C15.2.1.
General.
During the planning and requirements definition phase of a BPC case, the Requesting Authority must determine program objectives and develop the request packages, with input from the Security Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Implementing Agency (IA), the Benefitting Country, and other stakeholders. The IA needs detailed requirement information to source the defense articles and services appropriately. The Requesting Authority should clearly communicate a linkage between the provision of defense articles and services and the achievement of specific U.S. national security objectives; so that program effectiveness can be assessed following case execution. This phase of a BPC case concludes with the Requesting Authority’s submittal of a detailed, coordinated Memorandum of Request (MOR) that is executable by the IA within funding and timeline limitations.
C15.2.2.
BPC Programs and Authorities.
DSCA assigns BPC program codes to specific programs and appropriated fund sources in the same way that FMS country codes are assigned to FMS purchasers. Table C15.T2 lists each BPC program with its associated code, authority, and funding information. The Fund Source column provides the fund source for pseudo LOA documents and indicates whether the funds are from DoD or are provided via an
FAA, Section 632(b)
MOA. Program and appropriation authorities are identified in separate columns. The funds expiration date is September 30th of the year shown in the Expiration Date column (unless otherwise indicated), and program funds must be expended prior to the end of the year shown in the cancelling FY column. As Congress enacts legislation creating new authorities, DSCA (Strategy Directorate) will assign new program codes and update Table C15.T2. As appropriations cancel, they will be removed from the table.
Table C15.T2. BPC Programs and Authorities
C15.2.3.
International Agreements and Treaties in Force.
Requesting Authorities will plan and execute BPC programs in accordance with applicable bilateral and multilateral international agreements and arrangements. The SCO will maintain copies of these documents and be familiar with their contents. Copies should be shared with the Combatant Command (CCMD), USG planners and Benefitting Country Ministry of Defense (MoD) counterparts, as necessary, to ensure all contributors are cognizant of their contents. Specific agreements and arrangements apply to each Benefitting Country, but Table C15.T3 provides a listing of some of the common agreements which may be in place.
Table C15.T3. International Agreements
| International Agreement |
Purpose |
FAA, Section 505 Agreement |
A bi-lateral exchange of diplomatic notes initiated by DoS in which the Benefitting Country provides end-use, security, and re-transfer assurances with respect to U.S. defense articles and services transferred via grant. Section 505 Agreements are a requirement of law for grant transfers.
|
Unilateral Diplomatic Note amending the Section 505 Agreement |
Amends the Section 505 Agreement to apply to the U.S. assistance under consideration, in addition to those included in the original Section 505 Agreement. Generally, DoS(PM) will initiate the diplomatic note from the U.S. Embassy when a partner nation is approved to benefit from a BPC program.
|
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) |
The SOFA generally establishes the legal framework under which DoD military and civilian personnel operate in a partner nation, addressing matters such as taxation, criminal jurisdiction, claims, drivers’ licenses, privileges and immunities. The U.S. does not pursue a SOFA with each partner nation, and a SOFA is not required before a partner nation may receive BPC program assistance.
|
General Security of Military Information Agreements (GSOMIA) |
Legally binding international agreements that establish terms for the protection and handling of classified military information provided by either partner to the other. Agreements that handle other types of classified information in addition to classified military information are referred to as General Security of Information Agreements (GSOIAs).
|
Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) |
Establishes terms for secure communications interoperability and security
|
Bi-Lateral or Multi-Lateral Treaties |
Various – e.g., NATO Treaty, NATO SOFA, U.S.-UK Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty.
|
Other Agreements and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) |
Various – e.g., RDT&E Agreements, Reciprocal Defense Procurement MOUs, coproduction agreements.
|
C15.2.4.
Planning and Coordination.
Most BPC program and case planning will occur in conjunction with annual CCMD security cooperation planning, which is organized by the CCMD J5 (or J4 for the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM)) in a series of regional and country-focused working groups and documented in the Theater Security Cooperation Plan (TSCP). Crises, targeted appropriations, and other events may make it necessary for the Requesting Authority to begin BPC case planning outside the annual CCMD planning process. Some authorities, like Section 1206, have their own annual coordination cycles. In every instance, the Requesting Authority should initiate coordination with the appropriate IAs, other key USG stakeholders, and the CCMD J5 as early in the process as possible. It is often beneficial to invite participation from the SCO, the Military Departments (MILDEPs), and regional experts within OUSD and DoS.
C15.2.4.1.
International Sanctions and Leahy Restrictions.
The Requesting Authority must confirm that the Benefitting Country is not under sanctions and is otherwise eligible to receive BPC program assistance from the USG. DoD and DoS “Leahy” human rights vetting requirements must be completed, as applicable, before a Benefitting Country receives BPC program assistance. The DoS Leahy law (Section 620M of the FAA) provides that no assistance may be provided under the FAA or the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to any unit of the security forces (including an individual) of a Benefitting Country if the Secretary of State has received credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, unless the partner nation is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice. The DoS Leahy law applies to DoS authorities and certain DoD authorities, such as Section 1206, pursuant to the terms of those authorities. The DoD Leahy law is provided in the annual DoD Appropriations Act, and it provides that DoD appropriations may not be used to support a training program involving a security forces unit (including police) of a partner nation if the Secretary of Defense has received credible information from DoS that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all necessary corrective steps have been taken.
C15.2.4.2.
Benefitting Country Involvement.
The SCO will advise the Benefitting Country of BPC program objectives and the Benefitting Country’s role in the BPC case process. Benefitting Country representatives should provide details of their existing capabilities, capacity, and security requirements to enable identification and prioritization of BPC requirements. The Benefitting Country should also indicate its ability to support and sustain the articles and services under consideration after delivery.
C15.2.4.2.1.
Sharing Case Information With Benefitting Countries.
The SCO may share information that contributes to defining requirements; arranging for delivery, Benefitting Country Customs processing, and security; operating and sustaining the defense articles; and achieving training objectives. SCOs are encouraged to share requirement information with Benefitting Country representatives, as appropriate, to support U.S. objectives. Once the BPC case is implemented, the SCO may share the pseudo LOA and supporting documents (with the exception of protected information listed below) with Benefitting Country MoD representatives, as appropriate. Case information will be shared consistent with U.S. national security interests, and in accordance with any existing international agreements. Release of information regarding the schedule of shipments or training events does not constitute a commitment of the United States and SCOs should clearly communicate this to Benefitting Country representatives. No guarantee of assistance can be made until the defense articles or services are delivered and title and custody has been properly transferred. See
Section C15.5.5.
C15.2.4.2.2.
Protected Information.
SCOs may not share internal USG correspondence or information about internal USG discussions regarding case requirements with Benefitting Country representatives. The following information may not be shared and must be removed from case documents prior to release unless the IA has obtained authorization from DSCA (Strategy Directorate) to share the information:
C15.2.4.2.2.1.
Pre-decisional case information (to include the draft pseudo LOA);
C15.2.4.2.2.2.
USG internal correspondence regarding the case (e.g., e-mails, meeting minutes) or any internal USG planning information, policy determinations or justifications regarding the case;
C15.2.4.2.2.3.
Information pertaining to another partner nation (a pseudo LOA with multiple Benefitting Countries must be carefully screened prior to sharing);
C15.2.4.2.2.4.
The FAA 632(b) MOA or other pseudo LOA funding documents;
C15.2.4.2.2.5.
Proprietary information from any source; or,
C15.2.4.2.2.6.
Contract documents or commercially sensitive information, to include the Statement of Work (SOW).
C15.2.4.3.
Identification of Desired Capabilities.
The Requesting Authority, in coordination with the CCMD (if it is not the CCMD itself), should define Benefitting Country military roles required to meet security objectives under existing and emerging security environments. For each capability considered, this assessment should ideally include an analysis of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, and facilities within the Benefitting Country so as to prevent an overly narrow focus on equipment or training solutions. The assessment, captured in the CCMD’s Country Campaign Plan, should also consider the Benefitting Country’s political will to apply the capabilities, the national legal framework that permits or circumscribes the application of the capabilities in support of the desired partner role, and the capacity of the MoD and other supporting institutions to sustain the capabilities. The Country Campaign Plan articulates how desired roles and capabilities relate to specific CCMD and national-level strategic objectives. The U.S. Embassy includes desired partner nation objectives in the Mission Strategic Resource Plan (MSRP).
C15.2.4.4.
Prioritize Requirements.
Once initial planning has occurred, the Requesting Authority will identify a prioritized list of partner capacity/capability shortfalls that the partner nation is willing to address and the Country Team within the U.S. Embassy is willing to support. This will help direct resources toward the most urgent requirements, assure proper sequencing of the delivery of new capabilities, facilitate the creation of capability packages, and provide scale-ability to the overall program should only a portion of requested funds be available. Prioritization should be done in coordination with IAs and CCMD staff, and should take into consideration any known restrictions on the use of funds.
C15.2.4.5.
Capability Package Planning.
The Requesting Authority will translate prioritized requirements into packages of specific, actionable, and sustainable BPC program requests. For complex programs, or to obtain more definitive assessments, USG subject matter experts may conduct site visits to consult with Benefitting Country representatives, inspect equipment, evaluate institutional capacity, and assist the Requesting Authority in capability package planning. An Expeditionary Requirements Generation Team (ERGT) could be established to accomplish this. See
Section C2.4.2.
C15.2.4.6.
Total Package Approach (TPA).
Where appropriate, BPC MORs should present a TPA to the provision of defense articles and services for capacity building. During planning, the Requesting Authority should consider and address follow-on support and effective sustainability, recognizing that BPC programs are time-limited by their appropriations. Adequate sustainment support may require spares, additional training, consumables, and possibly contractor logistics support that exceed BPC program funding timelines.
C15.2.5.
Feasibility Assessment.
The IA will conduct a feasibility assessment to verify requirements are actionable and funds can be obligated within time and budget constraints. Feasibility assessments identify any documentation needed to complete the MOR package, such as a Country Team Assessment and CCMD endorsement; definition of requirements; technology security and foreign disclosure releases; accurate equipment, training, and support cost estimates; transportation plans; and special contracting requirements. If a requested item cannot be placed on contract before the funds appropriation expires, the IA will identify this to the Requesting Authority and the DSCA CPD.
C15.2.6.
Memorandum of Request (MOR).
The Requesting Authority, in accordance with its internal procedures, finalizes and submits an MOR to the IA with a copy to the DSCA CPD. MORs must be submitted in unclassified communication channels so they are accessible to all stakeholders, and formats vary according to the program. See C15.T4. for a list of MOR information. Section 1206 Program MORs (referred to as proposals) are first submitted to OUSD(P), which forwards them to DSCA and other organizations for review. Requesting Authorities should submit completed MORs no later than the first quarter of the fiscal year to allow adequate time for case development and funds obligation before year end and to support the Requesting Authority’s required delivery date. LOR guidance materials (found on the SCO/CCMD tab in the Security Cooperation Information Portal (SCIP)) may be helpful to guide MOR preparation.
Table C15.T4. MOR Information
Figure C15.F1. Guidance for Sole Source Justification
C15.2.7.
Congressional Notification and Funding.
BPC program execution is subject to Congressional Notification before funds are made available for case implementation. The Congressional Notification process, managed by the Funding Authority, may take place prior to MOR submittal, concurrent with case development, or even after case development, but must be completed prior to case implementation. DSCA Case Writing Division (CWD) will withhold offering any pseudo LOA until confirmation that this process has completed, but it is imperative that the IA and DSCA (Operations Directorate) ensure each LOA is ready to offer as early in the year as possible, to take full advantage of remaining time for funds obligation, funds expenditure, and case execution.
C15.2.7.1.
DoD Funds.
The DoD Requesting Authority initiates the Congressional Notification process by submitting proposals/requirements to OSD. OUSD(C) or OUSD(P) coordinates the notification packages with DSCA, DoS, and OSD Legislative Affairs before they are submitted to Congress for the required notification period. The level of detail required for each Congressional Notification varies. For example, the ASFF notification is a high-level summary, broadly defining DoD requirements for the upcoming year. The Section 1206 Congressional Notification package includes multiple country programs, and involves cost estimates, quantities and justifications for each. CRSP and Section 1206 notifications may be submitted multiple times during a fiscal year. Once notification is complete, OUSD(C) authorizes release of funds to the appropriate DoD comptroller office for use in support of BPC programs.
C15.2.7.2.
FAA Section 632(b) MOA Funds.
DoS and other USG departments and agencies are responsible for preparing and coordinating Congressional Notification and/or approval packages based on program requirements. For example, DoS(PM) submits the PKO Congressional Notification and identifies the funds it proposes to execute through the DSCA case process. The Funding Authority will prepare an
FAA Section 632(b)
MOA which records the terms of its interagency agreement with DSCA, such as spending limits, period of performance and other unique transfer requirements. The DSCA CPD will coordinate and process the MOA for signature by the DSCA Director. Once the MOA is signed by both DSCA and the Funding Authority, funds are considered obligated for the Funding Authority. As a result, DFAS transfers the funds into the FMS Trust Fund, where they may be used to support the BPC case for the purposes outlined in the MOA. A signed copy of the MOA will be attached to each funded pseudo LOA document.
Page Updated 05-30-2012
