Comparison of Proposed USAID Partner Vetting System for NGOs and Contractors

in
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date: 
August 21, 2009

Between the Partner Vetting Systems (PVS) proposed by USAID for NGOs and contractors, several critical differences emerge.  This chart outlines them.

Proposed contractor rule: "USAID intends to apply PVS to both assistance and acquisitions."
 

PVS Provision NGOs Contractors Comment
Purpose USAID's goal is to "conduct screening to ensure USAID funds and USAID-funded activities are not purposefully or inadvertently used to provide support to entities or individuals deemed to be a risk to national security." [p. 9] The Background section says PVS is necessary "to help ensure that agency funds and other resources do not inadvertently benefit individuals or entities that are terrorists, supporters of terrorists or affiliated with terrorists."  The NGO rule has no definition of what a "risk to national security" is or what criteria are used to deem an individual or group to be such a risk. 
 
The proposed contractor rule does not define what is meant by "supporters" or "affiliated with" terrorists. 
Limitations None. Applies to all grant applicants. The notice says USAID will "perform a risk based assessment to determine the likelihood that the funds, goods, services, or other benefits to be provided" could end up benefitting terrorists or their supporters, "including people or organizations that who are not specifically designated by the U.S. Government but who may nevertheless be linked to terrorist activities."[1]
  		This is a key difference. There is no justification for imposing PVS on all NGO grant applicants, regardless of the potential risk USAID funds may be used inappropriately, and not doing so for contractors. To be consistent and fair, the risk assessment provision should apply to NGOs as well, regardless of the final structure of the vetting system.
 
There is no standard for determining who is "linked" to terrorist activities.
Use of information by USAID "Information provided to USAID by
applicants will be transmitted to USAID employees who will check that information against one or more databases maintained by the intelligence community." 		No specific language. PVS effectively uses NGOs and contractors as government investigators in violation of their status as independent entities. This can endanger NGO employees.
 
 
Consideration of impact No language. USAID wants to ensure rule "minimizes the impact on our programs and contractors while still protecting against the possibility that USAID funds could benefit terrorist groups." USAID does not state it will seek to minimize the burden on NGOs and assistance programs.
Information to be submitted USAID Partner Information Form (Attachment A)[2] USAID Partner Information Form (Form 500-13) See footnote 2 The results of vetting will be flawed, as government watchlists are full of inaccuracies. There is no adequate redress process for a person to be removed from the list.
Definitions: key individuals None in rule. Partner Information Form Instructions Question 6 define as "Key individual” means (i) principal officers of the organization’s governing body (e.g., chairman, vice chairman, treasurer and secretary of the board of directors or board of trustees); (ii) the principal officer and deputy principal officer of the organization (e.g., executive director, deputy director, president, vice president); (iii) the program manager or chief of party for the USG-financed program; and (iv) any other person with significant responsibilities for administration of the USG-financed activities or resources." 
  		 “Key individual” means (1) principal officers of the organization’s governing body (e.g., chairman, vice chairman, treasurer and secretary of the board of directors or board of trustees); (2) the principal officer and deputy principal officer of the organization (e.g., executive director, deputy director, president, vice president); (3) the program manager or chief of party for the USG-financed program; and (4) any other person with significant responsibilities for administration of the USG-financed activities or resources, such as key personnel, whether or not they are employees of the prime contractor must be vetted."  These are essentially the same, but the definition for NGOs is not in the rule itself. To make PVS consistent, it should be spelled out in the rule in a manner similar to the contractor definition.
 
The definitions are overbroad, and will include individuals with no actual role in acquisition or programs.
 
Definitions: key personnel None. Background section says " Key personnel are those personnel
directly responsible for management of the contract or whose professional/
technical skills are certified by the
requiring office as being essential for successful implementation of the activity. They are designated in the contract and require USAID approval…" 		Definition of "key personnel" should be provided for NGOs.
Subcontractors Not specified. Required where consent required under FAR 52.244-2, although USAID may require vetting at any tier for supplies and services. Clear and common requirements should apply to both NGOs and contractors.
Verification of information The Partner Information Form requires the applicant to certify that it has "taken reasonable steps (in accordance with sound business practices) to verify the information contained in this form." Form 500-13- not available on the USAID website This not a practical requirement, and imposes an unrealistic and unnecessary burden on contractors and NGOs. Government should do its own investigations.
Standards/ Process for decision Grant applications will not be denied "merely because there is an 'encounter' or positive match between information provided by an applicant and information maintained in a terrorist database. Instead, USAID will 'look behind' that match, considering the accuracy and severity of the information, the reliability of the source, corroboration, and other pertinent matters before granting an award. This review will include assessment of the terrorist information available in relevant databases, consideration of information provided by the USAID Missions or U.S. Embassies or any other relevant information available to the Agency." [p. 12] No specifics provided. Grant applicant s will not know when anyone associated with it is flagged by the watch lists. There is no opportunity to present information that could eliminate a false positive. Data on innocent people submitted for vetting could end up being stored in intelligence databases.
 
Notification of decision USAID "will not confirm or deny the results of screening."
 
 "The amount of information provided to a denied applicant will be dependent on the sensitivity of the information…" [p. 14] 
  		" The vetting official notifies the offeror that it:
(i) Has passed vetting,
(ii) Has not passed vetting, or
(iii) Must provide additional information, and resubmit the Partner Information Form
with the additional information within the number of days the vetting specified in the notification."
Information deemed sensitive can be withheld. 		The contractor rule provides an opportunity not given NGOs: to resubmit the form with additional information prior to a decision on whether or not it passes vetting. Both NGOs and contractors should have this opportunity.
Reconsideration/Appeal Process "…any denial of funding by USAID as a result of PVS screening will be accompanied by a reason for that denial and an opportunity for the organization to appeal administratively."
  		Contractors would have a limited right to reconsideration if they do not pass vetting. They must submit a written request to USAID within seven days with any explanation, documentation or other information that may address the problem. USAID must make a decision within seven days. The decision is final. USAID's appeal plan for NGOs requires an applicant to wait until their application is denied before they have an opportunity to provide clarifying or supplemental information. This can result in substantial delays in program implementation, and puts an unfair burden on applicants.
 
The "appeal process" puts USAID in charge of reviewing its own actions.
Implementation Details to be provided in future guidance and protocols. Depends on final decision on PVS for NGOs.  

 


[1] Key factors in the risk assessment would include: The nature of the items provided (cash, goods, etc.), Whether the contract is with an NGO, U.S. contractor, foreign entity, Location of the activity, "how easily funds could be diverted or misused," Urgency of the activity, U.S. foreign policy considerations and Other.
 

[2] includes: name and government issued photo identification number, place of birth and date of birth, citizenship, gender, occupation, current employer and job title, home address, email address, rank or title in organization