SEND IN HIS DEPUTY TO TELL THE TAG.

Appeal Process

• State Appealed Findings To Federal Contracting Officer (USPFO)

• USPFO Denied Appeal• State Appealed to Armed Services Board of

Contract Appeal (ASBCA)• US District Attorney Noted That ASBCA

Lacked Jurisdiction• Resolution Should Be Internal To NGB

National Guard’sProposed Settlement

• State Agreed $2 Million Was Owed

• Settlement: State Proposed To Pay $1 Million Over 5 Years And To Drop Their Appeal

But Wait!

• The US Attorney claiming fraud felt NGB did not have the authority to settle the dispute.

• Department of Justice filed Suit claiming 229 false claims had been made by State.

• The United States also sought Treble Damages and forfeitures of ten thousand dollars per false claim.

Final SettlementFederal Suit

• Parties Could Not Agree On Whether Funds Had Been Improperly Spent

• Final Settlement: State Agreed To Repay $1.3 Million

Aftermath

• What Led To This FIASCO

• Not Clear Whether Training Site Personnel Did Anything Wrong

LESSONS LEARNED

• Lack of understanding of the real purpose of the Cooperative Agreement

• A desire to please - not considering ramifications

• Complacency/ No regular oversight

• Lack of guidelines and training on Cooperative Funding Agreements

THE LESSON LEARNED WAS A HARD ONEAND ONE THAT PROMPTED A TOP TO

BOTTOM OVERHAUL OF COOPERATIVEAGREEMENT RULES AND REGULATONS.

QUESTIONS?