This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1094 
entitled 'United Nations Peacekeeping: Lines of Authority for Field 
Procurement Remain Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues' 
which was released on September 18, 2008.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

September 2008: 

United Nations Peacekeeping: 

Lines of Authority for Field Procurement Remain Unclear, but Reforms 
Have Addressed Some Issues: 

GAO-08-1094: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1094, a report to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, United States Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The United States is the largest financial contributor to United 
Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations—providing about $1.4 billion in 
2008 (about 26 percent of the total UN peacekeeping assessed 
budget)—and has a strong interest in the efficient and effective 
management of these operations. The size and scope of UN peacekeeping 
has significantly increased over the past several years and the UN has 
pursued management reforms to strengthen its capacity to support 
operations. GAO was asked to examine (1) the status of the current 
restructuring and strengthening of peacekeeping management including 
procurement for the field, (2) the status of reforms to address 
previously identified problems with peacekeeping procurement, and (3) 
the UN Logistics Base’s support of peacekeeping operations. GAO 
reviewed relevant UN documents; conducted structured interviews with 
chief procurement officers at 20 peacekeeping missions; and interviewed 
UN and U.S. officials. 

State agreed with the report and commented that it would draw upon some 
of the report findings in its discussion with the United Nations. The 
UN agreed with GAO’s assessment of the status of reforms and provided 
technical comments, which are addressed in the report as appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

The United Nations (UN) is in the process of restructuring and 
strengthening its organization for peacekeeping management, but has not 
resolved the issue of authority for field procurement, which is 
fundamental to the restructuring. Instead, the authority for field 
procurement remains divided between two departments, leaving the lines 
of accountability and responsibility for field procurement unclear. See 
figure. Member states are also concerned that the head of the new 
Department of Field Support reports to and takes direction from the 
head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations on matters related to 
peacekeeping missions. The UN has not yet appointed several key senior-
level staff for both departments, at a critical time in the 
restructuring. 

UN Field Procurement Process (for procurements requiring HQ review; 
$500,000 and above): 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the UN Field Procurement Process (for 
procurements requiring HQ review; $500,000 and above), as follows: 

Department of Field Support (Peacekeeping Mission): 
* Identifies requirement for goods and services (Peacekeeping Mission); 
* Requests local procurement authority (Peacekeeping Mission); 
interacts with Department of Management (Procurement Division): 
- Evaluates and accepts local procurement authority[A] (Procurement 
Division); 
* Conducts sourcing, solicitation, and receipt of bids (Peacekeeping 
Mission); 
* Conducts technical and commercial evaluations of bids (Peacekeeping 
Mission); 
* Local Committee reviews case and recommends it for approval 
(Headquarters/Local Committee on Contracts); interacts with Department 
of Management (Procurement Division): 
- Reviews and prepares case for HCC, requests clarifications 
(Procurement Division); 
* Clarifies request; returns clarifications to interaction with 
Department of Management (Procurement Division): 
- Presents case to HCC; 
- Headquarters Committee reviews case and recommend it for approval 
(Headquarters/Local Committee on Contracts); 
- Forwards approval to mission (Procurement Division); 
* Awards or issues purchase order or contract (Peacekeeping Mission); 
* Receives procured goods or service (Peacekeeping Mission). 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: This figure provides a high-level summary view and does not 
include all steps of the field procurement process. 

[A] The evaluation and acceptance of authority is completed in 
conjunction with DFS. 

[End of figure] 

The UN has made some progress in implementing procurement reforms to 
improve internal controls and processes. For example, the UN 
Secretariat has established financial disclosure requirements for all 
staff involved in the procurement process, expanded training for 
peacekeeping staff and updated its procurement manual. However, these 
efforts have not addressed some previously identified concerns, 
including difficulties in attracting and retaining field procurement 
staff and in applying procurement processes in the field. 

The UN Logistics Base (UNLB) in Brindisi, Italy, provides important 
communications and logistical support to peacekeeping operations and 
has expanded considerably since 2002. UNLB maintains the UN’s worldwide 
information and technology network and provides peacekeeping missions 
with stocks that are essential during start-up. In response to 
peacekeeping mandates, UNLB has further expanded to take on tasks such 
as training and aviation support. However, its growth over the past 5 
to 6 years has raised concerns of the General Assembly, which requested 
that it clarify its role and future development plans. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1094]. For more 
information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or 
melitot@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Restructuring of Peacekeeping Management under Way, but Ambiguity 
Remains on Procurement Lines of Authority: 

Peacekeeping Procurement Reforms Are Proceeding, but Have Not Addressed 
Some Previously Identified Concerns: 

UNLB Provides Important Communications and Logistical Support to 
Peacekeeping Missions, but Its Rapid Growth Has Raised Concerns among 
Member States: 

Conclusion: 

Agency Comments and our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO's Survey of Chief Procurement 
Officers at UN Peacekeeping Missions: 

Appendix III: Components of Strategic Deployment Stocks (SDS): 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix V: Comments from the United Nations: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: - Implementation Status of Procurement Reforms and Continuing 
Concerns: 

Table 2: UNLB's Appropriations, Staffing Levels, and SDS Shipments from 
2002 to 2008: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Map with location of UNLB and field missions: 

Figure 2: UN Field Procurement Process (for procurements exceeding 
mission authority and requiring HCC review--$500,000 and above): 

Figure 3: Reorganization of DPKO and DFS: 

Figure 4: UNLB's Communications and Data Facilities: 

Abbreviations: 

ACABQ: UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions: 

CPO: Chief Procurement Officer: 

DDR: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Section: 

DFS: UN Department of Field Support: 

DOD:United States Department of Defense: 

DPKO: UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations: 

ERM: Enterprise Risk Management: 

GA: General Assembly: 

GIS: Geographic Information Systems: 

HCC: Headquarters Committee on Contracts: 

IAPSO: Inter-Agency Procurement Services Organization: 

IT: Information Technology: 

LCC: Local Committee on Contracts: 

MDTS: Mobile Deployable Telecommunications System: 

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding: 

MRP: Material Resource Plan: 

OIOS: Office of Internal Oversight Services: 

PD: UN Department of Management's Procurement Division: 

SDS: Strategic Deployment Stocks: 

SPC: Standing Police Capacity: 

UN: United Nations: 

UNHRD: United Nations Humanitarian Response Depot: 

UNLB: United Nations Logistics Base: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 18, 2008: 

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr. 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate: 

The United States is the largest financial contributor to United 
Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations--providing about $1.1 billion in 
2008--and has a strong interest in the efficient and effective 
management of these operations. Over the past several years, the size 
and scope of UN peacekeeping has increased more than four-fold. In 
January 2000, the UN deployed about 18,000 troops, police, and 
observers to peacekeeping operations worldwide. As of August 2008, the 
UN had over 88,000 peacekeeping troops, police, and observers 
conducting 16 peacekeeping operations in 15 countries. The UN 
operations support U.S. national interests by carrying out mandates to 
help stabilize regions and promote international peace. Some mandates 
for these operations include working to ensure that southern Lebanon is 
not utilized for hostile activities; assisting with the restoration and 
maintenance of the rule of law and public safety in Haiti; and 
contributing to the protection of civilian populations and facilitating 
humanitarian activities in Darfur. 

To effectively carry out its increased peacekeeping responsibilities, 
the UN has been pursuing the implementation of various management 
reforms, including some contained in the Secretary-General's 2007 
reform proposal to restructure peacekeeping management. The management 
and organizational restructuring was intended to strengthen the UN's 
capacity to direct and support operations by splitting the Department 
of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) into two departments--DPKO and a 
newly created Department of Field Support (DFS). Two core elements of 
the proposed restructuring are the transfer authority for field 
procurement from the Department of Management to DFS and the 
strengthening of DPKO and DFS at senior managerial levels. Other 
reforms include efforts to strengthen UN procurement processes and to 
develop and expand the UN logistics base. UN procurement totals about 
$2 billion annually and has been vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, 
according to UN oversight reports. UN and GAO reports in 2006 and 2007 
identified weaknesses in procurement and made recommendations to 
address them, such as clarifying lines of authority between 
headquarters and the field.[Footnote 1] The U.S. government also has 
expressed concerns that a number of procurement reforms have 
experienced delays, including the establishment of an independent bid 
protest system and the need to improve transparency and accountability 
in UN procurement activities. The UN Logistics Base (UNLB) has been 
operating in Brindisi, Italy, since 1994 to contribute to efficient and 
effective peacekeeping operations. In 2002, UNLB's role was expanded to 
focus on providing strategic deployment stocks[Footnote 2] (SDS) for 
rapid start-up of new missions. With the growth of peacekeeping, UNLB 
has taken on additional duties, such as providing the communications 
network for all missions. 

In this report, we examine (1) the status of restructuring and 
strengthening peacekeeping management, including the authority for 
field procurement; (2) the status of reforms to address previously 
identified problems with peacekeeping procurement; and (3) UNLB's 
support of peacekeeping operations and its recent expansion. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed UN planning and budget 
reports, General Assembly resolutions, performance reports and 
evaluations, and other UN documents. We also reviewed UN staffing, 
budget, and procurement data. In addition we reviewed previous GAO 
reports on UN management and procurement reforms and used the internal 
controls framework that is widely accepted in the international audit 
community and has been adopted by leading accountability organizations. 
[Footnote 3] At UN headquarters in New York, we met with officials from 
DPKO, DFS, the Department of Management, and the Office of Internal 
Oversight Services. We also met with officials at the U.S. Mission to 
the United Nations and with representatives of other UN member states. 
In addition, we conducted structured interviews with chief procurement 
officers at 20 field missions, including all 17 peacekeeping 
missions[Footnote 4] and the 3 special political missions directed by 
DPKO. During these interviews, we discussed procurement reforms and 
processes, followed up on previous GAO findings, and also discussed 
issues related to peacekeeping management and UNLB. In Washington, 
D.C., we met with State and DOD officials. We also traveled to Rome and 
Brindisi, Italy, to meet with officials from UNLB and the UN 
Humanitarian Response Depot, as well as representatives of the U.S. 
Mission to the Rome-based UN organizations. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 to September 2008 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides a more 
detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

The United Nations is in the process of restructuring and strengthening 
its organization for peacekeeping management, but has not resolved the 
issue of authority for field procurement, which is fundamental to this 
reform. As the Secretary-General and the General Assembly have not 
decided whether to shift the authority and resources for field 
procurement from the Department of Management to the Department of 
Field Support (DFS), the process for peacekeeping procurement remains 
divided between the two departments, leaving the lines of 
accountability and responsibility for field procurement unclear. Most 
of the field missions' chief procurement officers told us that this 
situation has created challenges for field procurement. For example, 
one field procurement officer told us that, if a procurement delay 
impacts a mission's operations, it is possible that no one can be held 
accountable for the delay. The physical reorganization of the 
Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support is 
substantially in place. However, some member states are concerned that 
under the new organizational structure, the Under Secretary-General of 
DFS reports to and take direction from the Under Secretary-General of 
DPKO for matters related to DPKO-managed field missions. This is a 
unique arrangement within the UN and is not to set a precedent, 
according to member states. Although both departments are making 
progress in hiring for additional staff positions established by the 
restructuring, this effort is behind schedule, and several key senior- 
level positions are filled on a temporary basis. 

