Detailed Information on the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund Assessment

Automate the NDF workflow securely through the use of a commercial off the shelf (COTS) application by creating a web-based project management tool with advanced financial and contracting capabilities. This tool shall have a calendar for NDF staff to enter leave, meetings, and other important dates. This tool shall be able to track project and contract information such as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and contract expiration dates, and will send e-mail reminders to NDF staff regarding those dates. This tool shall also be a document repository.

Provide one-on-one training for the web-based project management tool to all NDF staff.

Create individual customized web portals for all entities working with the NDF. Those entities will have read-only access to specific information NDF staff makes accessible.

Scan all existing financial, contract, and project documents to store in the document repository.

Work with the Department of State Office of Acquisitions Management to perform close-out procedures on all expired contracts.

De-obligate funds remaining on all expired contracts for completed projects and re-notify those funds to Congress.

Provide COR training to all NDF project managers.

Administration will transfer management of Tracker to the Export Control and Border Security Assistance Program. This will integrate the program into existing U.S. government efforts to assist countries in strengthening their export controls.

Create searchable metadata for all scanned documents for storage so that they are easily accessible by all NDF staff.

Scan all new financial, contract and project documents to store in a digital document repository.

Create and implement internal checklists for Government Purchase Card purchases, purchases under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, and purchases above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold for commercial and non-commercial items.

Measure: Ratio of total Administrative Costs to Program Costs

Explanation:Adminitrative costs of running NDF programs......Target no longer feasible due to the unexpedted costs of expanding operations to Libya and Iraq.

Measure: Number of active projects.

Explanation:Projects managed by NDF during the fiscal year.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF) has broad authority to work against proliferation worldwide and respond quickly and effectively to unanticipated or unusually difficult nonproliferation requirements and opportunities by funding and executing specific projects.

Evidence: Section 504(a) of the FREEDOM and Support Act of 1992; NADR; Chapter 9 of the Foreign Assistance Act; the NDF Guidelines; and numerous NDF projects completed and underway. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

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

Explanation: The NDF program addresses the ongoing worldwide problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through the development and execution of of carefully selected projects to: 1) halt the proliferation of nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical weapons; 2) destroy or neutralize existing weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, related sensitive materials, and conventional weapons. 3) Limit the spread of advanced conventional weapons, their delivery systems, and related technologies.; and 4) track, control and secure dangerous materials, including fissile material, radiological material, biological pathogens, and chemical agents.

Evidence: Presidential statements, WMD goal from State's Strategic Plan, Section 504(a) of the FREEDOM and Support Act of 1992; NADR; Chapter 9 of the Foreign Assistance Act;the NDF Guidelines; intelligence related to the existance of known WMD programs in rogue states. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

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

Explanation: The NDF is specifically designed to support U.S. diplomatic efforts to secure, remove, and destroy weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and advanced conventional weapons. Its focus is on unanticipated or unusually difficult projects that need to be done on an urgent basis but for which no diplomatic agreement exists between the concerned governments to undertake the project. The NDF accepts only proposals determined not to be redundant of other efforts and every NDF proposal is reviewed with this in mind by interagency representatives at the Assistant Secretary level. All decisions on whether to approve the use of NDF funds are made by the Undersecretary for International Security Affairs.

Evidence: Decision memoranda establishing the NDF; Section 504(a) of the FREEDOM and Support Act of 1992; Congressional report language, NDF Guidelines, specific NDF proposal and project documentation, and NP decision memoranda and congressional notification documents. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

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

Explanation: The NDF Program design is clear, simple, and effective. Unanticipated and unusually difficult problems and the subsequent expenditure of U.S. financial and personnel resources on high-risk projects with little notice require a rigorous and high-level review of proposed projects. Both the NDF Review Panel and the decision-making Under Secretary have been rigorous in their programmatic review and have disapproved a significant percentage of the proposals brought before them. The NDF has oversight and management responsibility for all of its funds, including programmatic execution. NDF operates worldwide and its funds are made available until expended notwithstanding any other provision of law.

Evidence: Decision Memoranda establishing the NDF; 504 (a) of the FREEDOM Support Act; 515 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act under the heading Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs; NDF Review Panel meeting decision memoranda, the percentage of proposals disapproved by the Under Secretary, OIG reports, bureau review and the percentage of completed projects executed successfully. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

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

Explanation: Presentation language, and the purpose described in the above explanation for section 1.1. The Under Secretary and the NDF Review Panel (Assistant Secretary level) determine that all proposals directly support the NDF Program's purpose. Each approved project must have a sharp focus with concrete and measurable outcomes e.g., missiles destroyed, HEU removed or secured, etc. The limitation of project scope to concrete outcomes ensures that project resources can be targeted on specific work requirements and permits the NDF to assign a project manager with full authority to execute the project on behalf of the USG.

Evidence: NDF Review Panel meeting decision memoranda; NDF decision summaries; NDF project proposals; Interagency Acquisition Agreements (IAA); contracts; NDF project files; the NDF Annual Report; NDF financial reports and spreadsheets; reporting cables; and Congressional notification documents. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

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: Long term measures have been developed and progress continues on further development of performance measures to tie them to budget requests.

Evidence: Specific NDF project files; newspaper articles; reporting cables; the NDF Annual Report; NDF oversight and verification procedures; contracts; statements of work; agreements or MOU's with foreign governments and other USG agencies; review of contracts by the State's Office of Acquisition contracting officer; and NDF project manager's oversight of each NDF project and associated contract. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: See goal paper.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: See goal paper.

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: Each NDF project, while not on an annual schedule, has specific performance measures that are clearly set forth in the Under Secretary's decision summary. Thus, throughout the year, specific projects are undertaken with specific short-term performance measures that clearly support the longterm goals of the NDF e.g., missile destruction, securing/destroying chemical agents, etc.

Evidence: NDF Decision Memoranda, NDF Guidelines, specific NDF project files, NDF's CPD, NP BPP and the State's Strategic Plan. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: The NDF seeks to complete successfully and within budget 100% of those projects assigned to the NDF each year by the decision- making Under Secretary. Annual progress is tracked within the context of each project, each of which has clear objectives set forth in the decision summary.

Evidence: NDF's Project Management and Financial Database System, the NDF Annual Report, other NDF reporting documents, NP BPP, and State's Strategic Plan. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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: Each NDF project manager works closely with contractors, USG agencies, and foreign governments to ensure that all commit to and work toward the specific goals of each project. NDF partners have historically been dedicated to the successful outcome of NDF projects.

Evidence: NDF contracts; Interagency Acquisition Agreements; agreements and memoranda of understanding with foreign government; project files; reporting cables; progress reports; interviews with contractors and foreign governments; Federal Acquisition Regulations; NDF oversight and verification procedures. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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: The results of all NDF projects are verified often by DOE, the VC bureau, U.S. Embassies abroad, and foreign governments, and, where appropriate, by NDF or NP personnel. NDF projects are also subject to regular in-house evaluations. The NDF program is periodically inspected and audited by State's OIG and has, in the past, been subject to review by the bureau. All past inspections, audits and reviews have been favorable and useful to NDF management. A new round of audits will begin in the fall of 2003 and the OIG is scheduled to inspect the NDF again in 2004.

Evidence: OIG inspection and audit reports; in-house evaluations; specific NDF project files; Embassy cables, newspaper reports; video footage; eyewitness accounts; and NDF verification procedures. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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: Success by the NDF in meeting past challenges destroying missiles, securing/removing highly enriched uranium (HEU), developing automated tracking systems for use by foreign governments, and eliminating chemical agents in a timely and cost-effective manner provides a critical element in justifying funding for the NDF. Development of long-term goals for this program continue to make progress but are not yet sufficiently defined to tie explicitly to a funding request.

Evidence: NDF Congressional Budget Presentation; NP BPP; and State's Strategic Plan.

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

Explanation: The NDF Program requires periodic refocusing as the political and diplomatic environment changes. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the NDF began to focus not only on unanticipated opportunities but also on the need to drive new policy initiatives to secure dangerous materials and to expand its reach into the Middle East and South Asia.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Presentation for FY 2004; Dangerous Materials Initiative (DMI) background papers; NP BPP documentation for FY 04 and FY 05; proposals under development; and State's Strategic Plan. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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: The NDF collects real-time information on ongoing projects through its Project and Financial Management System that supports program and project management. NDF tightly monitors ongoing projects, often using on-site NDF staff to provide day-to-day supervision of contractors, and verifies that work is being performed consistent with the approved project performance goals. This information enables NDF to target finite resources efficiently (e.g., if a project is suspended due to weather, tight monitoring enables NDF to reassign oversight staff resources to other projects).

Evidence: NDF project files; NDF Project and Financial Management System; NDF and Trackernet networks; and MOU progress reports. Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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: The NDF does not have legal authority to expend funds for any projects beyond those approved by the Under Secretary. Any cost overrun would require a new NDF proposal, a review of the proposal by the NDF Review Panel, approval of the proposal by the Under Secretary, and notification of the approved proposal to Congress. All program partners are held accountable through contracts, agreements, MOU's, or other legal documents. All NDF project managers are held accountable by NDF management.

Evidence: Contracts; MOU's; specific NDF project files; OIG inspection and audit results; NDF decision summaries; and Congressional documents. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: Funds are obligated promptly to meet specific implementation requirements within each NDF project. After a project has been approved and has been before the Congress for 15 days without congressional objection, and as soon as the necessary implementation contracts and/or other documents have been put in place, the NDF begins a series of obligations to cover project costs. Funds are spent only to support the approved objectives of the project.

Evidence: NDF's Project and Financial Management System; State's Consolidated Financial Management System; NDF project files; and Interagency Acquisition Agreements and other forms of fund transfers. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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: The NDF is an innovator in the use of new technologies to implement projects abroad. It has its own network that permits the NDFproject managers in the field (often hundreds of miles from the U.S. Embassy) to communicate directly with the NDF home office to ensure that projects are efficiently executed. It has built its own Project and Financial Management System, uses video and still cameras to monitor and verify project performance, and operates websites to support countries and contractors who work with the NDF. The NDF also has a NDF Procedures Manual that is used to guide the work of NDF staff, particularly new or junior members of the staff.

Evidence: NDF Procedures Manual; NDF and Trackernet networks; NDF Project and Financial Management System; NDF and Trackernet websites; NDF video systems; and specific NDF project files. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The NDF is specifically designed to support U.S. diplomatic efforts to secure, remove, and destroy weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and advanced conventional weapons. Its focus is on unanticipated or unusually difficult projects that need to be done on an urgent basis but where no diplomatic agreement exists between the concerned governments to undertake the project. The NDF accepts only proposals determined not to be redundant of other efforts and every NDF proposal is reviewed with this in mind by an interagency review panel at the Assistant Secretary level. All decisions on whether to approve the use of NDF funds are made by the Under Secretary for International Security Affairs. To be effective, the NDF often partners with other USG programs to get necessary work done. Examples of this coordination include: removing HEU from Kazakhstan where State, Defense, and Energy all played critical roles, nuclear portal monitors in the FSU where the NDF has worked wit

Evidence: Decision Memoranda establishing the NDF; Section 504 (a) of the FREEDOM Support Act of 1992; NADR; Congressional report language; NDF Congressional Budget Presentation; NDF Guidelines, NDF Review Panel memoranda; and newspaper articles. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The NDF has a long history and established reputation of taking financial management seriously. As part the NDF's establishment, NDF management sought Under Secretary level approval for its Fund Control Process, assigned a high priority to the development of a Project and Financial Management System to support program management, and decided to initiate periodically requests for audits and evaluations. NDF funds are not obligated absent approval of the project by the decision-making Under Secretary, Congressional notification, and a signed contract or other documents that fully justify expenditure of NDF funds. The State Department has deployed a new effective financial management system, compliant with federal system requirments.

