COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENTS

UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO

2012 NASMRM Training Symposium

NGB Cooperative Agreement Program –

A Unique Federal/State Partnership

Presented By

Mary Ellen Lewis

23 May 2012

1



Topics of Discussion



NGB CA Program –

A Unique Federal/State Partnership



Overview of the NGB CA Program



Current Challenges

Lessons Learned-Best Practices



Strengthening the Partnership as We Go Forward

2



NGB CA Program –

A Unique Federal – State Partnership

It IS a unique Partnership:

- Between the Federal Government, the Grantor and the Adjutant General of the State Military

Department, the Grantee

- Through this Partnership Federal Assistance funds flow to the Grantee for the purpose of training, maintaining and equipping the State’s National Guard

- Nothing else like it in the Grants and CA world

3



A Unique Federal – State Partnership

(Cont’d)

- Our Agreements are not competitive

--Primarily 3 Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance (CFDA) Programs –

12.401 O&M

12.400 MILCON

12.404 NG Youth Programs Numbers

CFDA lists hundreds of Programs, individuals and organizations can compete for – not the case with our three Programs




(Cont’d)

- NG’s Authority for Entering into CAs

-- 32 USC Section 106 and 107 (O&M)

-- 10 USC Chapter 1803 (Construction)

-- 32 USC 501 (StarBase)

-- 32 USC 509 (ChalleNGe)

Statutory Authority must exist – if Authority is other than listed above, a Special Military Project Cooperative

Agreement will be executed




(Cont’d)

31 USC Section 6305 –

Using Cooperative Agreements

A Cooperative Agreement shall be used if the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to a Non-Federal entity to carry out a public purpose of support and substantial involvement between the executive agency and the recipient is expected in carrying out the activity in the Agreement




(Cont’d)

31 USC Section 6305 –

Translation:



When a Federal entity (NGB)



Transfers a thing of value (cash/in-kind assistance)



To a Non-Federal entity (State Military Department)



To assist or support a public purpose (SMD Operations)



That are authorized by Federal law (statutory authority)

7




Who are We?

We reside within the NGB Office of the Principal

Assistant Responsible for Contracting (NGB-PARC)

The Office of the PARC is responsible for policy development, ensuring and assessing compliance, with policy, and all training related to Grants and

Cooperative Agreements, Federal Contracts, E-

Commerce, Government Purchase Cards, and

Contingency Contracting




NGB Grants and Cooperative Agreements

(NGB-PARC-A)

Mary Ellen Lewis Chief

703-607-5284 maryellen.lewis@ngb.mil

Kate Brown Program Assistant

703-601-4380 katherine.brown7@ngb.mil

Dave Shaw

Joe Wannemacher

Program Analyst

Program Analyst




NGR 5-1, National Guard Grants and

Cooperative Agreements

Directs policy, procedures and guiding principles for the execution and management of NGB

Cooperative Agreements



Overview of NGB CA Program

NGB-PARC-A Responsibilities –

• Development of policy for the execution and management of CAs

• Coordinating the staffing and updates of CAs and Appendices

• Conducting policy reviews of CAs and Appendices

• Providing policy management and support to ensure that all NGB assistance programs comply with Federal laws, executive orders, regulations and directives

• Providing support, assistance, training and guidance to NGB and

USPFO staffs

• Appointment of USPFOs as Grants Officers

• Serving as the proponent office for NGB-Sponsored CA Training




NG’s Cooperative Agreements Program

It’s a Huge Program –

FY11 – $1,905,769,993 Awarded Through CAs to the States

12



FY11 CA Awards – Your States

FY11 CA Awards

Recipient Federal Dollars Recipient

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

Colorado

Delaware

DC

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

$42,475,779 Idaho

$27,429,710 Maine

$47,625,832 Maryland

$13,457,787 Michigan

$9,429,475 Montana

$1,634,234 Nebraska

$41,208,347 Nevada

$93,743,559 New Jersey

$28,443,754 New Mexico

Federal Dollars

$26,805,785

32,472,999

$8,148,347

$60,092,847

$25,800,808

$28,392,800

$15,857,800

$11,689,247

$11,978,624



FY11 CA Awards – Your States

(Cont’d)

FY11 CA Awards

Recipient Federal Dollars Recipient

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

PA

Rhode Island

$12,630,561 SC

$28,344,070 Tennessee

$38,734,855 Texas

$42,252,172 Utah

$49,908,003 Virgin Islands

$9,606,773 WV

Federal Dollars

$22,978,229

$19,788,537

$122,516,888

$32,039,250

$3,012,891

$20,291,377




Types of Agreements:

• Master Cooperative Agreement (MCA)

– Separate (Program) Appendices under MCA

• Master Construction Cooperative Agreement (MCCA)

• Special Military Project Cooperative Agreements

– Not under MCA or MCCA




• Master Cooperative Agreement (MCA) –

The MCA includes standard terms and conditions applicable to all Appendices under the MCA