The United Nations has made some progress in implementing procurement 
reforms to improve internal controls and processes, but has not 
resolved several continuing procurement concerns. To strengthen 
internal controls, the UN Secretariat has established financial 
disclosure requirements for all staff involved in the procurement 
process and has implemented a 1-year restriction on the employment of 
former UN procurement staff by UN vendors, among other efforts. The UN 
has also initiated measures to improve peacekeeping procurement, 
including expanding training for peacekeeping staff and updating its 
procurement manual. However, the UN has not fully implemented some 
procurement concerns we previously identified in 2006. For example, the 
UN has not made progress in addressing concerns that limited career 
development opportunities have made it difficult to attract and retain 
staff needed for field procurement. Most chief procurement officers 
told us that the UN has not established a formal career path for 
procurement staff. In addition, almost all of the chief procurement 
officers reported difficulties in applying some vendor registration 
requirements in the field, for example obtaining bank statements from 
local vendors where no banking system exists. 

UNLB provides important communications and logistical support to 
peacekeeping operations and has expanded considerably since 2002. 
However, member states have requested that the Secretariat justify this 
expansion by clearly defining UNLB's role and future development plans. 
UNLB maintains the UN's worldwide information and technology network, 
which links UN headquarters with all peacekeeping operations and field 
missions. UNLB also provides peacekeeping operations with strategic 
deployment stocks (SDS) that are essential during mission startup. From 
2002 to 2008, UNLB's budget grew from $14 million to over $45 million, 
and its staff levels increased from 130 to 264. UNLB has further 
expanded to take on tasks such as training field mission staff and 
providing aviation support services for certain missions. Because of 
UNLB's growth, the General Assembly endorsed the recommendation that 
UNLB clarify and report on its role and future operations in light of 
its expanded tasks. In response to these concerns, UNLB and DFS are 
developing a proposed 5-year plan for supporting peacekeeping missions. 

The Department of State and the UN provided written comments on a draft 
of the report, which we have reprinted in appendixes IV and V. State 
agreed with the main findings of the report and agreed that much work 
remains in the UN's ongoing process to restructure and strengthen its 
organization for peacekeeping management. State commented that it would 
draw upon our findings in its continuing discussions with the UN. The 
UN commented that the report was a generally accurate reflection of the 
current situation. State and the UN also provided technical comments 
which we addressed in the report as appropriate. 

Background: 

Restructuring Peacekeeping Management: 

One of Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's first major initiatives, upon 
beginning his tenure in 2007, was to submit to the General Assembly a 
proposal to restructure the Department of Peacekeeping Operations 
(DPKO) and establish the Department of Field Support (DFS). The 
Secretary-General's proposal, built on previous reform efforts, 
included requests to reorganize the offices within DPKO, provide 
additional senior and professional staff for both departments, create 
new capacities and integrated structures, and transfer resources and 
authority for field procurement from the Department of Management to 
DFS. The Secretary-General proposed adding 400 new posts funded under 
the UN's support account for peacekeeping operations, including 162 
posts in DPKO and 123 posts in DFS. In August 2007, the General 
Assembly approved many but not all of the elements of the Secretary- 
General's proposal, listed below: 

* Creation of new structures, including establishment of DFS from 
DPKO's former Office of Mission Support; within DPKO, consolidation of 
former offices into an Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions 
and a Policy, Evaluation and Training Division; and reconfiguration of 
the Africa Division into two divisions; 

* Creation of new capacities, such as a Public Affairs Unit within 
DPKO's Office of the Under-Secretary-General; a security sector reform 
capacity[Footnote 5] in the Office of Rule of Law and Security 
Institutions, and evaluation and partnership capacities[Footnote 6] in 
the Policy, Evaluation and Training Division; 

* Increase in number of senior and working-level positions, including 
the creation of new positions such as Under Secretary-General of DFS, 
and Chief of Staff of DPKO (responsible for overseeing the 
implementation of the DPKO/DFS restructuring, among other duties 
[Footnote 7]); and upgrading the Military Advisor position to the 
Assistant Secretary-General level. 

Elements of the Secretary-General's restructuring proposal that were 
not approved by the General Assembly included the following: 

* Establishment of the Field Procurement Service within DFS, which 
would have increased the delegation of authority for field procurement 
in DFS; 

* Creation of 17 of the 42 positions requested for Integrated 
Operational Teams, located within DPKO; and: 

* Creation of a risk management capacity within DFS. 

The Secretariat set a target date of March 2008 to finish recruitment 
of new staff and a target date of June 2008 to implement the 
restructuring of DPKO and DFS. 

UN Procurement Reforms: 

UN spending on procurement has grown significantly over the past decade 
as peacekeeping operations have expanded, as the Procurement Division 
has reported increases in procurement spending from about $318 million 
in 1998 to approximately $1.9 billion in 2007. According to DFS, over 
85 percent of the UN's procurement spending is in support of 
peacekeeping operations, with field missions accounting for almost 50 
percent of total UN procurement. 

Peacekeeping procurement is conducted both by field missions and the 
headquarters Procurement Division, located within the Department of 
Management. The Procurement Division develops policies and procedures 
for headquarters and field procurement based on the UN Financial 
Regulations and Rules. The Procurement Division also oversees training 
for procurement staff and provides advice and support for field 
purchases. In addition, the Procurement Division negotiates, prepares, 
and administers contracts for goods and services for peacekeeping 
missions. These involve multi-year systems contracts for goods and 
services such as air transportation or vehicles. 

Each field mission has a procurement section led by a chief procurement 
officer who typically has a personal delegation of procurement 
authority to award contracts up to $75,000.[Footnote 8] Contracts or 
purchase orders above the authority delegated to chief procurement 
officers must be approved by the mission's Director or Chief of Mission 
Support, based on the advice of the mission's Local Committee on 
Contracts (LCC), which reviews and recommends contract awards above 
delegated authorities. Contracts worth more than $500,000 must first be 
recommended by the Director or Chief of Mission Support based on the 
advice of the LCC. The cases are then forwarded to the Headquarters 
Committee on Contracts (HCC), located in New York for review. The HCC 
reviews proposed awards and provides a recommendation to the Assistant 
Secretary-General of the Office of Central Support Services (the 
contracting approval authority), as to whether the contracts are in 
accordance with the UN Financial Regulations and Rules and procurement 
policies. 

UN procurement reform is an important element of strengthening the 
management of peacekeeping and weaknesses in UN procurement have raised 
significant concerns. In 2006, we reported that weak internal controls 
over UN peacekeeping procurement expose UN operations to risk of waste, 
fraud, and abuse. We further reported that the UN's control environment 
for procurement is weakened by the absence of (1) an effective 
organizational structure, (2) a commitment to a professional workforce, 
and (3) specific ethics guidance for procurement staff. To address 
these concerns, we recommended that the Secretary of State and the 
Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN work with other 
member states to encourage the Secretary-General to take the following 
eight actions: 

* Establish clear and effective lines of authority and responsibility 
between headquarters and the field for UN procurement, 

* Enhance the professionalism of the UN procurement workforce by 
establishing a comprehensive procurement training program and a formal 
career path, 

* Provide the Headquarters Committee on Contracts with an adequate 
structure and manageable workload for contract review needs, 

* Establish an independent bid protest process for UN vendors, 

* Take action to keep the UN procurement manual complete and updated on 
a timely basis and complete ethics guidance, 

* Develop a consistent process for providing reasonable assurance that 
the UN is conducting business with only qualified vendors, 

* Develop a strategic risk assessment process that provides reasonable 
assurance of systematic and comprehensive examination of headquarters 
and field procurement, and: 

* Standardize and strengthen monitoring of procurement activities by 
procurement managers, including actions to ensure that oversight 
agencies' recommendations are implemented and that officials are held 
accountable for their actions.[Footnote 9] 

In November 2007, as part of a broader review of UN management reforms, 
we reported that the UN Secretariat had improved the UN procurement 
process, but not in all the areas of vulnerability we had previously 
identified. Internal UN oversight entities have also reported on UN 
procurement activities and reforms. In a February 2007 report 
summarizing its audits and investigations of peacekeeping operations, 
the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) identified serious 
deficiencies in procurement management, systems, and processes. In 
October 2007, the UN's Procurement Task Force also raised concerns 
about internal controls involving contracts that it reported to have a 
value of approximately $610 million and identified fraud and corruption 
schemes related to some of them. The Procurement Task Force further 
reported that these cases involved a misappropriation of approximately 
$25 million. 

UN Logistics Base: 

The UN Logistics Base (UNLB) in Brindisi, Italy, is a permanent 
logistics base that supports UN peacekeeping operations and has been in 
operation since 1994. The predecessor to UNLB, located in Pisa, Italy, 
was used as a storage facility for assets received upon the closure of 
DPKO missions, but with the increase in peacekeeping missions, the need 
arose for a more strategically located facility in which to store and 
maintain reserves for missions. Since 1994, UNLB has evolved to provide 
additional services including logistics, communications, and other 
support services to UN peacekeeping missions and has a budget of just 
over $45 million for fiscal year 2008-2009. UNLB has a natural 
deepwater harbor as well as air, road, and rail infrastructure, and is 
within 5,000 kilometers, or a 6-hour flight, of most peacekeeping 
operations (see fig. 1). Under a memorandum of understanding with the 
Government of Italy, UNLB occupies the Brindisi premises rent free. The 
World Food Program manages a UN Humanitarian Response Depot adjacent to 
the UNLB facility. 

Figure 1: Map with Location of UNLB and Field Missions: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map indicating the location of UNLB and field 
missions. The following sites and information are depicted: 

UNLB; from this site: 
* 6 hours airlift to Nyala, Sudan (Darfur) and N'Djamena, Chad; 
* 7 days sailing to Port Sudan; 
* 20 days sailing to Douala, Cameroon. 

The following sites locations are depicted: 
UNLB; 
UNMIK; 
UNOMIG; 
UNFICYP; 
UNDOF; 
UNIFIL; 
UNTSO; 
UNMIS; 
UNAMID; 
MINURSO; 
UNIOSIL; 
UNMIL; 
UNOCI; 
MONUC; 
BUNUM; 
Port Sudan; 
MINURCAT, N'Djamena, Chad; 
Douala, Cameroon. 

Missions outside the region: 
UNMOGPI, India and Pakistan; 
MINUSTAH, Haiti; 
UNMIT, Timor-Leste; 
UNAMA, Afghanistan. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: Map is not drawn to scale and is for illustrative purposes only. 
A list of all DPKO missions is on the following page. 

Peacekeeping Missions: 

UNTSO - United Nations Truce Supervision Organization; 
UNMOGIP - United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan; 
UNFICYP - United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus; 
UNDOF - United Nations Disengagement Observer Force; 
UNIFIL - United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon; 
MINURSO - United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara; 
UNOMIG - United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia; 
UNMIK - United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo; 
MONUC - United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic 
of the Congo; 
UNMIL - United Nations Mission in Liberia; 
UNOCI - United Nations Operation in Cote d'Ivoire; 
MINUSTAH - United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti; 
UNMIS - United Nations Mission in the Sudan; 
UNMIT - United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste; 
UNAMID - African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur; 
MINURCAT - United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and 
Chad. 

Special Political Missions led by DPKO: 

UNAMA - United Nations Mission in Afghanistan; 
UNIOSIL - United Nations Integrated Office in Sierra Leone; 
BINUB - United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi. 

[End of figure] 

In 2002, UNLB began managing strategic deployment stocks (SDS), which 
include equipment used for the start-up of new missions. SDS is 
designed to help enable the rapid deployment of new missions within 30 
to 90 days. To ensure that it is always in a state of readiness to 
support a newly established mission, UNLB maintains SDS as a revolving 
inventory that is replenished after equipment is shipped to missions. 

Restructuring of Peacekeeping Management under Way, but Ambiguity 
Remains on Procurement Lines of Authority: 

The United Nations is in the process of restructuring and strengthening 
its organization for peacekeeping management, but the Secretary-General 
and General Assembly have not decided whether the Department of 
Management or the Department of Field Support (DFS) will have full 
authority for field procurement. According to procurement officers in 
the field, authority and responsibility for peacekeeping is divided and 
remains unclear (A full discussion of the implementation of procurement 
reforms is in the following section). Although the reorganization of 
the Departments of Peacekeeping and Field Support is largely in place, 
some member states are concerned that the Under Secretary-General of 
DFS reports to and takes direction from the Under Secretary-General of 
DPKO for matters related to DPKO-managed field operations, in an 
arrangement that is both new and unique within the UN. Both departments 
are proceeding to recruit the additional staff authorized, but the 
recruitment is behind schedule and several key senior-level positions 
have not been permanently filled, according to the UN. 

Decision on Authority for Field Procurement Has Not Been Made and Lines 
of Authority and Responsibility Remain Unclear: 

The authority for field procurement remains divided between the 
Department of Management and DFS. In his 2007 peacekeeping 
restructuring proposal, the Secretary-General considered the delegation 
of authority and resources for field procurement to DFS fundamental to 
the rationale for realigning peacekeeping and establishing the new 
department.[Footnote 10] The Secretary-General's plan further stated 
that this transfer of authority would simplify the line of authority 
and accountability for procurement and would result in more timely 
delivery of goods and services to the field. In 2007, however, the 
General Assembly deferred its decision on whether to approve the 
transfer of authority for field procurement and approximately 50 staff 
from the Department of Management to DFS, pending the submission of a 
report by the Secretary-General. This report is to explain in detail 
the proposed management structure for procurement, including 
procurement procedures for peacekeeping operations. The General 
Assembly originally requested that this report be issued in time for 
its fall 2007 session, but the Secretary-General has not yet issued it. 

In 2006, we reported that the division of authority over field 
procurement between the Department of Management and DPKO had led to 
diffused accountability over procurement functions. We reported that 
because the UN had not established a single organizational entity or 
mechanism capable of comprehensively managing procurement, it was 
unclear which department was accountable for addressing problems in the 
UN's field procurement process. To address these concerns, we 
recommended that the Secretary of State and the Permanent 
Representative of the United States to the UN work with other member 
states to encourage the Secretary-General to establish clear and 
effective lines of authority between headquarters and the field for UN 
procurement, among other steps. The U.S. government's position is that 
the UN must fix systemic problems in the UN procurement system 
including the lack of accountability and an ineffective and inefficient 
organizational structure. 

Officials of both the Department of Management and DFS acknowledge that 
the current divided authority for procurement is an area of 
vulnerability. For example, Department of Management officials told us 
that the dual control over procurement prevents the strategic 
management of procurement. These officials stated that the Department 
of Management's procurement division has overall responsibility for UN 
procurement, but lacks authority or jurisdiction over peacekeeping 
missions. DFS officials agreed that the continued divided management 
structure for field procurement is problematic. These officials said 
that each field procurement crosses between the Departments of 
Management and Field Support multiple times, which is inefficient and 
leaves open the question of which department is ultimately accountable 
and responsible for the procurement. Figure 2 illustrates the divided 
lines of authority in the procurement of goods and services that exceed 
field mission authority, with approval and clarifications moving back 
and forth between DFS and the Department of Management before the 
procurement is completed. 

Figure 2: UN Field Procurement Process (for procurements exceeding 
mission authority and requiring HCC review--$500,000 and above): 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the UN Field Procurement Process (for 
procurements requiring HQ review; $500,000 and above), as follows: 

Department of Field Support (Peacekeeping Mission): 
* Identifies requirement for goods and services (Peacekeeping Mission); 
* Requests local procurement authority (Peacekeeping Mission); 
interacts with Department of Management (Procurement Division): 
- Evaluates and accepts local procurement authority[A] (Procurement 
Division); 
* Conducts sourcing, solicitation, and receipt of bids (Peacekeeping 
Mission); 
* Conducts technical and commercial evaluations of bids (Peacekeeping 
Mission); 
* Local Committee reviews case and recommends it for approval 
(Headquarters/Local Committee on Contracts); interacts with Department 
of Management (Procurement Division): 
- Reviews and prepares case for HCC, requests clarifications 
(Procurement Division); 
* Clarifies request; returns clarifications to interaction with 
Department of Management (Procurement Division): 
- Presents case to HCC; 
- Headquarters Committee reviews case and recommend it for approval 
(Headquarters/Local Committee on Contracts); 
- Forwards approval to mission (Procurement Division); 
* Awards or issues purchase order or contract (Peacekeeping Mission); 
* Receives procured goods or service (Peacekeeping Mission). 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: This figure provides a high-level summary view and does not 
include all steps of the field procurement process. 

[A] The evaluation and acceptance of authority is completed in 
conjunction with DFS. 

[End of figure] 

In our structured interviews, chief procurement officers at 
peacekeeping missions commented that the lack of clear authority and 
accountability continues to adversely impact them. Eighteen of the 20 
chief procurement officers we interviewed outlined challenges or 
difficulties stemming from the division of responsibilities for field 
procurement. For example, DFS does not have full operational control 
and authority for field procurement because it does not approve 
individual cases, according to one chief procurement officer. The 
Department of Management's Procurement Division does review cases 
before they are submitted to the Headquarters Committee on Contracts, 
but is not operationally accountable for late procurements in the 
field, according to another chief procurement officer. As a result, one 
field procurement officer told us that, even when a procurement delay 
impacts a mission's operation, it is possible that no one can be held 
accountable because procurement staff followed the rules and procedures 
of their departments. Eighteen of the 20 chief procurement officers we 
interviewed also expressed confusion or uncertainties over the division 
of responsibilities between the two departments as well as which 
department they should seek guidance from. For example, several chief 
procurement officers told us that the Procurement Division indicated 
that they should not communicate with the division on procurement 
questions, but should instead ask DFS. However, DFS has only a two- 
person office to assist field missions with their procurement concerns, 
and several of the chief procurement officers said that DFS lacks the 
resources needed to sufficiently support field procurement. Several 
chief procurement officers also said they feel like "orphans" and are 
often left on their own to make procurement decisions in isolation. 

Department of Management and DFS officials expressed opposing views on 
how to resolve the issue of divided authority for field procurement. 
Department of Management officials stated that transferring authority 
and resources for procurement to DFS would weaken internal controls by 
including the field requisitioning and procurement functions within the 
same department. These officials also said that the procurement 
division within the Department of Management should be given overall 
responsibility for all UN procurement, including in the field. DFS 
officials, however, stated that they should be provided the authority 
and staff to conduct field procurement. These officials said that 
procurement procedures need to be improved to reflect the realities of 
conducting procurement in the field. They pointed out that expediting 
field procurement was central to the Secretary-General's peacekeeping 
reform, and the continuation of the status quo on field procurement 
raises the question of why DFS was created. Some chief procurement 
officers said a decision should be made as soon as possible but did not 
express an opinion about which department should be given overall 
responsibility for field procurement. 

Restructuring of DPKO and DFS Is Largely in Place, but Member States 
Have Raised Several Concerns: 

As of August 2008, the reorganization of peacekeeping management is 
largely in place, including the co-location of staff from the 
Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support and new 
offices for both departments. Co-location included moving offices and 
staff of both departments to adjacent locations within the UN so that 
they could work together on common issues. DPKO also established new 
offices such as the Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions, 
which consolidated the existing police, justice, corrections, mine 
action, and disarmament and demobilization units. This new office is 
intended to be more comprehensive in helping reform a country's police 
and military and developing its courts and judiciary. One element of 
the reorganization that is still in process is the development of the 
Integrated Operational Teams within DPKO. These teams, which are 
intended to improve coordination between UN departments in planning, 
deploying, and supporting peacekeeping operations, were approved by the 
General Assembly in 2007, but are not fully established. DPKO planned 
to have seven teams--made up of political, military, police and support 
specialists--operational by March 2008. As of June 2008, the team for 
the joint United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur is the only 
one that is fully operational. Figure 3 highlights the reorganization's 
major changes to the organizational structures of DPKO and DFS. 

Figure 3: Reorganization of DPKO and DFS: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the reorganization of DPKO and DFS, 
as follows: 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations (as of July 2007): 

* Office of the Under-Secretary General; 
- Executive Office;
- Situation Centre; 

Second level, direct reporting to Office of the Under-Secretary 
General: 
* Office of Operations; 
- Africa I; 
- Africa II (new); 
- Europe and Latin America; 
- Asia and Middle East; 
* Office of Military Affairs; 
- Current Military Operations; 
- Military Planning; 
- Force Generation; 
* Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions (new); 
- Police; 
- Criminal Law and Judicial Advisory; 
- DDR; 
- Mine Action; 
* Policy Evaluation and Training Division (new); 
- Peacekeeping Best Practices; 
- Integrated Training; 

The former Office of Mission Support within DPKO has become a new and 
separate department - Department of Field Support. The former office 
consisted of an Administrative Support Division and a Logistics Support 
Division. 

Department of Field Support (DFS) (new): 

* Office of the Under-Secretary General; 
- Conduct and Discipline; 
- Senior Leadership Appointments Section; 

Second level, direct reporting to Office of the Under-Secretary 
General: 
* Field Personnel Division; 
- Field Personnel Operations Service; 
- Field Personnel Specialist Support Service; 
* Field Budget and Finance Division; 
- Budget and Performance Reporting Service; 
- MOU and Claims Management Section; 
* Logistics Support Division; 
- Operational Support Service; 
- Specialist Support Service; 
- Transportation and Movement Service; 
* Communication and Information Technology Services; 
- Operations Section; 
- Information Systems Section. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Although UN officials have told us the restructuring of the Departments 
of Peacekeeping and Field Support is mostly in place, some member 
states are concerned that the newly established Under Secretary-General 
of DFS reports to and takes direction from the Under Secretary-General 
of DPKO for matters related to DPKO-managed field operations. The 
Secretary-General intended this organizational structure to ensure 
cooperation and integration between the two departments. However, the 
General Assembly specified that this arrangement, with one Under 
Secretary-General subordinate to another, was not to set a precedent. 
The UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 
(ACABQ), as well as several of the representatives from individual 
member states that we spoke to, expressed concern over the feasibility 
of this arrangement, given that it is both new and unique within the 
UN. 

The ACABQ has raised concerns about the Secretary-General's proposal to 
strengthen DPKO's Office of Military Affairs. The Secretary-General 
reported that the office lacked the rank, capacity, and specialist 
capabilities to successfully fulfill the functions of a strategic 
military headquarters for peacekeeping operations in routine and crisis 
situations. In March 2008, the Secretary-General proposed to expand the 
Office of Military Affairs by 92 positions, upgrade it with higher- 
ranking military officers, and expand its functions. The ACABQ reviewed 
the Secretary-General's proposal, and although it did support 
additional strengthening of the office, it did not recommend approval. 
The ACABQ reported that the Secretary-General had not substantiated the 
challenges faced by the Office of Military Affairs with relevant data 
and did not submit the proposal as part of a comprehensive budget for 
peacekeeping support. The General Assembly subsequently approved 45 new 
posts and requested the Secretariat to further report on the 
strengthening and restructuring of the Office of Military Affairs. 

Recruitment of Additional Staff Is Proceeding, but Senior-Level 
Turnover Has Raised Concerns: 

As of August 2008, a UN official informed us that 134 of the 152 new 
staff positions authorized by the General Assembly for DPKO and DFS had 
been selected. However, the departments had established a goal to fill 
all of the newly-created positions by March 2008. A DPKO official 
informed us that the hiring of staff has taken longer than expected 
because of the UN's lengthy hiring process. Filling positions at the 
senior level is a particular concern because the restructuring is being 
completed while the UN is expanding peacekeeping missions. In addition, 
new Under Secretaries General for both DPKO and DFS were just appointed 
in June 2008 and March 2008, respectively. According to the UN, DPKO 
has 26 senior staff positions with 7 of them not filled by permanent 
appointees, and DFS has 15 senior staff positions with 5 not filled by 
permanent appointees. Key positions that are vacant or are temporarily 
filled include DPKO's Chief of Staff (who ensures coordination between 
DPKO and DFS and oversees the implementation of the restructuring, 
among other activities), the principal officers of both Africa 
divisions, and DFS's Director of Logistics Support, according to a UN 
official. In addition to these positions, DFS reported that the 
Assistant Secretary-General for Field Support and the Chief of 
Transport and Movement vacated their posts in late August 2008. 

The UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 
(ACABQ) has raised concerns that the vacancies and the many new 
appointees are likely to have a major impact on the performance of the 
two departments. According to the ACABQ, it is unclear how these vacant 
positions, as well as the limited amount of time the newest senior 
appointees have been in their positions, will affect the restructuring 
implementation. DFS officials disagreed with the ACABQ's assessment 
because, in their view, the mid-level staff are experienced and will 
provide continuity despite senior management changes. Moreover, the 
duties of many of the vacant senior level positions are being carried 
out by experienced staff, who temporarily fill these positions, 
according to UN officials. 

Peacekeeping Procurement Reforms Are Proceeding, but Have Not Addressed 
Some Previously Identified Concerns: 

The United Nations has made some progress in implementing procurement 
reforms, but has not resolved continuing concerns in areas such as 
developing career paths for procurement officers in the field. Reforms 
have included policies to strengthen internal controls--including the 
expansion of financial disclosure requirements to cover all procurement 
staff--and efforts to improve the procurement function, such as an 
expansion of training for procurement staff. However, these reforms and 
initiatives have not addressed some previously identified concerns, 
such as difficulties in attracting and retaining field procurement 
staff. Chief procurement officers at peacekeeping missions raised these 
and other concerns as continuing challenges to conducting procurement 
activities in the field. See table 1 for a summary of UN procurement 
reform accomplishments and continuing concerns. 

Table 1: Implementation Status of Procurement Reforms and Continuing 
Concerns: 

Procurement Reforms That Have Been Implemented: 

Policies to Improve Internal Controls: 
* Financial disclosure requirement; 
* Post employment restrictions; 
* Supplier code of conduct; 

Actions to Improve Procurement Functions: 
* Expanded training; 
* Management of vendor database; 
* Updates to procurement manual; 
* Expanded delegations for local procurement; 

Continuing Procurement Challenges: 
* Limited career development and staffing in the field; 
* Difficulties in attracting and retaining field procurement staff; 
* Difficulties in applying procurement processes in the field; 

Procurement Reforms That Have Yet to Be Approved or Implemented: 
* Independent bid protest process; 
* Ethics guidance for procurement staff; 
* Lead agency concept; 
* Risk assessment for field procurement. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

Recent Reforms Have Included Policies to Strengthen Internal Controls 
and Actions to Improve the Procurement Function: 

The UN has made progress in implementing procurement reforms, in 
particular through the issuance of several organizationwide policies to 
improve internal controls. The UN also has taken steps to improve the 
functioning of procurement in headquarters and the field through 
expanded training and updates to its vendor management database and 
procurement manual, among other initiatives. Following a World Summit 
held in 2005, the UN outlined a series of procurement reform actions in 
2006,[Footnote 11] and the Procurement Division established a 
Procurement Reform Implementation Team to implement these reform 
initiatives focused on internal controls, the procurement process, and 
strategic management. In a November 2007 status update on these 
reforms, the Secretariat reported that it had implemented 35 of 74 
total reform actions, including 10 of the 27 main reform deliverables. 

Procurement Division Has Implemented Policies to Improve Internal 
Controls: 

As part of the UN's procurement reform process, the Secretariat has 
initiated or revised several procurement policies intended to improve 
internal controls covering the overall UN procurement process.[Footnote 
12] Initiatives that the Department of Management's Procurement 
Division has implemented include the following: 

* Financial disclosure requirement for procurement staff. In 2007, the 
UN expanded its financial disclosure requirements, previously only 
required for senior-level staff, to also cover all staff involved in 
procurement activities regardless of their function or grade level. 
These staff are required to file a disclosure or declaration of 
interest on an annual basis.[Footnote 13] 

* Post-employment restrictions. In 2007, the Secretary-General issued a 
bulletin establishing a post-employment restriction for all UN staff 
members participating in the procurement process. The policy prohibits 
former UN staff members from accepting employment or compensation from 
any UN contractor for 1 year following their UN employment.[Footnote 
14] 

* Supplier code of conduct. In 2006, the UN issued a supplier code of 
conduct on its Web site to raise awareness of the ethical 
responsibility of the vendor community. It included discussions of 
issues such as the avoidance of conflict of interest. In 2007, the UN 
revised the supplier code of conduct to reflect the latest provisions 
on post-employment restrictions. 

* Ban on gifts for Procurement Division staff. The Procurement Division 
also has issued a guideline for its staff establishing zero tolerance 
for gifts and hospitality from UN vendors. This guideline is more 
stringent than the relevant provisions of the existing UN Staff Rules, 
which are applicable to the staff at large and allow staff to receive 
gifts of a nominal value, under certain conditions. 

UN Has Expanded Procurement Training for Headquarters and Field Staff: 

In 2006, we reported that the UN had not established training 
requirements for its procurement staff, resulting in inconsistent 
training levels across the procurement workforce.[Footnote 15] Other 
studies had also found that UN procurement staff lacked sufficient 
knowledge of procurement policies and procedures.[Footnote 16] The 
Procurement Division, in coordination with the Office of Human 
Resources Management and the Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office 
(IAPSO[Footnote 17]), has since developed a series of training courses 
for headquarters and field staff that were delivered in 2007 and 2008. 
These training modules covered topics including the fundamentals of UN 
procurement, contract and supplier relations, and ethics in 
procurement. According to the Department of Management, a joint 
procurement training program provided training to over 850 staff 
responsible for procurement activities at various locations. Chief 
procurement officers at 18 of the 20 field missions told us that their 
mission had received procurement training recently. 

However, while expressing appreciation for the training delivered in 
the field, 13 of the 20 chief procurement officers we interviewed 
stated that the UN had not established a comprehensive procurement 
training program for procurement staff. For example, one chief 
procurement officer observed that there are no benchmarks or minimum 
requirements for training and that it is largely driven by the 
availability of funds. Some chief procurement officers also emphasized 
to us that because of the high turnover of field procurement staff, 
training must continue to be offered to the field and must not be a one-
time event. Several procurement chiefs also discussed a need to expand 
training for other mission staff involved in the procurement process--
particularly requisitioners.[Footnote 18] In May 2008, the UN approved 
a Procurement Division training framework document that covers the 
division's longer-term plans and objectives for procurement training. 
The document outlines an objective of establishing a comprehensive 
procurement training program that covers not only procurement staff, 
but also requisitioning and contract management staff. However, the 
document does not make clear how this training will be funded. 

Procurement Reforms Have also Focused on Vendor Management and the 
Procurement Manual, among Other Initiatives: 

The Procurement Division also has implemented reforms in other areas, 
including updating its vendor management database and its procurement 
manual. In 2006, we reported that the UN has had persistent 
difficulties in maintaining effective rosters of qualified vendors and 
that it had not updated its procurement manual since 2004 to reflect 
current UN procurement policy. The Procurement Division has taken 
action on the following reform areas: 

* Vendor Database Management. In August 2007, the Procurement Division 
established a Vendor Registration and Management Team that has, among 
its responsibilities, to manage and develop the UN's database of 
vendors determined to be qualified to do business with the 
organization.[Footnote 19] Procurement division officials stated that 
the team has removed 5,000 companies with incomplete or out-of-date 
information from the database. In addition, these officials stated that 
a pilot project is under way at headquarters to streamline vendor 
registration requirements. 

* Procurement Manual. The Department of Field Support established a 
working group composed of headquarters and field official that is 
focused on reviewing and updating the procurement manual. A DFS 
official stated that the working group's recommendations are forwarded 
to the Procurement Division for consideration and revision of the 
manual. The UN updated the manual in November 2007 and again in June 
2008.[Footnote 20] According to the UN, the manual will continue to be 
regularly amended to reflect best practices in public sector 
procurement. UN officials reported that recent changes to the manual 
included a more detailed discussion of the best value for money 
principle, among other issues. 

* Increase in HCC Threshold. In August 2008, the UN increased the 
minimum threshold for procurement contracts required to be reviewed by 
the Headquarters Committee on Contracts from $200,000 to $500,000. The 
UN Office of Internal Oversight Services had recommended in 2003 that 
this threshold be increased to $500,000 or $1 million in order to 
reduce the committee's workload and improve efficiency. Fourteen of the 
20 chief procurement officers we interviewed had told us that the 
financial threshold for HCC's review of procurement cases should be 
raised. Some of these officials referred to rising prices since the 
$200,000 limit was established or the decline in the value of the U.S. 
dollar vis-à-vis the Euro as reasons for increasing the limit.[Footnote 
21] 

* Procurement from Developing Countries. UN officials stated that the 
organization has taken steps to increase procurement opportunities for 
vendors from developing countries. In November 2007, the Secretariat 
reported that procurement from developing country vendors increased 
from 41 percent of total procurement in 2004 to 55 percent in 2006. To 
increase procurement opportunities, the UN has conducted business 
education seminars in various countries to increase awareness of 
potential vendors about the UN procurement process.[Footnote 22] 

* Expanded Delegation of Authority for Local Procurement. To address 
challenges to field procurement at mission start-up, the Procurement 
Division has expanded a list of items for which missions have increased 
procurement authority. These items are core requirements such as food, 
water, and cleaning services, which could more easily be procured 
locally. For these items, missions have a delegated procurement 
authority of $1 million, rather than their typical $200,000 limit for 
other goods and services. 

UN Has Not Resolved Several Continuing Concerns over Peacekeeping 
Procurement: 

Although the UN has made progress in implementing procurement reforms 
from its 2006 agenda, it has not fully addressed several concerns 
previously raised by GAO and others. These include the need to improve 
career development options and conditions of service in the field in 
order to attract and retain qualified procurement staff, and adapt 
headquarters-based procurement processes to the field environment. In 
addition, the UN has not implemented other reforms, such as 
establishing an independent bid protest mechanism. 

Limited Career Development Opportunities Contribute to Difficulties in 
Attracting and Retaining Qualified Field Procurement Staff: 

The United Nations has not made progress in addressing previously 
raised concerns over career development opportunities in order to 
attract and retain staff needed for field procurement. In 2006 we 
reported that the UN had not established a career path for professional 
advancement for headquarters and peacekeeping procurement staff and 
that the peacekeeping procurement workforce is adversely affected by 
considerable staff turnover, especially in peacekeeping missions where 
UN staff must operate in demanding, unpredictable, and dangerous 
conditions.[Footnote 23] GAO's Framework for Assessing the Acquisition 
Function at Federal Agencies[Footnote 24] also states that critical 
success factors for acquiring, developing and retaining talent are 
targeted investments in people and utilizing human capital approaches 
targeted to meet organizational needs. 

As discussed earlier, the Procurement Division has recently issued a 
training framework document that includes an objective to support the 
professional development of staff members in areas including staff 
mobility and career advancement.[Footnote 25] However, 14 of the 20 
chief procurement officers we interviewed stated that the UN has not 
established a formal career path for procurement staff. One chief 
procurement officer, for example, told us that there is no clarity in 
this area and little prospect for promotion and development, which has 
an impact on staff performance. Another field official said that 
opportunities for career development for field staff are "totally 
forgotten" by the UN and that when a mission closes, the staff are left 
wondering what will happen to them.[Footnote 26] The UN commented that 
several proposals to reform human resources management are currently 
before the General Assembly, including proposals on harmonizing 
conditions of service, streamlining contractual arrangements, and 
establishing career peacekeepers. 

Overall, the UN continues to have difficulties in retaining high- 
quality procurement staff for sustained periods in peacekeeping 
missions. We previously reported that about 23 percent of procurement 
staff positions in peacekeeping missions were vacant in 2005, and DFS 
reported that the vacancy rate for field procurement missions has 
remained at over 20 percent from 2006 to 2008.[Footnote 27] UN 
officials also told us that turnover among field procurement staff has 
continued to hurt the continuity of their operations and that 
peacekeeping missions continue to faces challenges in deploying 
qualified, experienced procurement staff, especially during the 
critical start-up phase. In addition, 19 of 20 chief procurement 
officers expressed concerns to us about vacancies or understaffing 
among field procurement staff. One chief procurement officer at a large 
mission told us that when his mission started up there were only two 
temporary duty staff assigned to the procurement function and that it 
took 2 years for the section to reach 75 percent of its allocated 
staffing level. In discussing the significance of field procurement 
vacancies, another chief procurement officer told us that staff are 
pushed harder and burn out faster, and there is a heightened risk that 
errors will be made. 

Chief Procurement Officers Continue to Cite Difficulties in Applying UN 
Procurement Processes and Procedures in the Field: 

In our 2006 report, we noted that field procurement staff operate under 
regulations that do not always reflect differences inherent to 
operating in field locations and that UN procurement rules and 
processes are difficult to apply in peacekeeping missions, according to 
UN officials, in particular during start-up. Despite the UN's efforts 
to improve field procurement, chief procurement officers continue to 
note challenges in implementing UN procurement policies and processes 
in the field environment. For example, 17 of the 20 chief procurement 
officers we interviewed identified difficulties in applying the UN's 
vendor registration requirements in the countries where the missions 
are operating. One official told us that the requirement for potential 
vendors to provide bank statements is impossible to meet in areas where 
there are no functioning banks.[Footnote 28] Another procurement 
official stated that the UN vendor registration system does not take 
into account these circumstances on the ground, and if the missions 
strictly followed the rules and the paperwork requirements, they would 
not be able to do business. As an example, this official told us that 
to purchase water the mission has to find an individual with a 
borehole. The UN official stated that this person may have a gun and a 
donkey, but the only paper he handles for his business is cash. 
[Footnote 29] Officials in the Department of Management's Procurement 
Division stated that they are working to streamline vendor registration 
requirements, including reducing paperwork requirements for low-value 
contracts. The Department of Management commented that the Procurement 
Division is piloting a revised vendor registration process at UN 
headquarters that requires less formal documentation and is intended to 
expedite vendor registration. 

Although the Procurement Division has revised and updated the 
procurement manual in both of the last 2 years, 15 of the 20 chief 
procurement officers we interviewed told us that the procurement manual 
should be further revised to better reflect the field procurement 
environment. Several chief procurement officers, for example, stated 
that the manual should be shortened and simplified to more clearly 
distinguish between policy and guidelines and that separate guidance 
for field procurement should be established. Another official stated 
that when the manual was written the operational requirements in field 
were not taken into account. This official added that during a war, it 
is not always possible to go through a long bidding process for fuel or 
food and that sometimes time frames need to be condensed to meet local 
conditions. Procurement division officials told us that a future 
revision and update of the manual will include a more extensive 
revision to reflect field concerns. 

Additional Procurement Reforms Have Yet to Be Implemented: 

In addition to the concerns raised above, several other elements of the 
UN's procurement reform agenda continue to be discussed within the 
organization but have not yet been implemented. These include: 

* Independent Bid Protest. We previously reported that the UN had not 
established an independent bid protest process, a widely endorsed 
control mechanism that permits vendors to file complaints with an 
office or official who is independent of the procurement 
process.[Footnote 30] Procurement division officials stated that a 
procedure for bid protests has been agreed to in principle but still 
needs to be formalized. In addition, these officials stated that a 
pilot project for a bid protest system in UN headquarters is planned to 
begin in September 2008. 

* Ethics Guidance. A 2006 UN report on procurement reform discussed 
plans to issue specific guidance on ethics responsibilities for 
procurement staff in 2006. However, according to Procurement Division 
officials, these guidelines have not yet been finalized and issued. 
[Footnote 31] In March 2008, the ACABQ expressed its concern over the 
delay in issuing the ethics guidelines for procurement staff and 
reiterated that every effort should be made to resolve outstanding 
issues and issue the guidance without further delay. UN officials told 
us that an issue still to be resolved is whether the formal adoption of 
the Procurement Division's guidance on zero tolerance for gifts for 
procurement staff will require a change to the UN staff regulations. 

* Lead Agency Concept. The UN also has made little progress in 
establishing a lead agency concept, which is intended to achieve 
savings and reduce duplication of work for commonly procured products, 
such as office supplies, information technology, and communications 
equipment. Under the concept a UN organization with an established 
contract with favorable terms and conditions would make purchases under 
the contract on behalf of other organizations in the UN system. In its 
2006 procurement reform plan, the UN projected that implementation of 
the lead agency concept would take 6 to 12 months. However, UN 
officials stated the General Assembly has yet to approve a proposal to 
implement the concept. According to the Department of Management, the 
lead agency concept may be of limited application, given that a 
significant proportion of the UN Secretariat's procurement activities 
are in support of peacekeeping activities and which may not be required 
by other UN agencies. 

* Risk Assessments of Field Procurement. In 2006, we reported that the 
UN lacks a comprehensive risk assessment framework for procurement 
activities.[Footnote 32] A UN official acknowledged that there has been 
little progress to report on the establishment of a risk management 
system. Fifteen of the 20 chief procurement officers we interviewed 
also told us that they had not received guidance or requirements from 
UN headquarters for conducting risk assessments of procurement 
activities. [Footnote 33] One official, for example, stated that 
although there has been discussion within UN headquarters about risk 
management, no formal guidance has been issued. At the organizational 
level, the UN continues to develop and plan for the roll-out of an 
overall risk assessment framework, known as the Enterprise Risk 
Management (ERM) concept. The UN is planning to implement the ERM by 
2010.[Footnote 34] 

UNLB Provides Important Communications and Logistical Support to 
Peacekeeping Missions, but Its Growth Has Raised Concerns among Member 
States: 

UNLB provides several important services to peacekeeping missions, 
including the management of the UN's worldwide communications and 
information network and the rapid deployment of Strategic Deployment 
Stocks (SDS). In response to peacekeeping mandates, UNLB's 
responsibilities have increased to incorporate other services, such as 
training and aviation support. However, its growth over the past 5 to 6 
years has raised concerns among UN member states about its expansion 
and future roles in peacekeeping support. 

UNLB Provides Important Communications and Logistical Support for 
Peacekeeping Operations and Administers Training and Other Services to 
Missions: 

UNLB supports peacekeeping missions through the provision of several 
important services including the management of the UN's global 
communications network and the management and rapid deployment of 
strategic equipment to the missions when they start. In addition to 
these core functions, UNLB provides administrative support to six 
"tenant units" hosted at the base that provide services such as 
training and aviation support.[Footnote 35] Services that UNLB provides 
to peacekeeping operations include the following: 

* UNLB manages the UN worldwide communications hub that links 
operations between UN headquarters, UN agencies, peacekeeping missions, 
and a number of other field offices through e-mail, telephone, and 
videoconferencing. UNLB's Communications and Information Technology 
Service serves more than 90,000 UN staff at headquarters and at field 
operations.[Footnote 36] On a yearly basis, UNLB establishes 4,000 
videoconferences, processes 24 million inter-mission telephone calls, 
and routes 120 million e-mail messages involving headquarters and UN 
field missions. UNLB also maintains the UN satellite communication 
network and the mobile communication vehicles used in the field (as 
shown in fig. 4). 

Figure 4: UNLB's Communications and Data Facilities: 

[See PDF for image] 

Photographs of UNLB Data Center and Satellite Farm and Mobile 
Communication Vehicle. 

Source: Photographs taken by GAO during a site visit to Brindisi, 
Italy. 

[End of figure] 

* UNLB provides logistical support to peacekeeping missions that are 
starting up by receiving, inspecting, maintaining, and issuing 
equipment and supplies from SDS.[Footnote 37] SDS is composed of 
equipment considered vital to missions at start-up, such as computers, 
generators, portable offices, and vehicles. (See app. III for a list of 
the various components of SDS managed by UNLB.) UNLB also receives 
goods and equipment that have been procured directly from a 
manufacturer on behalf of peacekeeping missions, inspects the goods, 
and refits the equipment for the missions' needs, then ships them to 
missions. Finally, UNLB refurbishes used equipment, such as vehicles 
and generators, for inclusion in the UN Reserve stock for re-issuance 
to peacekeeping missions. 

* UNLB provides administrative support services to six "tenant units" 
hosted at the base that provide various services and support. For 
example, UNLB administers training courses, seminars, and pre- 
deployment briefings at its on-site training facility. As part of the 
training function, UNLB provides the civilian pre-deployment training 
that new or returning UN staff enroll in before deploying to a 
mission.[Footnote 38] According to UN officials, UNLB provided training 
to 2,000 staff in 2007, of which 400 were preparing to deploy to 
peacekeeping missions. UNLB also provides oversight of aviation safety 
for UNMIK, UNOMIG, and itself and develops geospacial information for 
missions. UNLB's Air Operations Centre provides ground support to 
aircraft movements and also coordinates with the UN's World Food 
Program to provide aviation support for humanitarian flights from 
Brindisi. The Geographic Information Services (GIS) Center provides 
mapping and support services to peacekeeping operations, in Darfur and 
Lebanon, for example. 

UNLB Has Expanded Since 2002: 

UNLB has grown since 2002 in response to the growing number of 
peacekeeping mandates and the Secretary-General's decisions to place 
additional services at UNLB. Since 2002, the UN Security Council has 
mandated the deployment or expansion of eight peacekeeping operations 
and authorized a four-fold increase in the number of UN peacekeepers. 
From fiscal year 2002/2003 to fiscal year 200/2009,[Footnote 39] UNLB's 
budget increased from $14 million to over $45 million, and its staff 
levels increased from 130 to 264 (see table 2). As shown in table 2, 
UNLB has also been actively shipping SDS stocks to missions. Since 
2002, when the General Assembly approved the SDS, UNLB has supported 40 
operations with SDS shipments amounting to over $300 million. This 
includes shipments to all new missions since 2004, the supply of 
operational and security materials to existing missions, and ad hoc 
support to operations, including the rotation of SDS. 

Table 2: UNLB's Apportionments, Staffing Levels, and SDS Shipments from 
2002 to 2008 (U.S. Dollars in millions): 

Fiscal year: 2002/2003; 
Apportionments: $14.3; 
Staff: 130; 
SDS Shipments: $2.4. 

Fiscal year: 2003/2004; 
Apportionments: $22.2; 
Staff: 136; 
SDS Shipments: $76.3. 

Fiscal year: 2004/2005; 
Apportionments: $28.4; 
Staff: 136; 
SDS Shipments: $76.9. 

Fiscal year: 2005/2006; 
Apportionments: $31.5; 
Staff: 202; 
SDS Shipments: $30.1. 

Fiscal year: 2006/2007; 
Apportionments: $35.5; 
Staff: 216; 
SDS Shipments: $59.1. 

Fiscal year: 2007/2008; 
Apportionments: $40.4; 
Staff: 242; 
SDS Shipments: $56.9. 

Fiscal year: 2008/2009; 
Apportionments: $45.8[A]; 
Staff: 264; 
SDS Shipments: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of UNLB data. 

[A] 2008/2009 reflects approved budget rather than apportionment. 

[End of table] 

UNLB's expansion since 2002 includes the administration and management 
of offices that support peacekeeping. In fiscal year 2006/2007, UNLB 
initiated its training center and Regional Aviation Safety Office, and 
the base's fiscal year 2007/2008 budget initiated administrative 
support for the Strategic Air Operations Center, GIS Center, and the 
Engineering Design Unit. In 2008, UNLB will manage facilities for 
DPKO's Standing Police Unit. 

In July 2008, the General Assembly approved UNLB's 2008/2009 budget, 
which includes an increase in staff. UNLB's annual budget documents 
include performance measures and indicators of achievement relating to 
the management of SDS and other equipment. UNLB is meeting most of its 
performance indicators, which include a near 100 percent availability 
of its IT communications services to UN staff and a reduction in 
equipment receipt and inspection times, but faces some challenges in 
shipping this equipment to the missions. For example, UNLB has not met 
its goal of processing shipments of equipment within a 17-day target 
period, due in part to the time it takes to procure shipping contracts. 
While noting these challenges, the ACABQ also has recognized UNLB's 
achievements in several areas, particularly its recent certifications 
in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) process for 
excellence in supply inventory and information security management (ISO 
27001). 

General Assembly Requested UNLB to Clarify Its Role in Supporting 
Peacekeeping, in Light of Its Expansion: 

While the General Assembly approved UNLB's 2008-2009 budget, it 
endorsed the ACABQ's previous recommendation that the Secretary-General 
report on the role and future development of the base. In 2007 and 
2008, the General Assembly and the ACABQ reported that a longer-term 
perspective was needed to clarify the concept and functions of UNLB, 
and the basis for placing certain functions at the base. The General 
Assembly endorsed the recommendation that the Secretary-General report 
in the 2009-2010 budget proposal on UNLB's roles and future 
development. 

The ACABQ also raised several specific issues about UNLB's new 
services. In 2007, and subsequently in 2008, the ACABQ requested 
analyses of the function of the GIS Center and the Engineering 
Standardization and Design Center, stressing the need for the GIS 
Center to clarify its goals, resources and roles. For the Engineering 
Center, the ACABQ saw a need for determining what efficiency and 
productivity gains would be achieved by establishing the unit at UNLB. 
In 2008, the ACABQ also emphasized that a forthcoming report on 
training strategy should provide an analysis of the optimum venues and 
conditions for training, including training that may be more effective 
if provided regionally. The ACABQ also recommended that the Secretary- 
General clarify reporting lines between the "tenant units," UNLB, and 
UN headquarters. 

In response to the ACABQ's concerns, endorsed by the General Assembly, 
the Secretary-General stated that support for establishing logistics 
functions at UNLB would be based on analysis of projected costs and 
overhead weighed against potential benefits, including savings and 
productivity gains. To clarify UNLB's future strategy, the Department 
of Field Support and UNLB are developing a 5-year plan that is to be 
incorporated into UNLB's 2009-2010 budget. According to UNLB officials, 
the plan is expected to show UNLB expansion possibilities as well as 
refurbishment of infrastructure requirements for the next 5 years. They 
said one factor that could change UNLB's role is a decision by the 
General Assembly to shift field procurement authority and 
responsibility to DFS. According to the head of DFS's Logistics 
Division, if DFS were given more responsibility for field procurement, 
UNLB could play a greater role in procuring for, managing, and 
monitoring the UN's worldwide contracts for goods and services. 

Conclusion: 

Management reforms needed to cope with the dramatic growth of 
peacekeeping are incomplete. Reforms to restructure peacekeeping 
management and strengthen procurement are still being discussed by the 
Secretariat and member states, but have not been resolved. In addition, 
the UN is in the process of clarifying long-term plans for the UN 
logistics base. Central to resolving these issues is a decision about 
which UN department--the Department of Management or the Department of 
Field Support--has authority and responsibility for peacekeeping 
procurement. The UN Secretariat has been unable to reach agreement on 
the management authority over field procurement, and as this decision 
continues to be delayed, the divided authority between two departments 
remains. UN officials and member states agree that this dual control 
over procurement is inefficient and ineffective and continues to expose 
the organization to risks. 

In a 2006 report, we identified the UN's divided organizational 
structure for managing procurement as a vulnerability that leaves 
unclear which department is accountable for problems in the UN's field 
procurement process. In that report, we recommended that the United 
States work with other member states to encourage the Secretary-General 
to take steps such as establishing clear and effective lines of 
authority between headquarters and the field for UN procurement. In 
2007, we further reported that due to the time and attention given to 
the Secretary-General's peacekeeping restructuring proposal, the 
General Assembly had not considered several procurement reform issues, 
including establishing lines of accountability, delegation of 
authority, and the responsibilities of the Department of Management and 
the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. A decision on this issue 
will provide direction to complete the restructuring and resourcing of 
the Department of Field Support, clarify lines of authority and 
responsibility for peacekeeping procurement, and help clarify a longer- 
term strategy for the logistics base. However, the UN has yet to 
resolve this issue. 

Further progress in other procurement reform areas also is needed. 
While the UN has taken steps to expand procurement training and update 
its procurement manual, it has not made progress in establishing an 
independent bid protest process and continues to face difficulties in 
attracting and retaining field procurement staff. Continued pressure by 
the United States and other member states to move these and other 
procurement reforms forward is needed to fully address concerns that we 
raised in our 2006 and 2007 reports covering UN procurement. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

The Department of State and the UN provided written comments on a draft 
of the report, which we have reprinted in appendixes IV and V. State 
agreed with the main findings of the report and agreed that much work 
remains in the UN's ongoing process to restructure and strengthen its 
organization for peacekeeping management. State commented that it would 
draw upon our findings in its continuing discussions with the UN. The 
UN commented that the report was a generally accurate reflection of the 
current situation. State and the UN also provided technical comments, 
which we addressed in the report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees; the Secretaries of State and Defense; and the United 
Nations. We will also provide copies to others on request. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 
this report are listed in app. VI. 

Signed by: 

Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our review focused on three objectives related to the management of 
peacekeeping operations: (1) the status of restructuring and 
strengthening peacekeeping management, including the authority for 
field procurement; (2) the status of reforms to address previously 
identified problems with peacekeeping procurement; and (3) UN Logistics 
Base's (UNLB) support of peacekeeping operations and its recent 
expansion. 

To assess the status of restructuring and strengthening peacekeeping 
management, we reviewed UN documents, including the Secretary-General's 
peacekeeping restructuring proposal, restructuring status reports, 
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Department of Field 
Support (DFS) documents, General Assembly (GA) resolutions, Advisory 
Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) reports, 
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) reports, and other UN 
documents. We also reviewed previous GAO reports. We also used a 
framework that is widely accepted in the international audit community 
and has been adopted by leading accountability organizations, including 
the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions, the U.S. 
Office of Management and Budget, and GAO.[Footnote 40] This framework 
includes the following elements of internal control: (1) the control 
environment, (2) risk assessment, (3) control activities, (4) 
information and communications, and (5) monitoring. In addition, we 
conducted interviews at UN headquarters in New York, with officials 
from the Office of the Secretary-General, DPKO, DFS, OIOS, and the 
Procurement Division (PD). We also met with officials at the U.S. 
Mission to the United Nations and with representatives of the ACABQ and 
with individual UN member states, including leading contributors to the 
UN and developing countries. In addition, we conducted structured 
interviews with chief procurement officers at 20 field missions to 
discuss management authority for field procurement and other issues 
related to the DPKO/DFS restructuring. For more information on these 
structured interviews, see the detailed description below. In 
Washington, D.C., we also met with State and Department of Defense 
(DOD) officials. 

To assess the status of peacekeeping procurement reforms, we reviewed 
UN documents, including UN Secretariat reports on the status of 
procurement reforms, PD and DFS documents, ACABQ reports, OIOS reports, 
and other documents. We also collected data on UN field procurement and 
on procurement staff vacancies. In addition, we reviewed previous 
reports and the internationally accepted internal control framework 
referred to above. 

In addition, we conducted structured telephone interviews with chief 
procurement officers[Footnote 41] at 20 current peacekeeping and 
special political missions. For these structured interviews, we 
selected the population of 17 current peacekeeping missions, as well as 
the 3 special political missions that are led by DPKO. Besides being 
led by DPKO, these special political missions are also similar to the 
peacekeeping missions in that they have their own delegated procurement 
authority from UN headquarters. We did not include within our scope 
other special political missions that are not led by DPKO or that do 
not have delegated procurement authority. We selected the following 17 
peacekeeping missions and 3 special political missions for our 
interviews: 

Peacekeeping Missions: 

UNTSO - United Nations Truce Supervision Organization; 
UNMOGIP - United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan; 
UNFICYP - United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus; 
UNDOF - United Nations Disengagement Observer Force; 
UNIFIL - United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon; 
MINURSO - United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara; 
UNOMIG - United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia; 
UNMIK - United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo; 
MONUC - United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic 
of the Congo; 
UNMEE - United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea[Footnote 42]; 
UNMIL - United Nations Mission in Liberia; 
UNOCI - United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire; 
MINUSTAH - United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti; 
UNMIS - United Nations Mission in the Sudan; 
UNMIT - United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste; 
UNAMID - African Union-United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur; 
MINURCAT - United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and 
Chad. 

Special Political Missions led by DPKO: 

UNAMA - United Nations Mission in Afghanistan; 
UNIOSIL - United Nations Integrated Office in Sierra Leone; 
BINUB - United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi. 

Our structured interview included questions on procurement reforms and 
processes, previous GAO findings, and issues relating to peacekeeping 
management and UNLB. Structured interview development involved multiple 
iterations in which questions were assessed methodologically for 
coherence, completeness, and balance. Two methodologists provided 
detailed input on the questions during the entire period of 
development. In the final phase of interview development, we pre-tested 
our questions with three of our initial respondents and refined our 
questions based on their input. 

To analyze the open-ended responses to our structured interview 
questions, we first developed a set of summary statements to be used 
for reporting purposes. These summary statements were based on an 
inductive exercise involving an in-depth reading and comparison of 
responses to questions under each of the eight recommendation 
categories and on other issues. Second, we tested these statements on 
an initial set of three interviews. This test involved two analysts 
separately coding all of the summary statements for each of the three 
interviews. Most statements were coded in one of three ways: (1) 
positive response - the interview data corresponded to the statement; 
(2) negative response - the interview data contradicted the statement; 
(3) non-response - no reference to the statement was contained in the 
interview data. The two analysts met and reconciled their responses; 
this effort also resulted in modifications to the summary statements. 
Third, the two analysts used the revised statements to separately code 
each of the remaining 17 interviews and then met to reconcile any 
differences in coding. The level of correspondence between the two 
analysts' coding of the summary statements was very high, 89 percent. 
The final tallies of the analysis were obtained by counting, for each 
statement, the number of positive, negative, and non-responses. Summary 
results of this analysis across all eight recommendation areas are 
provided in Appendix II. 

To assess the status of procurement reforms, we also met with UN 
officials in New York, including officials with the Office of the 
Secretary-General, the Procurement Division, DFS, DPKO, and OIOS. In 
addition, we met with representatives of the U.S. mission to the United 
Nations and with representatives from the ACABQ and individual member 
states. In Washington, we also met with State and DOD officials. 

To identify and examine the support UNLB provides to peacekeeping 
missions, we reviewed UN documents and reports, including budget 
documents, UNLB data and documents, DPKO Material Resource Plans (MRP), 
ACABQ reports, OIOS reports, and General Assembly resolutions. We 
determined that data from the UN's inventory management system are 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report, which is to 
support findings concerning UNLB's support for peacekeeping operations 
and its expansion. We traveled to Rome and Brindisi, Italy, to meet 
with officials from UNLB, the UN Humanitarian Response Depot (UNHRD), 
and representatives of the U.S. Mission to the Rome-based UN 
organizations. We met with UNLB officials to gain information on UNLB's 
operations, responsibilities related to the management of strategic 
deployment stocks (SDS), and challenges with supporting peacekeeping 
operations. We met with UNHRD and U.S. Mission officials to discuss 
other UN organizations' logistics operations to support humanitarian 
missions. We also met with officials with the U.S. Permanent Mission to 
the UN in New York, as well as State officials and DOD officials in 
Washington, D.C. It was beyond the scope of this review to conduct an 
analysis of the cost-effectiveness of UNLB's location in comparison to 
other locations. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 to September 2008 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO's Survey of Chief Procurement 
Officers at UN Peacekeeping Missions: 

The following table provides of statements derived from our structured 
telephone interviews with chief procurement officers (CPO) at 20 UN 
field missions. The statements are organized by categories that 
correspond to recommendations from our 2006 report on UN 
procurement.[Footnote 43] For each statement, we list the number of 
respondents that provided answers corresponding to the statement (Yes), 
the number of respondents providing answers indicating the opposite 
view (No), and the number of respondents who did not provide an answer 
or provided an answer that was unclear. For a detailed description of 
our scope and methodology for these structured interviews, see appendix 
I. 

Category/statement: CPOs at peacekeeping missions identified challenges 
to conducting procurement activities in the field; 
Yes: 20; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 0. 

Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between 
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs expressed confusion 
or uncertainties over the division of responsibilities between DFS and 
PD; 
Yes: 18; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 2. 

Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between 
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs told us that lines 
of authority and responsibility for procurement between headquarters 
and the field are clear; 
Yes: 1; 
No: 17; 
No answer or unclear: 2. 

Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between 
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs expressed 
challenges or difficulties stemming from the division of 
responsibilities between DFS and PD; 
Yes: 18; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 2. 

Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between 
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs stated that overall 
responsibility for field procurement should be clarified between DFS 
and PD; 
Yes: 19; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 1. 

Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between 
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs stated that DFS 
lacks the resources needed to sufficiently support field procurement; 
Yes: 9; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 11. 

Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between 
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs stated that they 
feel like "orphans" or that they are often left on their own to make 
procurement decisions in isolation; 
Yes: 9; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 11. 

Category/statement: Procurement training program and establishment of a 
formal career path for procurement officers: CPOs told us that their 
mission had received procurement training recently; 
Yes: 18; 
No: 1; 
No answer or unclear: 1. 

Category/statement: Procurement training program and establishment of a 
formal career path for procurement officers: CPOs stated that the UN 
has not established a comprehensive procurement training program for 
procurement staff; 
Yes: 13; 
No: 1; 
No answer or unclear: 6. 

Category/statement: Procurement training program and establishment of a 
formal career path for procurement officers: CPOs told us that the UN 
has not established a formal career path for procurement staff; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 1; 
No answer or unclear: 5. 

Category/statement: Procurement training program and establishment of a 
formal career path for procurement officers: CPOs told us that their 
missions were not in a position to implement the Best Value for Money 
principle; 
Yes: 16; 
No: 3; 
No answer or unclear: 1. 

Category/statement: Functions and workload of the Headquarters 
Committee on Contracts (HCC): CPOs discussed one or more challenges 
associated with the HCC's review of procurement cases; 
Yes: 17; 
No: 2; 
No answer or unclear: 1. 

Category/statement: Functions and workload of the Headquarters 
Committee on Contracts (HCC): CPOs told us that the financial threshold 
for the HCC's review of procurement cases should be raised; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 2; 
No answer or unclear: 4. 

Category/statement: Establishment of an independent bid protest process 
for UN vendors: CPOs discussed concerns to take into account if a 
formal independent bid protest were to be established for field 
missions; 
Yes: 16; 
No: 1; 
No answer or unclear: 3. 

Category/statement: Establishment of an independent bid protest process 
for UN vendors: CPOs told us that their missions have received few, if 
any, complaints from companies about the outcomes of the bidding 
process; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 2; 
No answer or unclear: 4. 

Category/statement: UN procurement manual and ethics guidance: CPOs 
stated that their staff refer to the UN Procurement Manual as a 
reference tool; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 2; 
No answer or unclear: 4. 

Category/statement: UN procurement manual and ethics guidance: CPOs 
stated that the Procurement Manual should be revised to better reflect 
the field procurement environment; 
Yes: 15; 
No: 3; 
No answer or unclear: 2. 

Category/statement: UN procurement manual and ethics guidance: CPOs 
stated that UN headquarters sought their input on revisions to the 
Procurement Manual; 
Yes: 19; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 1. 

Category/statement: Process for assuring that the UN is conducting 
business with only qualified vendors: CPOs identified difficulties in 
applying the UN's vendor registration requirements in the countries 
where the missions are operating; 
Yes: 17; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 3. 

Category/statement: Process for assuring that the UN is conducting 
business with only qualified vendors: CPOs told us that the UN's vendor 
registration process was unclear or that it needed to be revised; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 1; 
No answer or unclear: 5. 

Category/statement: Process for assuring that the UN is conducting 
business with only qualified vendors: CPOs told us that UNHQ provides 
them with information on suspended or suspect vendors; 
Yes: 20; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 0. 

Category/statement: Risk assessment process providing reasonable 
assurance of systematic and comprehensive of headquarters and field 
procurement: CPOs stated that they have not received guidance or 
requirements from UN headquarters for conducting risk assessments of 
procurement activities; 
Yes: 15; 
No: 3; 
No answer or unclear: 2. 

Category/statement: Monitoring of procurement activities by procurement 
managers: CPOs described monitoring and oversight of field procurement 
(by UN headquarters) as limited; 
Yes: 11; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 9. 

Category/statement: Other: CPOs expressed concerns to us about 
vacancies or understaffing among field procurement staff; 
Yes: 19; 
No: 0; 
No answer or unclear: 1. 

Source: GAO analysis of structured interviews with UN chief procurement 
officers. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Components of Strategic Deployment Stocks (SDS): 

SDS[Footnote 44] includes vehicles, communications equipment, and 
accommodation, among other items. This equipment is stored and 
maintained at UNLB as a reserve to be used for rapid deployment to 
newly starting missions. The following table lists the categories of 
SDS managed and stored by UNLB.[Footnote 45] The equipment is grouped 
into six sections: Engineering, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), 
Medical, Supply, Communication and Information Technology Services 
(CITS), and Transport. 

Engineering: 
Maintenance Supplies; 
Prefabricated Facilities; 
Bridges; 
Field Supply Supplies; 
Spare Parts and Supplies; 
Generators; 
Water Purification; 
Septic Tanks; 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS): 
IT Equipment; 
Software Packages; 
Spare Parts and Supplies; 

Medical[Footnote 46]: 
Clinic and Hospital Equipment; 
Medical Supplies. 

Communication and Information Technology Services (CITS): 
Public information equipment; 
Communication equipment; 
IT Equipment. 

Supply: 
Office Furniture; 
Office Equipment; 
Accommodation Equipment; 
Fire Fighting Equipment; 
Refrigeration Equipment; 
Fuel Tanks and Pumps; 
Security and Safety Equipment; 
Stationary and Office Supplies; 
Sanitary and Cleaning Materials; 
Binoculars and Observation Equipment; 
Spare Parts and Supplies; 
Uniforms, Flags, and Decals; 
Personal protection gear; 
Rations. 

Transport: 
Ambulances; 
Buses; 
Forklifts and Cargo Handles; 
Passenger, 4WD, pickups; 
Vehicle workshop equipment; 
Other vehicles; 
IT equipment. 

Source; United Nations. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial 
Officer: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

September 4, 2008: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "United 
Nations Peacekeeping: Lines of Authority for Field Procurement Remain 
Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues," GAO Job Code 320520. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Tammy Pomerleau, Management Analyst, Bureau of International 
Organization Affairs at (202) 736-7937. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Sid Kaplan (Acting): 

cc: GAO - Tet Miyabara; 
IO - James Warlick (Acting); 
State/OIG - Mark Duda. 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

United Nations Peacekeeping: Lines of Authority for Field Procurement 
Remain Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues (GAO-08-1094; 
GAO Code 320520): 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled 
United Nations Peacekeeping: Lines of Authority for Field Procurement 
Remain Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues. The Department 
of State appreciates the main findings of the GAO report that recognize 
that much work remains in the United Nations' ongoing process to 
restructure and strengthen its organization for peacekeeping 
management. 

The GAO notes that the United Nations has not established a clear line 
of authority for field procurement, which is fundamental to the 
successful conduct of peacekeeping operations. The lines of 
accountability and responsibility for field procurement are unclear and 
overlapping between the Department of Management and the newly created 
Department of Field Support. Furthermore, the GAO noted that progress 
in other procurement reform areas is needed such as addressing the 
difficulties in attracting and retaining field procurement staff and in 
applying procurement processes in the field. 

While the GAO made no formal recommendations, the Department of State 
concurs with many of the findings in the report. The Department has 
been actively engaged with UN senior management and the various 
concerned Departments of the UN Secretariat throughout the recent 
restructuring of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. We will 
draw on your findings in our continuing discussions with the UN on 
these issues. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the United Nations: 

United Nations:	
Nations Unies: 
Postal Address: United Nations, NY 10017: 
Cable Address: UNations NewYork: 

Reference: 

September 2008: 

Mr. Melito: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Director: 
US Government Accountability Office: 

Dear Mr. Melito: 

In response to your letter of 18 August 2008 to Ms. Kane and myself, I 
would like to thank you for providing us with the opportunity to 
respond with comments to the draft GAO report "United Nations 
Peacekeeping: Lines of authority for field procurement remain unclear, 
but reforms have addressed some issues. 

On behalf of the Departments of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and 
Field Support (DFS), I am pleased to advise you that the substance of 
the draft report, in our view, is a generally accurate reflection of 
the current situation. I would, however, like to take this opportunity 
to offer comments and propose a number of suggested revisions, 
including to address a few factual inaccuracies, related to the status 
of restructuring and strengthening peacekeeping management; the status 
o procurement reforms; and UNLB's support of peacekeeping operations. 
These comments are detailed in a separate document. 

I trust that these comments will be helpful. Should you wish to discuss 
them further, please do not hesitate to contact me or my office. DPKO 
and DFS look forward to receiving the finalized version in due course. 

Your sincerely. 

Signed by: 

Susana Malcorra: 
Under-Secretary-General: 
Department of Field Support: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Thomas Melito (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Tet Miyabara, Assistant 
Director, Jeremy Latimer, Sona Kalapura, Michelle Richman Su, Debbie 
Chung, and David Dornisch made key contributions to this report. In 
addition, Ashley Alley, Avrum Ashery, Jenny Chanley, Beth Hoffman Leon, 
Colleen Miller, and Justin Monroe provided technical assistance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, United Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-577] (Washington, 
D.C.: April 2006). GAO, United Nations: Progress on Management Reform 
Efforts Has Varied, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
08-84] (Washington, D.C.: November 2007). United Nations, Report of the 
Office of Internal Oversight Services on the Activities of the 
Procurement Task Force for the 18-month period ended 30 June 2007, 
A/62/272 (October 2007). 

[2] Strategic deployment stocks include vehicles, communications 
equipment, and accommodation, among other items. This equipment is 
stored and maintained at UNLB as a reserve to be used for rapid 
deployment to newly starting missions. 

[3] Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, 
Internal Control--Integrated Framework (September 1992). 

[4] One mission, UNMEE, closed after our structured interviews were 
conducted. 

[5] Prior to the addition of a security sector reform capacity within 
DPKO, no strategic mechanism existed on a UN-wide scale to develop or 
implement policies or guidelines for peacekeeping missions. Rather, 
each peacekeeping mission defined, engaged, and reported on security 
sector reform in different ways. 

[6] A partnerships capacity within DPKO was developed to bring a more 
coordinated and strategic approach to peacekeeping and post-conflict 
engagement with other UN and non-UN partners. 

[7] Some of the other responsibilities of the Chief of Staff include 
monitoring the day-to-day internal operations of DPKO, ensuring 
effective coordination and integrated functioning with DFS, and leading 
and coordinating DPKO's engagement with intergovernmental bodies. 

[8] The delegation of procurement authority comes from the Department 
of Management to the Under Secretary-General of DFS. The head of DFS, 
in turn, delegates procurement authority to the Directors or Chiefs of 
Mission Support, who delegate authority to chief procurement officer 
and other procurement staff as appropriate. 

[9] We also recommended that the Secretary of State report to Congress 
annually regarding UN progress in reforming its procurement process, 
with particular attention to the status of UN progress in addressing 
the above recommendations. 

[10] Currently, the UN financial rules state that the Department of 
Management has authority over procurement and over the designation of 
officials responsible for procurement. The UN procurement manual gives 
DFS some authority over local procurement, but the manual is 
subordinate to the UN's financial rules and regulations. 

[11] UN General Assembly, 60TH Session. Investing in the United 
Nations: for a Stronger Organization Worldwide: Detailed Report; 
Addendum: Procurement Reform, A/60/846/Add.5 (June 2006). 

[12] The Procurement Division established a Planning, Compliance and 
Monitoring Section to coordinate acquisition planning, monitor 
compliance with procurement policies, and develop ethics programs, 
among other responsibilities. 

[13] The Procurement Division has reported 100 percent staff compliance 
with the financial disclosure requirements for 2006 and 2007. 

[14] The measure also prohibits former UN staff from acting on behalf 
of others in procurement-related matters for a period of 2 years 
following their UN employment. 

[15] In our 2006 report, we recommended that the United States work 
with other member states to encourage the Secretary-General to 
establish a comprehensive procurement training program. 

[16] For example, Deloitte, Assessment of Internal Controls in the 
United Nations Secretariat Procurement Operations (Nov. 20, 2005). 

[17] IAPSO assists UN agencies and development projects in purchasing 
goods and services and has developed various procurement training 
courses. 

[18] Requisitioners are staff in other mission sections, such as 
engineering or information technology and communications, who initiate 
requirements for goods and services to be acquired. 

[19] Prospective vendors must register on the UN Web site and meet 
certain criteria to become registered on the UN's vendor database--the 
United Nations Global Marketplace. 

[20] In our 2006 report, we recommended that the United States work 
with other member states to encourage the Secretary-General to take 
action to keep the UN procurement manual completed and updated on a 
timely basis. 

[21] UN budgets are based on U.S. dollars, but chief procurement 
officers told us that in some cases they purchase goods that are priced 
in Euros. 

[22] The ACABQ recently noted this progress but encouraged the 
Secretariat to continue to seek additional opportunities to promote 
procurement from developing countries. 

[23] We recommended in 2006 that the United States work with other 
member states to encourage the Secretary-General to establish a formal 
career path for procurement staff. 

[24] GAO, Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function at Federal 
Agencies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-218G] 
(Washington, D.C.: September 2005). 

[25] The UN has previously discussed plans to support procurement staff 
in obtaining professional certification in procurement functions, but 
these plans have not moved forward. The new training framework states 
that certification is envisaged as a voluntary program, that it is the 
staff member's own responsibility to obtain accreditation and 
qualifications, and that further investigation is needed to determine 
financial support for certification programs. 

[26] The Department of Management acknowledged the concern of chief 
procurement officers that the UN has not established a formal career 
path for procurement and noted that the career path is governed by 
policies promulgated by the UN's Office of Human Resources Management. 

[27] DFS reported to us that the vacancy rate for field procurement 
staff was 21 percent in September 2006, 29 percent in November 2007, 
and 20 percent in March 2008. 

[28] This official stated that in these situations, the mission places 
more weight on a company's previous work in assessing its 
qualifications to conduct business with the UN. 

[29] The official further stated that the missions deal with these 
types of constraints by following overall principles, such as assessing 
whether companies are ethical and capable of supplying the UN. 

[30] Chief procurement officers at field missions discussed with us 
issues to take into account if a formal independent process is 
established that covers field missions. For example, some officials 
raised questions over how a formalized protest process could impact the 
acquisition of goods and services critical to the functioning of 
peacekeeping missions. 

[31] In 2006, we recommended that the United States work with other 
member states to encourage the Secretary-General to complete this 
ethics guidance. 

[32] We recommended that the United States work with other member 
states to encourage the Secretary-General to develop a strategic risk 
assessment process for headquarters and field procurement. 

[33] One CPO did cite a pilot risk assessment activity that is underway 
at the mission. This official stated that OIOS has created a management 
framework for the mission that lists the risks to achieving goals of 
key business processes, as well as strategic, political risks, 
operational, and financial risks. The official further stated that this 
risk framework is not exclusive to procurement, but deals with all 
services at the mission. 

[34] The Department of Management also commented that a risk assessment 
of the department, including the Procurement Division, was conducted in 
2008. 

[35] These offices are located at UNLB but are operationally under the 
direction of DPKO, UNLB is also providing support for a pilot project 
known as the Reference Check Unit. According to UNLB officials, 
preparations are underway for UNLB to provide office space and 
administrative support to a 25-person unit called the Standing Police 
Capacity (SPC) while it is awaiting deployment to the field. 

[36] For example, Communication and Information Technology Services 
staff provide support to the Mobile Deployable Telecommunications 
System (MDTS). MDTS is a vehicle fitted with equipment that allows 
field mission staff to communicate with UNLB and the UN's global 
infrastructure. 

[37] UNLB maintains several categories of SDS. Approximately, $1.8 
million are medical stocks that are stored at the vendor, not at UNLB. 
The Engineering Section tests and fixes generators, water purification 
systems, pre-fabricated units (e.g,. kitchens and warehouses), and 
field defense (e.g., barbed wire fences). Equipment from the 
engineering section makes up 60 percent (approximately $40 million) of 
the SDS volume. 

[38] The civilian pre-deployment training provides a uniform briefing 
to all staff to prepare them for deployment to the field. 

[39] The UN's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30 of the following 
year. 

[40] Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, 
Internal Control--Integrated Framework (September 1992). 

[41] At 2 of the 20 missions, a chief procurement officer was not in 
place during the time of our interview, and the mission's procurement 
section was headed by an officer-in-charge. Throughout this report we 
refer to the 20 officials we interviewed, collectively, as chief 
procurement officers. 

[42] UNMEE's mission has since terminated. 

[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-577]. 

[44] The SDS information was used in one particular peacekeeping 
mission (UNMIT), but is typical of what can be found in SDS for other 
missions. 

[45] Each category of equipment can include numerous individual items. 
For example, the Personal Protection Gear category, under the Supply 
section, includes goggles, helmets, vests, and gloves, among other 
items. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: