1 / 27

USPFO ADVISORY COUNCIL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TRAINING

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

ivria
Download Presentation

USPFO ADVISORY COUNCIL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TRAINING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. USPFO ADVISORY COUNCIL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TRAINING

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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” !!!

  5. 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

  6. COURSE FOCUS THE FOCUS OF THIS COURSE IS TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTION AT THEUSER LEVEL, WHICH WILL ENABLE THE STUDENTS, THROUGH INTERACTION WITH THE INSTRUCTORS AND OTHER STUDENTS, TODEVELOP TECHNIQUESTHAT THEY CAN USE IN THEDAY-TO-DAY ADMINISTRATIONOF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

  7. SOURCEMATERIAL 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

  8. IT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE INSTRUCTORS TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON A PARTICULAR STATE’S OPERATION (STATE OR FEDERAL)

  9. THE PRESENTERS WILL NOT MAKE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT POLICY FOR NGB-ZC-PARC-A

  10. WHILE THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A CERTIFICATION COURSE, YOUR SUPERVISOR MAY CERTIFY THIS TRAINING FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION UNITS

  11. TRAINING SITECASE STUDY

  12. BACKGROUND1978 - 1990 • State Owned Training Site - Firing Ranges • Training Site - CA (100% Federal) • Separate Lease Agreement with Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM)

  13. 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.

  14. Audit Resolution • Army Audit Agency (AAA) Would Audit Lease Agreement. • Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Would Audit Training Site Agreement.

  15. 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.

  16. Inherent Audit Problems • TSA Treated As A Federal Contract • Poor Relationship Between Training Site Personnel and DCAA Auditors

  17. 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

  18. HOW DOES THE USPFO ADVISE THE TAG HE OWES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT $4.1 MILLION?

  19. USPFO WOULD SEND IN HIS DEPUTY TO TELL THE TAG.

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. Final SettlementFederal Suit • Parties Could Not Agree On Whether Funds Had Been Improperly Spent • Final Settlement: State Agreed To Repay $1.3 Million

  24. Aftermath • What Led To This FIASCO • Not Clear Whether Training Site Personnel Did Anything Wrong

  25. 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

  26. THE LESSON LEARNED WAS A HARD ONE AND ONE THAT PROMPTED A TOP TO BOTTOM OVERHAUL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT RULES AND REGULATONS.

  27. QUESTIONS?

More Related