A&A Workload Trends for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007

USAID’s total obligations for A&A instruments doubled from about $5  billion to about $10 billion from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. USAID Lacks Human Capital Data Needed for a Strategic A&A Workforce Plan That Could Help Address Its Overseas Workload Imbalances

USAID lacks the capacity to develop and implement a strategic A&A  workforce plan because it lacks two key elements: (1) sufficiently reliable  and up-to-date overseas A&A staff level data and (2) comprehensive  information on the competencies of its overseas A&A specialists, who play  a critical role in assisting COs and CTOs in overseas missions. The Office of Acquisition and Assistance (OAA) does not systematically  track the number of overseas A&A specialists, and its data on overseas  A&A staff levels are out of date. USAID Has Not Matched A&A Staff to Workload at Missions We Visited

At the USAID missions we visited, we found that the numbers and  competencies of A&A staff did not match A&A workload. While at some  missions the numbers of A&A staff with the necessary competencies were  considerably less than adequate, at other missions they were more than  adequate, according to mission officials. The mission director and A&A staff in Kazakhstan—a regional mission  responsible for A&A activities at missions in Kazakhstan and four other  Central Asian countries that do not have on-site A&A specialists—told us  that they could not adequately support A&A activities at the four missions  that do not have on-site A&A specialists. Officials noted that without such guidance from A&A staff, CTOs  may be more likely to incorrectly manage A&A instruments. For example, they said they had  delayed time-sensitive seasonal agricultural projects because the CO was  not available when needed to approve contracts. For example, about 70 percent of A&A respondents  overseas reported that it was somewhat or very difficult to alter staffing  patterns to meet the demands of changing workloads. Taken together, these efforts do not constitute a strategic A&A workforce  plan that takes into account the entire A&A workforce. USAID Has Not Implemented the Evaluation Mechanism of Its A&A Function

USAID has not implemented an evaluation mechanism to provide  oversight of its A&A function. OAA’s Evaluation Division is responsible for  providing this oversight to ensure that A&A operations follow USAID  policies, primarily by assessing the agency’s A&A operations worldwide. However, the division has yet to implement  this evaluation mechanism. OAA’s Evaluation Division Is Responsible for Evaluating the A&A Function but Did Not Meet Its Previous Target for A&A Evaluations

Among other responsibilities, OAA’s Evaluation Division is to conduct  evaluations of worldwide A&A operations to ensure USAID’s compliance  with an executive order and certify the effectiveness of USAID’s A&A  function. Although the division had set a goal of conducting  evaluations at all of the approximately 85 missions every 3 years, the OIG  found that for fiscal years 2003 through 2005, the division had evaluated  A&A operations at only 9 missions—about 11 percent of the number of  missions at the time. However, agency officials informed us that the Evaluation Division  currently lacks the staff level and systems needed to implement the  scorecard evaluation to meet its goal. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the agency’s management and oversight of its A&A function,  we are recommending that the Administrator of USAID develop and  implement a strategic A&A workforce plan that matches resources to  priority needs, such as the evaluation of the A&A function. Specifically, we  recommend that the strategic A&A workforce plan includes a process to  collect, analyze, and maintain (1) sufficiently reliable and up-to-date data  on the agency's A&A staff levels and (2) comprehensive information on the  competencies of the A&A staff. To determine A&A staff levels, we analyzed and  compared staffing data that USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance  (OAA) and the Office of Human Resources (OHR) made available to us. To examine the extent to which USAID has implemented a mechanism to  evaluate its A&A function, we analyzed USAID documents and interviewed  relevant USAID agency officials. GAO Comments

1. 2.
Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) over the years has shifted from conducting its own activities to managing acquisition and assistance (A&A) instruments--contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements--awarded to and implemented by mainly nongovernmental entities. For fiscal years 2002 through 2007, USAID's A&A obligations doubled from about $5 billion to $10 billion. A&A staff--contracting officers (CO) and A&A specialists--are primarily responsible for managing A&A instruments. GAO was asked to examine (1) USAID's capacity to develop and implement a strategic A&A workforce plan and (2) the extent to which USAID has implemented a mechanism to evaluate its A&A function. GAO analyzed USAID documents and data, interviewed officials, visited missions in seven countries, and administered a survey to A&A staff.

What GAO Found

USAID lacks the capacity to develop and implement a strategic A&A workforce plan because it is missing two key elements: (1) sufficiently reliable and up-to-date data on its overseas A&A staff levels and (2) comprehensive information on the competencies of its overseas A&A staff. Data on the number of overseas A&A specialists collected by two USAID offices--the Office of Acquisition and Assistance (OAA) and the Office of Human Resources (OHR)--are unreliable or out of date. GAO found significant discrepancies between these offices' data sets, and officials acknowledged that their A&A staff level data are neither reliable nor up-to-date. In addition, USAID has not collected comprehensive competency information on its overseas A&A specialists. GAO's model of strategic human capital planning notes the importance of these data in developing a strategic A&A workforce plan that could enable the agency to better match staff levels to changing workloads. At the missions GAO visited, GAO found that the numbers and competencies of A&A staff did not match A&A workloads. The number of A&A staff with the necessary competencies was less than adequate at some missions, while at others it was more than adequate, according to agency officials. For example, officials at the mission in Mali said they have delayed time-sensitive projects because key A&A staff were not available when needed to approve contracts, while officials at the mission in Indonesia said the current number of A&A staff may be more than adequate. Most of the A&A survey respondents overseas also reported difficulty in altering staffing patterns to meet A&A workload demands. Although USAID has made some efforts to address its A&A workforce issues, these efforts do not constitute a strategic A&A workforce plan that takes into account the entire A&A workforce. Without accurate and reliable A&A staff data, USAID does not have adequate information to address current workload imbalances. USAID has not implemented an evaluation mechanism to provide oversight of its A&A function. OAA's Evaluation Division is responsible for providing oversight to ensure that A&A operations follow USAID policies, primarily by assessing the agency's A&A operations worldwide. However, for fiscal years 2003 through 2005, it conducted on-site evaluations at only 9 of its targeted 85 missions. In fiscal year 2007, the Evaluation Division developed a new evaluation mechanism that is expected to use scorecard evaluations, in which COs self-assess their A&A operations, and a risk-based approach to determine locations for further on-site visits. The division has completed piloting these scorecard evaluations at four missions and identified weaknesses in A&A operations. For example, the division found that 1 mission lacked resources to adequately monitor contractor performance. The division's goal is to implement this evaluation mechanism, including on-site visits to at least 5 missions, within 2 years. However, agency officials informed GAO that the Evaluation Division currently does not have the staff level needed to fully implement this evaluation mechanism. Without implementing the evaluation mechanism, USAID cannot certify the overall adequacy and effectiveness of management controls for the A&A function.