ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
Export Control Assistance Assessment

Program Code 10002216
Program Title Export Control Assistance
Department Name Department of State
Agency/Bureau Name Department of State
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2004
Assessment Rating Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 100%
Program Management 100%
Program Results/Accountability 80%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $43
FY2008 $45
FY2009 $41

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2006

Review methods for determining country priorities and incorporate the results of the independent evaluation to further assess the country program needs.

Action taken, but not completed For FY 07 and 08, EXBS has put into place a new strategic planning process whereby country officers lead interagency meetings that consider the country's threat assessment, identified deficiencies in strategic trade control development, and absorption rate for the creation of out-year program plans. IN 2007-8, EXBS will accept 3 full and 21 partial assessments.
2006

Further tie funding request to specific measures that relate to the progress key countries have made in the development of export controls. This will also take into account the ability of key countries to absorb program funding.

Action taken, but not completed During 2006, the State Department and USAID foreign assistance programs were put under management by a newly established bureau, which implemented new budgetary planning processes in FY 2007. This process provides EXBS program managers ample opportunities to tie funding requests to country needs.
2006

Meet the two key targets (below), and set new objectives for future years. 1. Double the number of EXBS program countries. 2. Shorten delivery times by two months.

Action taken, but not completed 1. EXBS added 12 countries to the program as of FY 2007, exceeding this goal by 200%. 2. EXBS no longer tracks this data.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2006

Graduate three countries in FY 2006.

Completed Twelve countries graduated by the end of FY 2006: (a) FY 04 - Czech, Hungary, Poland; (b) FY 05 - Bulgaria, Romania; (c) FY 06 - Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia; (d) FY 07 - Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia.

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Cumulative number of EXBS program countries that have developed and instituted valid export control systems that meet international standards.


Explanation:Countries with weak/nonexistent export control systems commit to strengthen those systems with U.S. assistance. Countries export control systems meet international standards.

Year Target Actual
2003 0 0
2004 0 3
2005 5 5
2006 7 11
2007 9 12
2008 10
2009 11
2010 12
2011 13
2012 14
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Average cost reduction per training course


Explanation:Use of the program's integrated support services contract is expected to yield increasing efficiencies through economies of scale and "off-the-shelf" training modules for EXBS program countries.

Year Target Actual
2003 0 0
2004 5% 10%
2005 7% 7%
2006 9% 4%
2007 2% 7%
2008 6%
2009 8%
2010 10%
2011 12%
2012 14%

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance (EXBS) Program, managed by State/NP's Office of Export Control Cooperation (NP/ECC) is to build effective national export control systems that meet international standards in countries that possess, produce, or supply such items as well as in countries through which such items are most likely to transit. In this way, the program seeks to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the illicit transfer of conventional weapons.

Evidence: a. Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2004 b. Authorization legislation (Chapter IX of Part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended) c. EXBS Program Strategic Plan d. Strategic Plan for Nonproliferation Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance in Eurasia

YES 20%
1.2

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The September 2002 National Security Strategy directs enhanced U.S. assistance to strengthen nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials and technologies necessary for WMD. Nonproliferation, in particular, the strengthening of national export control systems, is one of the U.S. Government's highest priorities. Material, technology and dual-use items related to WMD and their delivery systems, as well as conventional weapons, are available in numerous countries.

Evidence: a. EXBS Program Strategic Plan b. Strategic Plan for Nonproliferation Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance in Eurasia c. Strategic Plan for Interagency Coordination of U.S. Government Nuclear Detection Overseas (Draft - 2003)

YES 20%
1.3

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The EXBS Program is unique and complementary to other programs; it is a global program with a broad mandate covering all items of proliferation concern and is not limited geographically as are some other U.S. Government (USG) programs (e.g. Cooperative Threat Reduction programs of the Department of Defense) or in scope (e.g. Department of Energy programs that focus on radiation detection and other nuclear-specific issues). Lead roles are identified in an interagency strategic plan. Export related border control initiatives are also cleared through the NP/ECC-chaired Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Nonproliferation Export Control Assistance (includes the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce and the Intelligence Community) to prevent duplication and program plans are shared among all relevant agencies. Activities in Eurasia, where there is the greatest potential overlap, are further coordinated through the Department of State's Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia.

Evidence: a. EXBS Program Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) b. EXBS Program Strategic Plan c. Strategic Plan for Nonproliferation Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance in Eurasia d. Strategic Plan for Interagency Coordination of U.S. Government Nuclear Detection Overseas (Draft) e. The International Counter Proliferation Program Implementation Plan (DOD) f. Interagency-cleared Program Plan cables.

YES 20%
1.4

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Independent evaluations have not found major flaws in program design. The most recent GAO survey found no problems in the financial management of the program. The EXBS Program uses interagency acquisition agreements (IAA's), grants and contracts to implement programs. In 2003, as a result of increased requirements and demand for results in less time, a full and open competition resulted in award of a performance-based Integrated Support Services Contract (ISSC), accounting for 22% of FY 2003 funding; in FY 2004 ISSC contract task orders will exceed 52% of EXBS program funding.

Evidence: a. 2004 Center for Int'l. Trade & Security (CITS) assessment of EXBS countries' export controls b. GAO Report on Nuclear Interdiction Efforts (FY 2002) c. State/OIG audits of Interagency Acquisition Agreements in FY 2001-2002. d. Los Alamos Technical Associates program audits in FY 2001 e. GAO Assessment of NADR programs in FY 2004.

YES 20%
1.5

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The EXBS Program targets countries in need of assistance by evaluating where their export/border controls are weak, whether they are a producer, supplier or transit state for items of proliferation concern, and whether they have the means or are likely to address these deficiencies without EXBS program assistance. For each country targeted the process is to assess, identify and prioritize deficiencies and assign activities to address these deficiencies.

Evidence: a. Program-related strategic Plans (EXBS, Nuclear Detection, and Eurasia) b. NP/ECC SOP "Development and Format of EXBS Program Plans. c. Congressional Budget Justification. d. Bureau Program Plans e. Funding Allocation Memoranda

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The long term goal for the EXBS Program is to establish export controls that meet international standards in countries that pose a potential proliferation threat due to lack of such controls and deminish or eliminate their role as a source, provider, or likely transit route for weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, other weapons, and related items and technology. Progress is defined by establishing a measure of the growing number of countries that meet international standards for export controls on an annual basis as determined by performance assessments conducted by a neutral third party. A second outcome performance measure is reducing the average delivery time for goods and services from the date of obligation of funds.

Evidence: a. Program-related Strategic Plans (EXBS, Nuclear Detection, and Eurasia b. FY 2006 BPP c. Center for International Trade and Security (CITS) report "Nonproliferation Export Control Assessments, 2003: National Evaluations". d. Export Control System Standards e. Completed Task Orders

YES 12%
2.2

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The EXBS Program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures. It proposes to more than double the number of countries meeting international standards for export controls between fiscal year 2004 and 2006 and to reduce the average delivery time for goods and services by 2 months each year within the same timeframe.

Evidence: Center for International Trade and Security "Nonproliferation Export Control Assessments, 2003: National Evaluations" also provided a basline for the first long-term measure. Quarterly reports provide a baseline for and ability to assess the second. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers

YES 12%
2.3

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: At present the EXBS Program has two quantifiable annual performance indicators that will demonstrate progress towards achieving its long term goals; 1) the number of EXBS Program recipient countries that have developed and instituted valid export control measures meeting international standards;and 2) reducing the average delivery time of program training and equipment to countries following obligation of funds for these goods and services.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: The FY 2006 BPP

YES 12%
2.4

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program baseline was established in FY 2004 with the "graduation" of three countries that met international standards for export control and related border security operations and no longer receive EXBS Program assistance. The EXBS Program has ambitious targets for success: to more than double the number of countries graduating from FY 2004 to FY 2006 and reduce average delivery time of goods and services by 2 months each year within that timeframe. Similar targets for annual graduation have been established through FY 2008. All countries will have been re-assessed by January 2006 using independent third party analysis and evaluation.

Evidence: The CITS FY 2003 Report. Completed Task Orders and Agencies' Quarterly Reports. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: The FY 2006 BPP

YES 12%
2.5

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Agency funding recipients and primary contractors, and the host country are committed to the program goals for each country. Implementing agencies commit to goals by clearing program plan cables and signing the IAAs/MOUs by which funds are obligated to them. Contractors and grantees are tasked to carry out programs that support annual and long term program goals. The host country demonstrates its commitment to the program by participating in program activities, implementing the improvements the program aims to foster and, in some cases, signing bilateral agreements covering the objectives and terms of program assistance. Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) for Interagency Acquisition Agreements (IAA's) require quarterly reports on obligations and expenditures. The ISSC contracts internalized BPP statements in the Request For Proposals. ISSC contractors and in-country EXBS Program advisors provide monthly status reports to NP/ECC.

Evidence: a. Terms of ISSC performance based contracts. b. Interagency Acquisition Agreements (IAA's). c. Monthly EXBS Program advisor progress reports d. Monthly Progress Reports from ISSC contractors. e. Terms of grants awarded by the EXBS Program. f. NP/ECC SOPs f. Agency Quarterly Reports

YES 12%
2.6

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Starting in FY 2003 as a baseline and then every other year after that, the Center for International Trade and Security (CITS) at the University of Georgia conducts an evaluation of the status of each country's export control system in terms of achieving performance targets and recommendations for improvement. In addition, periodic audits of the program and specific aspects of it are conducted by independent agencies to include the General Accounting Office (GAO) and contracted audit firms. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) will conduct an inspection of the NP Bureau in May-June 2004.

Evidence: a. CITS FY 2003 Report. b. GAO Report on U.S. Efforts to Combat Nuclear Smuggling. c . Cotton & Company LLP, Certified Public Accountants audits of Interagency Acquisition Agreements. d . Los Alamos Technical Associates audits of FY 2000 and FY 2001 funds.

YES 12%
2.7

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Budget requests are the end product of planning, coordination and approvals for each countries' Annual Program Plan designed to meet that year's performance goals and contribute to reaching the program's long term goal. For the EXBS Program, the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) provides the total funding request, the funding level requested for each country and a summary of activities to be funded. Final budget approval by the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security requires strong justification for funding levels and evidence that these funds contribute directly to meeting annual and long-term performance objectives. In addition, program funding supports operation and management costs associated with the EXBS Program.

Evidence: a. Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY2004 b. FY 2006 Bureau Performance Plan c. President's Management Agenda Budget. d. NP/ECC SOP on "Development and Format of EXBS Program Plans" e. Funding Allocation Memoranda

YES 12%
2.8

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The EXBS Program has developed and is refining a Strategic Plan to reflect lessons learned from past years' experience, and changes in policy or strategic direction. Specifically, the plan addresses the prioritization of assistance among target countries in order to reach the program's long-term goal as quickly and efficiently as possible. Countries recently added to the EXBS Program portfolio will be added to the plan.

Evidence: a. FY 2006 BPP b. Program-related Strategic Plans (EXBS, Nuclear Detection, and Eurasia)

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 100%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: NP/ECC Program Officers coordinate daily with agency implementers on the execution of country performance plans. Officers and the Program Manager also monitor contractor performance and rate that performance each quarter. Agencies are required to submit quarterly financial execution reports to NP/ECC by the 15th day of the first month of each quarter. EXBS Program advisors in the field provide monthly progress reports. In addition, annual requests by agencies for time extensions on IAAs are reviewed by NP/ECC to assess program progress, and if progress is not timely, NP/ECC and agencies agree on appropriate reprogrammings, if necessary, before IAAs expire.

Evidence: a. IAA Quarterly Reports. b. EXBS Program advisor's monthly reports. c. ISSC contractor monthly reports. d. "Period of Performance" letters. e. EXBS Program Standard Operating Procedures.

YES 14%
3.2

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers undergo annual individual job performance appraisals which include an assessment of their ability to plan, execute operations, and manage IAA's, ISSC contracts and grants. ISSC is a performance-based contract. ISSC contractors are required, under our performance objective, to implement cost avoidance/cost savings measures which favor the U.S. Government. All task orders to date have been on-time and under budget. In addition, managers are responsible to report material weaknesses, notify Congress of violations of funding levels and move funds to contracts if agencies are not achieving performance goals. Program managers respond to requirements noted in quarterly and monthly reports and make recommendations to withhold or reprogram funds when a host country demonstrates lack of commitment to the program.

Evidence: a. Annual individual job performance standards. b. IAA Quarterly Reports. c. ISSC contract monthly reports. d. Program-related Standard Operating Procedures, including NP/ECC SOP on "Reprogramming of EXBS Program Funds Obligated to Agencies"

YES 14%
3.3

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The EXBS Program operates with one-year funds (i.e. they must be obligated within the fiscal year appropriated). EXBS Program funds are fully obligated each fiscal year. Agency implementers have been given two years in which to sub-obligate these funds. ISSC contractors are given a period of performance of one year or less. In allocation requests to the Under Secretary, the EXBS Program indicates intended country program spending levels, to include strong program justification that supports annual and long term performance goals. As noted in question 2.6 above, assessments and audits of performance and financial management are conducted regularly by outside parties; audits every two years through the Office of the Inspector General; assessments annually through an independent NGO.

Evidence: a. IAA 's, ISSC Contracts and Grant documents. b. Resource Management year-end allocation reports. c.Independent audit reports as noted in question 2.6 above.

YES 14%
3.4

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: A 2002 GAO report on Nuclear Interdiction Efforts noted that "some agency expenditures have not kept pace with growth in funding." To improve efficiency in providing assistance, two performance-based Integrated Support Services Contracts (ISSC) were awarded in 2003 for 1 year with up to 4 option years, in conformance with Federal acquisition regulations. One of the contracts' main objectives is cost avoidance/cost savings for the USG. Awarding the same type of contract to multiple contractors for provision of the same type of services allows the Government the benefits of competition throughout the program's life-cycle. The program has also developed and is refining a database to better track program expenditures.

Evidence: a. Federal Acquisition Regulations b. NP/ECC contract selection committee notes. c. GAO Report on Nuclear Nonproliferation, dated April, 2002 d. In FY 2003 elevated database manager to full-time status.

YES 14%
3.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Through participation in Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Export Control Assistance (chaired by NP/ECC), clearing program plans with all interested parties, numerous conferences and symposiums, the EXBS Program effectively coordinates and collaborates with related programs undertaken by other USG agencies and international organizations in the development of country plans. State (NP/ECC) has agreements and (or) Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with DOD,DOC, DHS/CBP,DHS/USCG and DOE outlining requirements and responsibilities in specific countries/regions for programs to enhance countries' export control and related border security capabilities. As a result, duplication of effort has been minimized.

Evidence: a. Interagency Working Group on Export Control Assistance. b. Agreements and MOU's with other federal agencies. c. Program Plans d. EXBS Program Strategic Plan for Eurasia e. Strategic Plan on Nuclear Detection

YES 14%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The EXBS Program adheres to all Federal Acquisition Regulations and uses sound judgment and best business practices. Obligation of funds via IAA's, ISSC contracts, program grants and the processing of invoices/payments tracked closely through the NP executive office, Division of Resource Management (DRM). Periodic budget meetings are held with the DRM team to review current status of obligations, ensure payments are timely, fiscal data is accurate and coordinate other program requirements.

Evidence: a. Federal Acquisition Regulations. b. DRM spread sheets on obligations and expenditures c. Quarterly Reports on obligations and expenditures d. Program Audits

YES 14%
3.7

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The CITS report, "Nonproliferation Export Control Assessments, 2003: National Evaluations" recommends various ways to strengthen countries' export control systems. As a result, the EXBS Program has included these recommendations in the development of country plans. An independent contractor was hired to assist and review the management of the development and execution of the two performance based ISSC contracts, which are intended, in part, to address deficiencies in assistance delivery by certain agencies. In addition, a data base manager and a second program manager were hired, and a request will be submitted for a FTE in FY '06 for program management.

Evidence: a. CITS FY 2003 Report b. Sent contracting officer to Eurasia to award backlogged contracts c. Developed SOP's to standardize procedures d. Tightened agency memorandum of understanding (MOU) language e. Changed from multiple to single country IAA's

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 100%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: In the FY 2006 BPP the FY 2004 Performance Rating is "Above Target" because substantial progress has been made in achieving the long-term goal of establishing export controls that meet international standards in Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, the Balkans, Moldova, Ukraine, UAE, Jordan, Thailand, Cyprus and Malta. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have graduated from the program. We have also made considerable progress in cutting the time required for program delivery to the field - our second long-term goal.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: FY 2006 Bureau Performance Plan

LARGE EXTENT 20%
4.2

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The FY 2006 Bureau Performance Plan indicates the EXBS Program is above target for FY 2004: "selected countries in Europe and Eurasia meet internationally recognized export control standards; at least two more key transshipment contries achieve significant progress in meeting standards for effective enforcement".

Evidence: CITS FY 2003 Report BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: FY 2006 Bureau Performance Plan

LARGE EXTENT 20%
4.3

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The EXBS Program demonstrated improved efficiency (reducing the time between identification of requirements and delivery of goods and services to EXBS Program countries) in achieving yearly program goals by issuing task and delivery orders under competitive, performance-based ISSC contracts. As noted in question 3.4 above, each task order is competed between the two contractors, allowing the Government to select the most efficient proposal. Results thus far show that ISSC contracts allow for faster response to requests for supplies and services from field locations. ISSC contracts accounted for 22% of FY 2003 funding and increased to 52% of FY 2004 funding. The annual (initiated in FY 03) office director's "Period of Performance" reviews requires government agencies and other contractors to adhere to performance time lines and provide the required goods and services in an efficient manner.

Evidence: a. Terms of ISSC contracts. b. FY 2006 Bureau Performance Plan. c. FY 2003 and FY 2004 Action Memoranda to the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

YES 20%
4.4

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no comparable programs with similar purposes and goals to compare to. Even if this were a comparable program in terms of performance, NP/ECC would not have access to their performance data.

Evidence:  

NA 0%
4.5

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The University of Georgia's Center for International Trade and Security conducted a recent assessment to better target EXBS training and enforcement programs to where they are most needed. The CITS assessment is encouraging from the standpoint that many countries have progressed considerably in the implementation of effective export controls through the EXBS program. The evaluation will also enable us to assess short term and long term needs and provide for remedial programs to address those deficiencies. Currently a contract audit is underway to review the EXBS Programs in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is scheduled to conduct an inspection of the Bureau of Nonproliferation in May-June 2004.

Evidence: a. CITS FY 2003 Performance Results Report. b. OIG Inspection Schedule. c. Cotton & Company FY 2003 contract for EXBS Program audits in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan d. FY 2004 GAO report on NADR

YES 20%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 80%


Last updated: 09062008.2004SPR