Evidence: NDF decision summaries; NDF establishment memoranda; NDF Fund Control Process; NDF Procedures Manual; NDF Project and Financial Management System; Federal Acquisition Regulations; OIG inspections and audits; and State's Consolidated Financial Management System. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: The NDF is always taking steps to improve its management of project and financial resources. During past OIG inspections and audits, NDF staff moved quickly to resolve any and all problems identified. For example, during an audit on the NDF Project and Financial Management System, a software engineer was assigned to work with the assigned auditor on a full time basis to ensure that changes were made quickly. Likewise, problems with specific projects are identified early and decisions on solutions are made almost immediately.

Evidence: NDF decision summaries; NDF Project and Financial Management System; NDF Procedures Manual; OIG inspection and audit results; NDF reports and spreadsheets; and NDF in-house evaluation of projects. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: The NDF has documented successes in achieving it's nonproliferation goals but as a fund for which annual requirements are determined only after funds are appropriated, development of long-term goals has provided difficult. A draft long-term measure is included in the PART reflecting the overall management goal of the program that is to achieve and maintain a capability respond as needed often unanticipated nonproliferation and disarmament priorities. The program has a long list of accomplishments including elimination of all SCUD and SS-23 missiles in Central Europe; removed Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) from Serbia; assisted in the removal of HEU from Kazakhstan and Georgia; destroyed the Category I missile infrastructure in South Africa; and deployed nuclear detection equipment throughout the FSU, Central Europe, and Turkey.. NDF program managers have made progress on developing long-term quantifiable goals but further action is needed..

Evidence: Specific NDF project files; newspaper articles; reporting cables; the NDF Annual Report; NDF oversight and verification procedures; contracts; statements of work; agreements or MOU's with foreign governments and other USG agencies; review of contracts by the State's Office of Acquisition contracting officer; and NDF project manager's oversight of each NDF project and associated contract. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: The NDF Program achieves its short-term performance goals by executing successfully and within budget those projects assigned to it by the Under Secretary during the course of a fiscal year. The establishment of timetables for the execution of the NDF projects approved each fiscal year would in most cases be inappropriate and, in some cases, be contrary to the interests of the USG.

Evidence: Specific NDF project files; the NDF Project and Financial Management System; State's Consolidated Financial Management System; the NDF Annual Report; Interagency Acquisition Agreements and associated progress reports; completion of contracts; and Federal Acquisition Regulations. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: Efficiencies within the program continually increase as a result of extensive experience gained over the course of close to a decade. Today, the NDF undertakes projects of far greater complexity than it could in the past. For example, missile destruction projects now include hard-to -eliminate solid rocket motor systems, HEU can be removed quickly and quietly, complex and technologically challenging software is being built faster, and long-term project management is now part of the NDF skill set. These increased efficiencies are illustrated by the technological and diplomatic sophistication of the long-term Tracker program, the size and complexity of missile destruction projects, and the successful removal of HEU from Yugoslavia in August, 2002.

Evidence: NDF Review Panel Procedures; NDF project files; contracts; NDF Project and Financial Management System; State's Consolidated Financial Management Database; NDF proposal submission process; and the NDF Procedures Manual. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: The NDF Program is effective in meeting its performance goals and thus compares favorably with other related USG nonproliferation programs. Historically, it has proven able to execute projects more quickly, more cost-effectively, and more quietly than larger programs or international organizations.

Evidence: Annual Congressional report language; OIG reports; Congressional testimony; specific project files; and the percentage of projects completed successfully. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers:

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

Explanation: Independent evaluations of the NDF Program and its projects have indicated a successful Program that has achieved both its long-term and short-term goals. Extensive new audits (at the NDF's request) are expected to begin in the fall of 2003, and State OIG expects to inspect the NDF Program in FY 2004.

Evidence: Verification of NDF project results by DOE, the VC bureau, U.S. embassies abroad, foreign governments, and on occasion the press; OIG audits and inspections; and NDF in-house evaluations of projects. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: