judgment, reflecting close collaboration with its LDC colleagues, in adjusting the flow of AID-financed inputs and in making other operational decisions with a minimum of requirements for prior AID approvals or contract amendments as long as the contractor stays within the bounds of the approved overall plan and budget. In this phase, AID will give technical assistance contractors the authority and responsibility for using their specialized expertise to the fullest extent in the scheduling and managing of project inputs.

(4) Monitoring, joint evaluation and replanning. With increased flexibility and responsibility for implementation placed with the technical assistance contractor, the host government, and/or institutional collaborator, improved and timely progress reporting and periodic, joint, and structured reviews of results and evolving plans are imperative as a basis for monitoring and evaluating contractor performance, revalidating or adjusting project design, and for determining future funding levels and commitments.

Both the contractor's annual report and the joint review should be structured within the framework of purpose, outputs, performance indicators, etc., originally established in the project indentification phaseas modified by detailed project design—and reflected in the Project Agreement and other pertinent documentation. The field review will normally serve as the occasion for discussing changes in or additions to previously agreed-to workplans as well as proposing changes in purpose, types of activities authorized and budgets which require contract amendment. Obviously, the appropriate host government, host institution, and senior contractor officials should be thoroughly involved in the process, which will have to be adapted to the conditions within specific projects and countries. An important USAID responsibility is to assure that there is appropriate host country participation in developing and improving project plans prior to new obligations of funds. The special requirements and responsibilities of the various parties shall also be reflected in the project agreement and contract terms and in guidelines on the content of annual reports, evaluation procedures, etc.

Standard checking on services actually delivered as a basis for reimbursement will be continued including appropriate audit of expenditures.

(d) Contracting implications. The principal elements of change in present contracting practices, as detailed below, are earlier selection and involvement of the prime contractor, contracting by major stages of project design and operations, minimizing the need for precontract negotiations and contract amendments and AID approvals, and providing technical assistance contrac

tors with the authority and responsibility needed to manage implementation within the approved program bounds.

(1) Selection. The early involvement of the contractor in the definition stage of a long-term technical assistance project, after AID decides what it wants to undertake in stage (1), does not alter the Agency's responsibility to select its contractors carefully and in full compliance with appropriate contracting regulations and selection procedures. What is required here is that contractor selection be carried out at an earlier stage than has sometimes been the Agency practice in the past or with other types of contracts and in anticipation that the contractor, assuming adequate performance, will participate in all subsequent phases until final completion.

(2) Contracting stages. In contracting, the initial design stage should be separated from the longer term implementation stage without any AID commitment to undertake the second until it has exercised its independent judgment based on the product of the first plus any outside expert appraisal it and the host country want to use.

The long-term implementation stage itself may be further subdivided into contract periods which permit time between predetermined events for analysis, determination of new project requirements, and evaluation of performance prior to initiating the next phase by contract amendment/extension. If, for any reason, such an examination does not appear to warrant project continuation, then termination of the project and/or contract would be the next step.

(3) Flexible implementation authority. While good project design will eliminate or diminish many operational problems, the very nature of long-term technical assistance requires flexible implementation within agreed purposes, ultimate outputs, types of activity and available financing. With these key variables for AID management control established, contracts should be written so as to minimize the need for amendments and AID approval of changes in input particulars. This can be facilitated, both for the USAID, host country, institution, and the contractor by:

(i) Retention of operational plan in contract and removal of workplan. The contract narrative will contain the life-of-theproject Operational Plan, consistent with the project design as developed in stage (2) and reflected in the project documentation (and subsequent amendments thereto). The Operational Plan includes a statement of the purpose to be achieved, the outputs to be produced by the contractor and the types of activities to be undertaken, the more significant indicators of progress, a general description of the type of inputs that are authorized and intended to be provided during

the life of the project, and the overall budget.

In order to allow adjustments at the implementation level without going through the contract amendment process, the detailed but short-term workplan containing specific descriptions and scheduling of all inputs such as numbers and types of staff, participants, commodities, etc., and specific activities, will not be a part of the contract. It is a working document to be modified in the field when the situation demands. The latest version will be available as a supporting document to justify proposed new obligation levels. Normally, the workplan and derived budget will cover a rolling two year period, i.e., each year another yearly increment is added after review and approval.

(ii) Budget flexibility. To support this implementation flexibility, contract budget or fiscal controls will be shifted from fixed line items for each input category to program categories, permitting the technical assistance contractor to adjust amounts and timing to achieve previously approved types of activity. This same type of flexibility should apply to any local currency supplied for project operations and/or contractor staff support. While an essential corollary to eliminating the workplan from the contract, this is not a unique procedure under cost reimbursement type contracts when the contractor has demonstrated adequate management capability.

(iii) Negotiation of advance understandings. To permit university and international research center contractors to manage their activities in accordance with their own policies and procedures and thereby sharpen their management responsibility while achieving substantial savings in time and reduced documentation, AID may negotiate advance understandings with its technical assistance contractors on dollar costs and administrative procedures that would be included by reference in its subsequent contracts. Upon receipt of a request from the contractor that their policies be reviewed and approved for usage in their contract in lieu of the standard terms and conditions, OP/PS/OCC, AID/W will initiate negotiations of such policies in an expeditious manner. The approved policies will be used in all relevant relations involving the Agency and respective contractors in lieu of traditional contract standard provisions, whenever this may be appropriate. This does not apply to local currency costs and host government procedures which must be negotiated in each case.

The purpose of the practices listed above is not only to give a qualified contractor the authority to adjust the composition and timing of inputs but to assign to it clear responsibility for managing such resources, as the evolving circumstances require, to achieve the agreed-upon outputs on a cost

efficient basis. It should also reduce the delay and paperwork involved in frequent but minor contract amendments, and approvals. For the agency as a whole, both in the Mission and in AID/W, these have involved a large workload and cost.

(e) Role of AID. Nothing in this appendix is intended to delegate, diminish or otherwise modify AID's final responsibility for the prudent management of public funds and its own programs. Rather in withdrawing from the day-to-day involvement in and responsibility for the management of adjustment of the flow of inputs during the implementation, the best use of limited agency staff and time can be devoted to protecting the public interest in gaining maximum results from the funds appropriated for technical assistance by:

(1) Seeking optimum identification in terms of LDC priorities and U.S. capabilities;

(2) Mobilizing and selecting the best U.S. professional talent to design and carry out the project;

(3) Monitoring what is happening to assure adequacy of processes, get a feel of results, assure actual delivery of inputs being financed;

(4) Assuring that the attention of AID's implementation agents and LDC colleagues stay well focused on project purpose and results to be achieved (outputs) and the relation to these of what is being done and actual results;

(5) Providing intermediaries adequate authority and responsibility to adjust inputs promptly and sensitively to the evolving project situations.

Attention to these considerations, and to achievements of the preimplementation conditions prescribed above, should greatly increase the chances for successful project completion and impact on a cost effective basis, which is the final measurement of prudent management.

ATTACHMENT TO APPENDIX F-GUIDELINES FOR REQUESTS FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

A. Length and Level of Detail

A Request for Expression of Interest (REI) should include more than just a short letter expressing interest, but should not be in the detail of a technical proposal (RFTP). The REI is not the only source of information that can or should be used for selection, but at least a minimum level of information should be contained in each document. A ten page paper that responds to the selection criteria included in every REI should be sufficient for evaluation purposes. The selection criteria should specify the technical inputs required for successful exe

cution of the project and normally require a response in three general areas:

1. A description of the institution's capability to address the problem described in the REI.

2. Any related experience, whether in the country or region or in the problem area.

3. A demonstrable commitment of the institution to support the project.

The responses should address the capability, experience, and commitment to the particular project.

B. Specific Personnel Information The response should specify within the areas set out in the selection criteria the following planning and personnel factors.

1. The design team plan and the scope of work for each member.

2. A list of candidates for the design team and their credentials.

3. A list of possible candidates for longterm assignment to the project. (Since there has been no project design, the specific technical assistance slots and technical responsibilities are vague. But it is expected that at least half of the personnel needs can be estimated early in the project. The institution should make its best guess for the team and present to the Agency the persons or types of persons with whom they are likely to contract.)

C. Multiple Institution Submissions Joint effort on the part of several institutions is encouraged when appropriate. A single institution may submit an expression of interest for part of the project without knowledge of other collaborators or it may submit information in response to A and B of this attachment as part of a suggested collection of institutions. In either case, a proposed plan for cooperation is necessary.

However, such joint efforts must specify the division of responsibilities for the planning and personnel factors indicated in B of this attachment. Often AID will identify the need for cooperation and suggest such an effort in the REI. Even if AID does not suggest collaboration, joint efforts with a description of the cooperation would be an appropriate way to respond to an REI.

(Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435)

[49 FR 13301, Apr. 3, 1984, as amended at 49 FR 33669, Aug. 24, 1984; 50 FR 16089, Apr. 24, 1985; 51 FR 20652, June 6, 1986; 52 FR 6160, Mar. 2, 1987]

APPENDIX G-APPROVAL AND REPORTING PROCEDURES FOR CONTRACTOR SALARIES

1. Purpose

This appendix does the following:

(a) Provides guidelines for the use of prudent judgment when considering salaries, especially salaries exceeding the FS-1 maximum salary limitation (5 U.S.C. 5308 and Pub. L. 95-66);

(b) Establishes procedures for justification of salary approvals;

(c) Prescribes procedures for control numbers and submission of copies of salary approvals to SER/OP/PS/SUP;

(d) Establishes a seminannual report of salary approvals for the Deputy Administrator.

2. Procedures

(a) Salary approvals. In accordance with 731.205-6, 731.371, and 731.772, contracting officer approvals of salaries exceeding the FS-1 rate are to be based upon a memorandum from the technical office approved by the Assistant Administrator or Mission Director having program responsibility for the contract. The reasonableness of proposed salaries exceeding the FS-1 level must be evaluated by the appropriate technical office in terms of the technical competence required, scope of supervisory responsibilities involved, and the relationship of the proposed salary level to the individual's customary salary level for similar work. Even thorough approval of salary levels above the FS-1 rate are justified primarily by the Assistant Administrator or Mission Director having program responsibility, it is the contracting officer's responsibility to scrutinize increases as a matter of business acumen whenever AID negotiations deal with any salaries payable under contracts. Increases in the FS-1 statutory salary limitation are not, and shall not be by themselves, a basis for upward salary revisions of contractor employees. Proposals for such revisions should be considered normally when contracts are renewed, and must be carefully reviewed and negotiated to ensure that increases are not automatically granted without corresponding increases in the quality or quantity of services rendered. Salaries below the FS-1 maximum level should also be fully justified, even though formal approval procedures may not be involved. Personnel compensation negotiated and payable under AID contracts should be at the mimimum levels necessary to attract needed technical services in a competitive market. Rates should be determined by the "market place" where the types of services are obtained. Using such criteria, very few salaries

can be expected to approach or exceed the FS-1 level.

Actual discussions with contractors concerning salaries should be held only by persons authorized to negotiate and execute contracts. (See AIDAR Appendix A.)

(b) Justification of Approvals. There will be cases where the services required are so unique and highly specialized that few persons are available to perform them. In such instances, if justifications for exceptional salaries are needed, particularly where the salary would exceed the FS-1 level, the project officer will be consulted. If no alternative can be found, the project officer will prepare a salary justification to support the negotiator's action. It is the negotiator's responsibility to see to it that such cases are fully justified and that a complete record of the rationale is included in his memorandum for the contract file.

3. Approval Control Numbering and
Submission to SER/OP

Copies of all approvals of salaries that exceed that FS-1 level are required to be sent to SER/OP/PS/SUP. To assist SER/ OP in determining that they are receiving all copies from each approving office, approving officials will have a consecutive control number starting each fiscal year assigned to each approval by their office, the record of which will be maintained separately from other approval documents.

4. Semiannual Report to the Deputy
Administrator

Commencing with March 31, 1978, a semiannual report listing all salary approvals that exceed the FS-1 maximum level will be sent to the Deputy Administrator of AID by the Office of Procurement.

(Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435)

[49 FR 13301, Apr. 3, 1984, as amended at 50 FR 50303, Dec. 10, 1985; 51 FR 20652, June 6, 1986; 52 FR 4146, Feb. 10, 1987]

APPENDIX H-RESPONSE TO AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Purpose

This appendix establishes consolidated procedures for responding to post-award audit reports. The procedures in this appendix are not applicable to pre-contract audit surveys.1

1Contracting officers often request audit advice and assistance in evaluating contractor's proposals prior to award, FAR 15808(b)

2. Applicability

The procedures set forth in this appendix apply to all audit recommendations concerning costs questioned under AID-direct contracts whether the recommendation is assigned to SER/OP, or to a Mission or Area Contracting Officer.

3. The Role of the Inspector General

(a) Legislative and procedural requirements. Public Law 96-304, July 8, 1980 (Section 305) requires that audits involving questioned costs be resolved within six months. Further, OMB Circular A-73, Audit of Federal Operations and Programs, requires that each agency establish policies and procedures for prompt and proper resolution of audit recommendations, and establish standards for such policies and procedures. The Administrator has approved procedures for audit follow-up and resolution, as recommended by the Inspector General (IG).

(b) IG responsibilities. (1) The IG and Regional Inspectors General (RIG) are responsible for tracking and following up on audit recommendations to insure prompt and proper resolutions, and for reporting on monetary recoveries resulting from audit reports. Following receipt of the contracting officer's disposition of the substance of an audit recommendation, the IG and RIG are responsible for determining whether or not to officially close the recommendations.

(2) If the cognizant RIG has not received satisfactory evidence of resolution of an audit recommendation within four months of issuance, the RIG will request a status report from the office assigned action responsibility (see also paragraph 5b(3) of this appendix). If no evidence of satisfactory resolution is received by six month, the IG follows up directly with the cɔgnizant Assistant Administrator. The IG may request the Deputy Administrator to take action on any recommendation open for more than six

months.

(3) If the cognizant RIG does not agree to an action office's disposition of an audit recommendation, the RIG will first attempt to resolve the issue with the action office. If this is unsuccessful, the issue will be referred to the IG, who will attempt resolu

requires the contracting officer to provide a copy of the memorandum of negotiation to the auditor (the cognizant RIG) when a preaward survey has been performed, to inform the auditor of the disposition and usefulness of the pre-award survey. Provision of a copy of the memorandum of negotiation to the cognizant RIG, pursuant to FAR 15.808(b), constitutes response to a preaward audit survey.

tion with the cognizant office head or Assistant Administrator. If the issue cannot be resolved at this level, it can then be referred by IG to the Deputy Administrator for decision. (See also paragraph 4.b., concerning the role of the contracting officer.)

(4) If the cognizant RIG questions a contracting officer's decision not to seek recovery of audit questioned cost, the RIG may submit the issue to the cognizant Regional Legal Advisor, or to the General Counsel's Office. (See also paragraph 4.b., concerning the role of the contracting officer.)

4. The Role of the Contracting Officer (a) Pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601-613), as implemented in FAR Part 33, and as provided in FAR 1.6 and Subpart 701.6 of the AIDAR, contracting officers have the authority to negotiate and enter into settlements with contractors of costs questioned under audit reports. With this authority goes the responsibility for insuring that such settlements are properly justified and documented, and promptly executed.

(b) A negotiated settlement of questioned costs, executed by the contractor and the contracting officer; or a contracting officer's final decision pursuant to the disputes clause (in the event questioned costs are not settled by negotiated agreement), are final, subject only to a contractor's appeal, either under the provisions of the Disputes Act, or to the Courts. Regardless of internal controls, such as IG or RIG's right to maintain a recommendation as open (see paragraph 3.b(3) of this Appendix, or to question a contracting officer's decision regarding questioned costs (see paragraph_3.b(4) of this Appendix), the contracting officer's decision as between the Government and the contractor is final, subject to established methods of contractor appeal. Authority to negotiate settlements, or make final decisions on questioned costs rests with duly delegated contracting officers alone.

5. Procedures

In order to insure that resolutions of audit recommendations are properly justified and documented, the following procedures are established:

(a) General. (1) Copies of all correspondence concerning resolution of an audit recommendation must be promptly sent to the cognizant RIG. All correspondence provided to the cognizant RIG should include the contractor's name, the contract number(s), and the audit report and recommendation number(s).

(2) In transmitting post-award audit reports to action offices, the RIG's attached memoranda shall identify each contract by its number and request an initial written response within 30 days. Under the Agency's

audit recommendation follow-up system, the RIG's are following up to insure that action offices provide the 30-day responses. The IG is required to provide a copy of the initial response to several Congressional Committees. It is recognized that the initial response to audit reports questioning contract costs takes the form of a notification to the contractor by the contracting officer. The cognizant RIG will accept copies of the contracting officer's notification as the initial response to the audit report if:

-The notification clearly indicates the title and/or number of the audit report.

-The notification covers all the cost issues raised in the audit report. If it does not, the cognizant RIG requires a separate memorandum explaining the contracting officer's position on the remaining cost issues.

(3) Action offices have six months from receipt of an audit recommendation to resolve that recommendation; however, every effort will be made to resolve the recommendation within 120 days of its receipt. The contracting officer is responsible for keeping the cognizant RIG informed regarding the status of open audit recommendations in accordance with the procedures established in this Appendix. If for any reason a recommendation cannot be resolved within the 120 day period, the contracting officer must so advise the cognizant RIG in writing, giving the reasons. This notification is to be provided as soon as possible, but in any event at least two weeks before expiration of the 120 day period. The contracting officer is also responsible for insuring that RIG's four-month follow-up (see paragraph 3.b(2) of this Appendix is promptly answered. For details on RIG's four and six month follow-up procedures, see paragraph 3.b(2), above.

(4) Responses to audit recommendations must be in writing, properly documented to clearly explain the action taken. When the contracting officer is satisfied that action on a recommendation has been completed, and the file properly documented, he or she should specifically request that the cognizant RIG consider the audit recommendation closed (see paragraph 6 of this Appendix). The cognizant RIG should be requested to notify the contracting officer promptly, in writing, if for any reason they are not prepared to officially close the recommendation, providing the reasons. Such notice should identify the contract number and refer to the contracting officer's last correspondence.

(b) Audit recommendations questioning costs under AID direct contracts. (These procedures are mandatory for audit recommendations assigned to SER/OP. It is recommended that they be applied, suitably adapted, to audit recommendations assigned to Missions which have been delegated con