•

Appendices –

Provides guidance, policy, terms and conditions relative to the Program which the Appendix supports

ARNG – 12 Program Appendices

ANG – 10 Program Appendices




ARNG Appendices

Appendix Program

1 ARNG Facilities Programs

2 ARNG Environmental Programs Resources Mgt

3 ARNG Security Guard Activities

4 ARNG Electronic Security System, Installation O&M

5 ARNG Command, Control, Communications, Computers Info Mgt (C4IM)

7 ARNG Sustainable Range Programs

10 ARNG Anti-Terrorism Program Manager Activities

14 ARNG Administrative Services Activities

15 ARNG Air and Surface POL

17 ARNG Aviation Reimbursable Maintenance Operations

40 ARNG Distributive Learning Program

41 Family Support Activities

17




ANG Appendices

Appendix Program

21 ANG Facilities Operations and Maintenance Activities

22 ANG Environmental Program Management

23 ANG Security Guard Services

24 ANG Fire Protection Activities

25 ANG Natural and Cultural Resources Management

26 ANG Air Traffic Control Activities

27 ANG Logistics Facilities

28 ANG Services Resource Management

30 ANG Combat Readiness Training Center Base Operations Support




Military Construction Cooperative

Agreement (MCCA) –

• ARNG MCCA

– Appendices SP,SD,SC

• ANG MCCA

– Appendices SD, SC, UC




Special Military Project Cooperative Agreements

(Stand-Alone Agreements)

•

NG Youth Programs

ChalleNGe

StarBase

•

ARRA of 2009 (Recovery Act)




CA Execution –

• Agreements signed by USPFO and TAG

• Legally binding documents

– Usually renewed every 5 years

– Funded annually

• Managed by a CA PM in your State

• Coordinated thru NGB-OPR-PM

– Annual Budget

– Administration of Appendix




CPP

• Negotiated annually between the Grantee and the

USPFO, and approved by the USPFO

• Two methodologies can be used to formulate the CPP:

Time Study of Personnel

Fee-Per-Action

• Supervisory time not included, except a supervisor whose time can be allocated and validated to the performance of non-supervisory functions




Reporting Requirements

Recovery Act-funded CAs – Quarterly Reporting

SMD reports to federalreporting.gov

GOR reviews reports for accuracy and comments

FSRS Reporting – Ongoing

All CAs with sub-recipient awards over $25,000

SMD reports Sub-recipient data to fsrs.gov – much of the data is pre-populated from CCR and

DUNS registrations

23



Current Challenges –

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Indirect Costs –

BLUF – Indirect Costs the Federal Government will reimburse are Fringe Benefits on Direct Labor

(employee’s salary) to include:

– Worker’s Compensation

– Unemployment Compensation

– Life and Health Insurance

– Retirement Plan

Ref: Policy Memorandum dated 11 Feb 08, Subject: NGB Policy on

Payment of Indirect Charges – Cooperative Agreements

24





Indirect Costs (Cont’d)

–

Over the past 3 years State’s have come forward with creative ways to seek reimbursement for indirect costs – many stemming from Agreements made between the States and the employee unions, and most related to early retirement incentives.

This and other requests/proposals prompted some of the changes you see in Appendix 24, ANG Fire

Protection Activities:

25






–

Ancillary charges such as monthly or one-time worker’s compensation payouts; additional prior- or post-year retirement costs; additional costs associated with post-retirement health insurance; early retirement incentives, bonuses or payouts, including postretirement monthly payment of vacation or annual leave, shall not be authorized.

26






–

Reimbursement of costs associated with arbitration services, professional or otherwise, in the negotiation and settlement of a grievance or other formal complaint filed by an employee or a group of employees, shall not be authorized. These are matters between the State and the employee(s), and such costs shall be borne by the State.

27






–

Reimbursement of costs incurred by, or associated with, the process of collective bargaining between the

State and its employees covered by a Bargaining Unit

(a legally organized labor union) for the purposes of negotiating matters involving employee issues, such as general working or safety conditions on the job, salary, benefits, job qualifications and the like, shall not be authorized.

28






–

Reimbursement of increased costs relating to employment issues agreed to in a Collective

Bargaining Agreement between the State and its employees covered by a Bargaining Unit, such as increases in salaries, benefits, etc., shall not be authorized. Increases in such costs shall be borne by the State.

29






–

Again, the Federal Government, with limited exceptions, will not reimburse Indirect Costs:

1. The Federal Government is experiencing the same cut-backs in funding as the States –

You heard it from the NGB Comptroller, Mr.

Cabrera on Monday – he described the cuts NGB will experience over the next 5 years – they’re drastic.

The Federal Government simply doesn’t have the money to pay these indirect costs.

30





Indirect Costs (Cont’d) –

2. If we were to pay indirect costs – those funds would come out of the funding available to train, maintain and equip the State’s National Guard –

Congress will not appropriate additional funding.

31





Federal – State Expenditures

FY08 – FY11

Year Federal State

2011 $1,905,769,993 $178,878,890

2010 $1,955,914,570 $202,727,584

2009 $2,132,243,523 $210,480,934

2008 $1,984,753,354 $156,870,950

% State

9.38%

10.36%

9.87%

7.90%


Year

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000




Federal – State Expenditures

FY07 – FY00

Federal State

$1,703,247,080 158,151,939

1,878,208,659 138,244,608

610,655,413 86,021,416

1,297,726,079 125,870,413

1,147,677,259 97,684,851

1,113,084,675 105,382,969

699,476,931 82,773,314

989,941,890 94,821,376

% State

10.77%

7.36%

14.00%

9.70%

8.50%

9.47%

11.80%

9.58%





Oversight and Surveillance of Services

Ensure CA PM conducts oversight and surveillance of project or services as work proceeds to ensure services are performed in accordance with the scope of the Agreement, and to ensure deliverables or end product is delivered as required by the Agreement.

Impact: Change to NGR 5-1, Chapter 1-4,

Responsibilities, and Sample DD 577

34





Inspection and Acceptance of Construction

(This relates to Oversight and Surveillance, above).

Add inspection and acceptance award term to

MCCAs and applicable Appendices. Impact:

Change to NGR 5-1; change to MCCA, MCA and

Appendices.

35





Review of Costs Submitted for Reimbursement

Emphasis on a thorough review of costs to ensure they are authorized/allowable for reimbursement.

Impact: Change to NGR 5-1, Chapter 11-4, Payment

Processing (to emphasize responsibilities), and

Appendices, Unauthorized Costs, to include reference to 2 CFR Part 225, if in doubt as to whether costs are allowable or not

36





Use of Standard Agreement Templates

Any changes to the standard Agreement templates require review and approval of the NGB-OPR-PM,

NGB-PARC and NGB-JA. Under no circumstances will sub-grants, State contracts, sub-recipient proposals be incorporated into the MCA, MCCA or

Appendices. Impact: Change to NGR 5-1, Chapter

3-1, Administration

37





Reconciliation and Closeout of Agreement

Emphasize requirement for timely closeout, 90-days after the end of the Federal fiscal year, unless TAG submits a written request to the USPFO that

Appendix remain open; and proper reconciliation of final balance. Impact: Emphasis to NGR 5-1,

Chapter 11-10, Final Accounting and Settlement

38





Approval of Requests for Reimbursements, SF 270, by the USPFO or Designee

GFEBS procedures require SF 270 be signed by the

USPFO or designee. DD 577 signature card for

USPFO and designee (if applicable) must be on file with DFAS; NGB-PF will sign DD 577. Impact:

Change to NGR 5-1, Chapter 11-4, Payment

Processing (ARNG and ANG) and NGR 5-1, Chapter

1-4e., Responsibilities

39



Strengthening The Partnership as We Go Forward

By:

• Working out Issues, processes, and business practices together – At the lowest levels, elevate only if unable to resolve

• Training together – Attending our NGB CA Training; whether it’s sponsored by the USPFO in your State,

Open CA classes, VTC on topics that affect us all

40




By:

Partnering with NASMRM on future initiatives such as the review and update of NGR 5-1, NGB

Cooperative Agreement Training, and any critical issues that have an effect on the execution and management of CAs. Possibly bring back CA training as part of the Symposium and possibly even

Fiscal Law – these would be tailored to the

NASMRM audience. I’ve been tasked to work on this

– form a Working Group and develop a COA to present to NGB-ZC by July 2012

41




To take it one step further I will ask for your help

Jesse, that together, we find a way to bring an awareness of our CA Program to the TAGs – through training, participating in their venues, i.e., TAG

Orientation, NGAUS, Senior Leadership forums, etc

– so there’s a greater awareness and understanding of this Program.

42



Thank You – Shawn and Jesse

for asking me to participate in this year’s

Symposium.

All of you that spoke up with a question, those that raised issues you’re facing, or commented on best practices in your State added real value to the discussion and the learning that took place here.

43


COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENTS

NGB Cooperative Agreement Program –

A Unique Federal/State Partnership

NGB CA Program –

NG’s Cooperative Agreements Program

It’s a Huge Program –

FY11 – $1,905,769,993 Awarded Through CAs to the States

Overview of the NGB CA Program

Overview of NGB CA Program

•

NG Youth Programs

•

ARRA of 2009 (Recovery Act)

Thank You – Shawn and Jesse

Related documents

Products

Support

COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENTS

NGB Cooperative Agreement Program –

A Unique Federal/State Partnership

NGB CA Program –

NG’s Cooperative Agreements Program

It’s a Huge Program –

FY11 – $1,905,769,993 Awarded Through CAs to the States

Overview of the NGB CA Program

Overview of NGB CA Program

•

NG Youth Programs

•

ARRA of 2009 (Recovery Act)

Thank You – Shawn and Jesse

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib