BUILDING PARTNER 

CAPACITY

State and DOD Need 

to Define Time 

Frames to Guide and 

Track Global Security 

Contingency Fund 

Projects

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2014

GAO-15-75

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-75, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2014

BUILDING PARTNER CAPACITY

State and DOD Need to Define Time Frames to Guide 

and Track Global Security Contingency Fund Projects

Why GAO Did This Study

As instability abroad threatens U.S. 

and foreign partners’ interests, the 

United States has emphasized the 

importance of building partner capacity 

to address emerging threats. Congress 

established GSCF in fiscal year 2012, 

and this pilot authority allows State and 

DOD to pool funds and expertise to 

address near- to mid-term needs for 

training, equipping, and enhancing 

foreign security forces. State and DOD 

jointly administer GSCF and are 

required to notify Congress of their 

intent to transfer funds and initiate 

GSCF activities before starting project 

execution. GAO was mandated to 

review State and DOD’s procedures for 

managing GSCF.

This report (1) describes processes 

State and DOD have developed to 

manage the program, (2) describes the 

status of GSCF projects, and (3) 

assesses the extent to which State and 

DOD have clearly defined time frames 

for GSCF projects. GAO analyzed 

State and DOD guidance and GSCF 

documents, and compared GSCF 

guidance to internal control standards. 

GAO also interviewed State and DOD 

officials about GSCF.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State and DOD 

(1) provide an overall range of time for 

near- to mid-term GSCF projects and 

(2) track projects against this time 

frame. State disagreed and DOD 

partially agreed with the first 

recommendation, citing the need for 

flexibility. GAO agreed and modified

the recommendation to clarify its intent, 

as discussed in the report. Both 

departments agreed with the second 

recommendation to track GSCF

projects.

What GAO Found

The Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have 

developed processes to manage the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) 

program. In March 2014, State and DOD officials used lessons learned from 

developing the initial GSCF projects to document a 14-step process to identify, 

develop, and execute GSCF projects. Additionally, State issued a separate 

document describing the process for congressional notification and internal State 

procedures for how to transfer and manage funds in the joint GSCF account. 

State and DOD have submitted congressional notification packages for seven

GSCF projects since fiscal year 2012. As of September 2014, State and DOD 

had not met the original dates contained in the congressional notifications for the 

initial five GSCF projects for beginning training and equipment delivery by an 

average of about 8 months. State and DOD officials stated that the dates were 

not met due to security concerns as well as additional details and supporting 

documentation required by Congress to obtain congressional approval. In July

2014, State and DOD also sent congressional notifications for two additional 

projects that have not begun execution. The figure below shows GAO’s analysis 

of the identification, and original and currently planned or actual execution dates, 

of the initiation of training activities for the five initial GSCF projects.

Identification and Training Execution Dates for Initial Five Department of State and 

Department of Defense Global Security Contingency Fund Projects, as of September 2014

State’s March 2014 cable states that GSCF projects are to address near- to midterm security concerns, but the cable does not clearly define what time frame 

constitutes near- or mid-term, and State and DOD do not track GSCF projects 

against established time frames. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government call for developing control activities to ensure management’s 

directives are being met, such as defining a range of time for projects and 

tracking whether projects are meeting their goals. State officials said that GSCF 

is intended to address challenges outside of the normal budgeting and planning 

process; however, this approach does not define how long near- to mid-term 

GSCF projects should take. Without a range of time for GSCF projects, it is not 

clear how long projects should take, and State and DOD do not have time frames 

to track whether GSCF projects are addressing near- to mid-term needs. 

View GAO-15-75. For more information, 

contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., at (202) 

512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov or John H.

Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or 

pendletonj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Letter 1 

Background 3

State and DOD Have Developed Processes to Manage the GSCF 

Program 5

State and DOD’s GSCF Projects Have Not Met Originally Planned 

Execution Target Dates 14

State and DOD Have Not Defined Time Frames to Guide and 

Track GSCF Projects 23

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 24

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 30

Appendix II Comments from the Department of State 33

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 38

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 41

Table

Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities of Key Stakeholders Involved 

in the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Program 5

Figures

Figure 1: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Project 

Identification Phase 7

Figure 2: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Plan 

Development Phase 8

Figure 3: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Project 

Execution Phase 10

Figure 4: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) 

Congressional Notification Process 11

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Figure 5: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Transfer 

Process 13

Figure 6: Geographic Locations of Global Security Contingency 

Fund Projects, as of September 2014 16

Figure 7: Department of State (State) and Department of Defense 

(DOD) Global Security Contingency Fund Project Status, 

as of September 2014 18

Figure 8: Identification and Training Execution Dates for 

Department of State (State) and Department of Defense 

(DOD) Global Security Contingency Fund Projects, as of 

September 2014 20

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense 

GSCF Global Security Contingency Fund

State Department of State

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 20, 2014

Congressional Committees

As instability abroad increasingly threatens U.S. and foreign partners’ 

interests, the United States has emphasized the importance of building 

and strengthening partnerships and alliances worldwide. To address this 

goal, the Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense 

(DOD) use a variety of statutory authorities to engage in activities that are 

intended to enhance the security capability of foreign partners as part of 

efforts to carry out U.S. foreign policy and advance U.S. national security 

interests. Congress established a new authority in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 called the Global Security 

Contingency Fund (GSCF).1 This pilot authority allows State and DOD to 

pool funds for the provision of training and other support to enhance the 

capabilities of foreign security forces.2

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 required us to conduct a review of 

State and DOD procedures to administer and implement activities funded 

by GSCF.

State and DOD jointly administer 

GSCF; the departments work together to formulate GSCF projects that 

are approved by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the 

Secretary of Defense, before implementation. The departments are also 

required to notify Congress of their intent to transfer funds and initiate 

activities for GSCF projects before starting project execution, and DOD is 

required to seek approval to retransfer funds.

3

 

1

See Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1207 (2011), as amended, and codified at 22 U.S.C. § 2151, 

note. 

This report (1) describes processes State and DOD have 

developed to manage the program, (2) describes the status of GSCF 

2

Congress established this authority as a pilot program. See S. Rep. No. 112-26, at 203-

204 (2011) to accompany S. 1253, a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012. This authority ends on September 30, 2015; however, funds that have 

been transferred remain available for activities under projects that have started before that 

date. 

3

See 159 Cong. Rec. at H7783 (daily ed., Dec. 12, 2013). 
 

Page 2 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

projects, and (3) assesses the extent to which State and DOD have 

clearly defined time frames for GSCF projects.4

To conduct this review, we reviewed documentation and interviewed 

officials from State and DOD who manage the GSCF program and 

implement GSCF projects. To describe the processes developed to 

manage the GSCF program, we collected and analyzed State’s guidance 

documents that it developed to manage the GSCF program. Specifically, 

we collected and analyzed the March 2014 cable titled Utilizing the Global 

Security Contingency Fund and the March 2014 document titled Global 

Security Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance to summarize 

State and DOD’s management processes.5 To describe the status of 

GSCF projects, we gathered information from congressional notification 

packages, funding transfer documents, and status updates provided by 

State and DOD since the initiation of the program. To assess the extent to 

which State and DOD have clearly defined time frames for GSCF 

projects, we obtained and analyzed State and DOD’s congressional 

notification packages for GSCF projects, GSCF project updates to 

Congress, and State’s GSCF guidance documents. We compared this 

information to the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government.

6

 

4

For the purposes of this report, we use the term “project” to describe all of the GSCF 

activities that are to be conducted under one State and DOD approved GSCF program. 

For example, the GSCF program in the Philippines will be referred to as the Philippines 

Maritime Security and Counterterrorism project, and the GSCF program associated with 

special operations forces in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia will be referred to as the 

Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia Special Operations Forces project. We use the term

“program” to refer to the GSCF authority as a whole, which includes all GSCF projects 

collectively.

We also interviewed State and DOD officials about their 

management of the GSCF projects, reasons for any delays in GSCF 

projects, and whether State and DOD have clearly defined time frames 

for GSCF projects. Specifically, we interviewed officials from the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense (Comptroller); State Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency; U.S. Special Operations 

5

Department of State, Utilizing the Global Security Contingency Fund (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 28, 2014) and Global Security Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2014).

6

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
 

Page 3 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Command; six geographic combatant commands;7

We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to November 2014 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those 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.

and the Security 

Cooperation Offices in Bangladesh and the Philippines, among others. 

More details on our objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in 

appendix I.

GSCF allows State and DOD to address emergent challenges and 

opportunities by pooling funds from existing departmental accounts and 

sharing expertise to provide equipment, supplies, and training to enhance 

a partner nation’s security forces. State and DOD can use the GSCF 

authority to support partner nations’ border and maritime security, internal 

defense, and counterterrorism operations, or to participate in or support 

military, stability, or peace support operations in partner nations. The 

GSCF authority also permits State and DOD to provide assistance to a

partner nation’s justice sector.

State and DOD fund the program primarily by transferring funds from 

other accounts, with at least 20 percent of the funding from State and the 

remainder from DOD. In fiscal year 2012, Congress authorized State to 

transfer up to $50 million from certain foreign appropriation accounts and 

DOD to transfer up to $200 million from its defense-wide accounts for 

operation and maintenance into the GSCF.8

 

7

DOD’s six geographic commands are U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Central Command, 

U.S. European Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. 

Southern Command. Each geographic combatant command has a defined area of 

operation and a distinct regional military focus.

State and DOD are 

authorized to transfer funds into GSCF until September 30, 2015; 

however, these funds remain available for activities under projects that 

8

See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74, §§ 8004, 8089 

(2011).

Background
 

Page 4 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

have started before that date.9 In The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2014, Congress authorized State to transfer up to $25 million from 

specific State appropriations accounts and authorized DOD to transfer up 

to $200 million into GSCF.10

State and DOD jointly administer GSCF; the departments work together 

to formulate GSCF projects that are approved by the Secretary of State, 

with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, before implementation. 

The departments are also required to notify Congress of their intent to 

transfer funds and initiate activities for GSCF projects before starting 

project execution, and DOD is required to seek approval to retransfer 

funds.

According to State’s March 2014 GSCF 

cable, because State is required to contribute at least 20 percent and 

DOD not more than 80 percent of the funding for an approved GSCF 

project, both departments are authorized to transfer up to a combined 

$125 million in fiscal year 2014.

11 Numerous State and DOD stakeholders are involved in the 

GSCF program from project identification to execution. Table 1 

summarizes the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders involved in 

the GSCF program.

 

9

See Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1207 (2011), as amended. As of September 2014, H.R. 4435, 

a House bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, if enacted, 

would extend the availability of GSCF funds to September 30, 2016, and S. 2410, a 

Senate bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, if enacted, 

would extend the availability of funds to September 30, 2017. 

10Pub. L. No. 113-76, §§ 8003, 8068. In addition to the transfer authority, Congress also 

appropriated $30 million to DOD for the GSCF in the joint explanatory statement 

accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, at 160 Cong. Rec. at H600 

(daily ed., Jan. 15, 2014).

11See Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1207 (2011), as amended, and codified at 22 U.S.C. § 2151, 

note.
 

Page 5 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities of Key Stakeholders Involved in the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Program

Department of State (State) and

Department of Defense (DOD) stakeholders Roles and responsibilities

Secretaries of State and Defense Designate partner nations eligible to receive assistance under the GSCF 

authority and approve project implementation plans. Determine whether 

conflict or instability challenges the existing capability of civilian providers to 

deliver justice sector assistance, rule of law programs, or stabilization efforts.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense Review and Selection 

Committee

Meets to review and select GSCF project proposals for further development. 

Reviews monitoring and evaluation reports for non-performing programs and 

proposals for significant program modifications, such as activities or 

execution timeline. Includes representatives from State and DOD regional 

and functional bureaus, and the Joint Staff.

Program Steering Group Develops the detailed implementation plans for GSCF project proposals and 

oversees project implementation. Provides guidance on significant project 

modifications, as appropriate. Includes representatives from State and DOD 

functional bureaus, GSCF staff, the Joint Staff, the country team, the 

combatant command, and other U.S. government departments or agencies, 

as appropriate.

GSCF staff Inform senior leadership of the status of GSCF projects, manage Review and 

Selection Committee consensus and decision-making process; guide the 

Program Steering Group on developing project implementation plans; 

facilitate Secretaries’ approval and congressional notification and funds 

transfer processes; and perform other program-management responsibilities 

including supporting project oversight and monitoring and evaluation. 

Includes a small number of personnel from State and DOD.

Geographic combatant commands Work closely with Program Steering Group, U.S. embassy, GSCF staff, and 

other relevant stakeholders to prepare GSCF project proposals, including 

implementation planning, plan endorsement, and execution. Participate in 

program assessment, to include monitoring and evaluation. Include 

personnel from DOD.

U.S. embassies Work closely with Program Steering Group, GSCF staff, and geographic 

combatant commands to prepare GSCF project proposals, including 

implementation planning, plan endorsement, and execution. Also, secure 

host partner nation concurrence with overview of project plan, obtain chief of 

mission endorsement of project implementation plan, and manage GSCF 

projects in the partner nation. Participate in program assessment, to include 

monitoring and evaluation. Include personnel from State, DOD, and other 

U.S. government agencies.

Source: GAO analysis of State documents. | GAO-15-75

In March 2014, State and DOD developed processes to manage GSCF 

project proposal development, congressional notification, and the transfer 

of funds into a joint GSCF account. These processes are described in two 

documents: Utilizing the Global Security Contingency Fund and Global 

Security Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance. State and DOD 

officials stated that they incorporated lessons learned from other capacitybuilding programs to develop the process described in Utilizing the Global 

State and DOD Have 

Developed Processes 

to Manage the GSCF 

Program
 

Page 6 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Security Contingency Fund. To develop the Global Security Contingency 

Fund Execution Guidance, State created intradepartmental accounting 

and reporting procedures for GSCF funds. 

State and DOD officials developed a guidance document that was issued 

in March 2014 as a State cable titled Utilizing the Global Security 

Contingency Fund, which describes how State and DOD are to identify, 

develop, and execute GSCF projects. GSCF staff stated that they 

incorporated lessons learned from developing the GSCF fiscal year 2012 

projects in preparing the March 2014 guidance as well as incorporating 

successful processes from other security assistance programs, such as 

Section 1206.12

 

12Section 1206 is a security assistance program that is used to build the capacity of 

foreign military forces to conduct counterterrorist operations or participate in, or support, 

military and stabilization operations in which U.S. forces are participating through the 

provision of training, equipment, and small-scale military construction activities. See 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, §1206 

(2006), as amended.

The March 2014 cable describes a process that can be 

divided into three phases, with a total of 14 steps, to identify, develop, 

and execute projects. The cable was sent to U.S. embassies, consulates, 

and combatant commands and it contains sections that can be grouped 

into the following phases: project identification, plan development, and 

execution. The project identification phase is shown in figure 1.

State and DOD Guidance 

Describes Process for 

GSCF Project 

Development
 

Page 7 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Figure 1: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Project Identification Phase

The project identification phase consists of five steps, as described 

below.

1. Project idea origination: officials in Washington, D.C., geographic 

combatant commands, or U.S. embassies are to propose an idea for 

a project to address an emergent or impending threat or emergent 

opportunity that aligns with the areas of assistance that the GSCF 

authority can provide.13

2. Stakeholders agree to idea: key stakeholders from relevant State 

and DOD offices are to gather to discuss whether the project proposal 

addresses a high-priority national security interest without duplicating 

efforts, the partner nation’s receptivity to the project proposal, and 

whether existing State or DOD authorities are available to address the 

need.14

 

13According to State officials, GSCF proposals can originate from senior-level State or 

DOD officials, as well as from the Deputies Committee, which is an interagency committee 

consisting of the Deputy Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and several 

other deputy secretaries across the U.S. government. 

14These key stakeholders include State and DOD regional and functional bureaus, the 

proposal originator, the GSCF staff, the Joint Staff, the country team, combatant 

command, and other U.S. government departments or agencies, as appropriate. 
 

Page 8 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

3. Proposal development: the proposal originator is to work with GSCF 

staff to initiate working-level meetings with key stakeholders to assess 

the proposal and discuss potential lines of effort. Additionally, the

proposal originator is to complete a proposal worksheet that asks for a 

range of information, such as detailed assistance objectives, activities, 

cost estimate, and envisioned timeline. The proposal originator is to 

obtain endorsement of the proposal worksheet from the chief of 

mission and the combatant command before submitting it to the 

GSCF staff.

4. GSCF staff review proposal: GSCF staff is to review the proposal 

worksheet and confirm that it includes all required elements.

5. Review and Selection Committee review proposal: the proposal is 

to be reviewed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense Review and Selection Committee. 

This senior-level committee is to meet to review the proposal within 10 

business days of its receipt, when possible. During the review, the 

committee can ask the proposal originator to make refinements and 

resubmit the proposal. If there is no committee consensus to proceed, 

the committee is to refer the proposal to the Deputy Secretaries of 

State and DOD for a senior-leader decision on whether to proceed 

with the project. If there is consensus to proceed with the proposal, 

the committee is to task the proposal originator and key stakeholders 

to develop a detailed implementation plan, which begins the plan 

development phase, as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Plan Development Phase
 

Page 9 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

The plan development phase consists of six steps as described below.

1. Implementation plan development: State and DOD are to establish 

a Program Steering Group—jointly led by the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of State and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense from 

the relevant State and DOD regional bureaus—to provide policy 

guidance and oversight to the planning effort and to determine the 

lead organization responsible for drafting the detailed implementation 

plan. According to the March 2014 cable, the Program Steering Group 

should include all stakeholders, and they are expected to contribute 

to, review, and endorse the detailed implementation plan.15

2. Implementation plan endorsement: once the implementation plan is 

complete, the country team is expected to secure the endorsement of 

the implementation plan from the chief of mission within 7 business 

days, if possible.

The 

proposal originator is to develop a detailed implementation plan that

includes—among other criteria, goals, and specific assistance 

objectives—a detailed work plan with a breakdown of costs per 

activity; related security assistance that has been implemented, is in 

progress, or is planned; and a proposal of outcome-oriented indicators 

for monitoring and evaluation. The detailed implementation plan is to 

be completed not more than 60 days after the Review and Selection 

Committee grants approval to pursue GSCF assistance.

16

3. Implementation plan approval: after the chief of mission endorses 

the implementation plan, the Program Steering Group leadership is to 

convene to review and approve the plan within 5 business days of its 

receipt.

4. Implementation plan review for completeness: GSCF staff is to 

review the implementation plan to ensure its completeness. If the plan 

is incomplete, the Program Steering Group has 10 business days to 

provide additional information.

 

15These stakeholders include subject-matter experts from relevant State and DOD 

functional bureaus, the Joint Staff, the country team, the combatant command, and other 

departments or agencies as appropriate. 

16The chief of mission is the principal officer (the ambassador) responsible for the 

direction, coordination, and supervision of all U.S. government executive-branch 

employees in that partner nation, except those under the command of a U.S. area military 

commander.
 

Page 10 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

5. Implementation plan approval and concurrence: after the 

implementation plan is final, the GSCF staff is to prepare appropriate 

documentation for the Secretary of State’s approval and the Secretary 

of Defense’s concurrence, to include the funds approval and 

congressional notification packages within 10 business days.

6. Congressional notification: once the departments secure the 

required approvals, GSCF staff is to begin the congressional 

notification process. After congressional notification is complete, the 

project execution phase begins, as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Project Execution Phase

The project execution phase consists of three steps as described below.

1. Funds transfer: State and DOD are to transfer funds into the GSCF 

account.

2. Project oversight and implementation: project implementers are to 

execute the project, and the Program Steering Group is responsible 

for overseeing program execution.17

3. Project reporting: project implementers are to provide monthly and 

quarterly reporting on funds execution and provide information about 

project activities. Project implementers, the embassy, and the partner 

nation are also expected to support and provide input to facilitate 

monitoring and evaluation activities.

 

17We define project execution as the initiation of training activities and equipment delivery.
 

Page 11 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

A contractor has developed a framework to conduct monitoring and 

evaluation on the GSCF program and individual GSCF projects. 

According to State officials, the program-results framework was 

developed with a broad set of GSCF goals and objectives. State officials 

also stated that the contractor is starting to develop the project-specific 

framework for three GSCF projects and one has been delayed due to 

partner nation security and project rescoping issues.18

State issued a separate document in March 2014, titled Global Security 

Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance, which describes a 

process for congressional notification and internal State procedures for 

transferring and managing funds in the joint GSCF account.19

Figure 4: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Congressional Notification Process

The 

guidance states that State and DOD should complete all congressional 

notification requirements to secure approval to transfer funds. The 

congressional notification process is shown in figure 4.

The congressional notification process consists of four steps, and the 

guidance states that the departments should complete all congressional 

notification requirements simultaneously.

1. DOD retransferring request: while DOD is to seek written approval 

from defense committees and subcommittees to retransfer funds from 

 

18According to State and DOD officials, the contractor hired to develop monitoring and 

evaluation frameworks for GSCF projects is limited to projects that are not related to 

special operations forces. The projects not related to special operations forces are the 

Philippines Maritime Security and Counterterrorism project, Libya Border Security project, 

Counter Boko Haram project, and the Ukraine National Guard project.

19This document includes the May 2013 Memorandum of Agreement between State and 

DOD for GSCF funds management. 

State Guidance Describes 

the GSCF Congressional 

Notification and Funding 

Transfer Process
 

Page 12 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

the defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts into the GSCF 

account, State is not required to submit a retransferring request to 

Congress to transfer its funds.20

2. Congressional notification: both State and DOD are to notify 

Congress of their intent to transfer funds and intent to initiate 

activities. In their congressional notification packages, State and DOD 

are required to include original source of funds; a detailed project 

justification, including total anticipated costs and specific activities; 

budget; execution plan and timeline; anticipated completion date; list 

of other U.S. security-related assistance provided to the partner 

nation; and any other information related to the project that the 

departments consider appropriate.21

3. Waiting period: State and DOD are to wait 30 days during the 

congressional notification period before executing a GSCF project.

4. Congressional approval: GSCF projects may not begin execution 

until after the 30-day notification period expires and Congress 

approves DOD’s retransferring of funds. However, there may be 

instances in which the departments transfer funds into the GSCF 

account for a specific project but subsequently determine these funds 

are no longer needed. In such cases, the departments are required to 

notify Congress of the intent to initiate a new project and may use 

these already transferred funds. Figure 5 shows the funds transfer 

process for GSCF.

 

20The defense committees are the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House 

Armed Services Committee. The defense subcommittees are the Subcommittee on 

Defense for the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense for 

the House Appropriations Committee. 

21See 22 U.S.C. § 2151, note. 
 

Page 13 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Figure 5: Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) Transfer Process

Note: A no-year account contains funds that remain available for obligation for an indefinite period of 

time.

State and DOD follow their respective departmental procedures to 

transfer funds from other accounts into GSCF.22

1. First transfer: the first transfer is into a time-limited U.S. Treasury–

based account that GSCF staff call a parent account. State and DOD 

are able to transfer money into this parent account until September 

30, 2015.

The three funding 

transfers for GSCF are identified below.

23

2. Second transfer: State created a second parent account without a 

time limitation since the authority also states that amounts already 

transferred to GSCF before September 30, 2015, shall remain 

available for GSCF projects that have started before this date. Once 

funds are transferred into the second parent account, State submits 

an internal transfer request to move funds a third time.

 

22These accounts can include DOD’s defense-wide accounts for operation and 

maintenance and certain State foreign appropriation accounts.

23See Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1207 (2011), as amended. As of September 2014, H.R. 

4435, a House bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, if 

enacted, would extend the availability of GSCF funds to September 30, 2016, and S. 

2410, a Senate bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, if 

enacted, would extend the availability of funds to September 30, 2017. 
 

Page 14 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

3. Third transfer: the third transfer is from the GSCF no-year parent 

account into a State no-year subaccount and a DOD no-year 

subaccount.24

According to State officials, funds are considered obligated once they are 

apportioned by the Office of Management and Budget, transferred into 

the respective subaccounts, and allotted to the implementing bureaus. 

From these accounts, State and DOD obligate funds to secure contracts 

or services for implementing entities. Funds are considered expended 

upon payment for those contracts or services.

State and DOD have submitted congressional notification packages for 

seven projects since fiscal year 2012. As of September 2014, State and 

DOD have not met the execution target dates contained in the 

congressional notifications for the five fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects by 

an average of about 8 months, assuming the projects meet the currently 

planned execution dates. State and DOD transferred all of the funds for 

the two fiscal year 2014 GSCF projects in September 2014 and expect to 

begin execution in 2015.

State and DOD have submitted congressional notification packages for 

seven projects since fiscal year 2012. The departments planned five of 

the seven projects in fiscal year 2012.25

 

24A no-year account contains funds that remain available for obligation for an indefinite 

period. 

To provide funding, State 

transferred funds from the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, 

and DOD transferred funds from the Combatant Commanders Initiative 

Fund and Section 1206 into GSCF. In total, State and DOD transferred 

$70.7 million into the GSCF account for the five projects: three special 

operations capacity-building projects (one in Bangladesh; another in 

Libya; and one in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia), a border security 

capacity-building project in Libya, and a project in the Philippines to 

enhance maritime security and counterterrorism capabilities.

25Since State and DOD identified and submitted congressional notifications for five GSCF 

projects in fiscal year 2012, we refer to these projects as being planned in fiscal year 

2012, even if the detailed planning for some of the projects extended into fiscal year 2013. 

State and DOD’s 

GSCF Projects Have 

Not Met Originally 

Planned Execution 

Target Dates

Seven GSCF Projects 

Have Been Submitted to 

Congress for Notification
 

Page 15 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

In July 2014, State and DOD sent congressional notifications for two 

additional projects. Specifically, for one project—a national guard 

capacity-building project in Ukraine—State and DOD transferred $19 

million for the full cost of the project. For the other project—the Counter 

Boko Haram project—the departments initially transferred $10 million in 

fiscal year 2012. Originally, this project was a counterterrorism and border 

security project in Nigeria but was put on hold because of evolving 

conditions on the ground. State and DOD subsequently rescoped the 

project to include Cameroon, Chad, and Niger for the purpose of 

improving cross-border security cooperation with Nigeria to counter Boko 

Haram. In September 2014, DOD transferred an additional $30 million 

into the GSCF account to cover the total cost. As of September 2014, 

GSCF projects are located across three geographic combatant 

commands’ areas of responsibility: U.S. Africa Command, U.S. European 

Command, and U.S. Pacific Command, as shown in figure 6.
 

Page 16 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Figure 6: Geographic Locations of Global Security Contingency Fund Projects, as of September 2014
 

Page 17 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

The five State and DOD fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects have not met the 

execution target dates contained in the congressional notifications due to 

a variety of factors, including partner nation security concerns and the 

time it took to obtain congressional approval. As of September 2014, the 

projects’ planned training activities and equipment delivery are an 

average of about 8 months late, assuming the projects meet the currently 

planned execution dates.26

 

26All GSCF projects include multiple training activities and one or more deliveries of 

equipment. Because of this, the dates we use reflect when the first training was expected 

to start and when the first delivery of equipment was expected to occur. 

Figure 7 describes each project, total funds 

transferred, and the original and currently planned dates of execution for 

initiation of training activities and equipment delivery, as of September 

2014.

State and DOD’s Five 

Fiscal Year 2012 GSCF 

Projects Did Not Meet 

Originally Planned 

Execution Target Dates
 

Page 18 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Figure 7: Department of State (State) and Department of Defense (DOD) Global Security Contingency Fund Project Status, as 

of September 2014

Notes: Dollar figures are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. The currently planned dates of 

execution reflect when training and equipment delivery are expected to occur or when training and 

equipment delivery did occur.
 

Page 19 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

In addition, the time from identification to execution for four of the five 

fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects averages about 2.1 years.27 This 

calculation includes the currently planned or actual execution dates for 

initiation of training activities, as of September 2014.28 Figure 8 illustrates 

our analysis of the time from identification through the beginning of 

execution for each GSCF project, to include original and currently 

planned or actual execution dates for initiation of training activities, as of 

September 2014.

 

27We excluded the Libya Border Security project from this calculation because it has been 

postponed. 

28The calculation does not include the equipment delivery dates because training does not 

start until related equipment has been delivered. 
 

Page 20 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Figure 8: Identification and Training Execution Dates for Department of State (State) and Department of Defense (DOD) Global 

Security Contingency Fund Projects, as of September 2014

Notes: Our analysis of project identification starts with the dates the Department of State (State) and 

Department of Defense (DOD) provided. Original and currently planned execution dates start with the 

dates found in the congressional notification packages and end with the updated dates provided by 

State and DOD officials. This analysis is assuming that State and DOD will meet their currently 

planned execution dates. We included DOD’s notification of the transfer of funds because DOD is 

required to obtain approval of funds transfers from Congress.

a

According to State and DOD officials, the first training course started in August 2014; however, this 

training did not meet the original execution date of June 2013.

b

According to State and DOD officials, this project is pending the arrival of Libyan special operations 

forces recruits.

c

According to State and DOD officials, three iterations of a training were completed in January, April, 

and May 2014; however, the first training planned for January 2014 was not completed. The project 

has been postponed due to security and safety concerns in Libya.

d

This project was identified in August 2012 as a counterterrorism and border security project in 

Nigeria, but was put on hold because of evolving conditions on the ground. State and DOD 

subsequently rescoped the project to include Cameroon, Chad, and Niger and notified Congress in 

July 2014.
 

Page 21 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

The five fiscal year 2012 GSCF projects were planned before State 

issued the March 2014 project guidance. State and DOD officials stated 

that the target dates were not met due to partner nation security concerns 

as well as additional details and supporting documentation needed by 

Congress to obtain congressional approval. State and DOD officials said 

that the departments submitted separate congressional notification 

documents containing different levels of detail about the projects. As a 

result, Congress requested that State and DOD coordinate more closely 

and resubmit the congressional notifications. GSCF staff provided the

following explanations for delays in the five fiscal year 2012 GSCF 

projects:

• Bangladesh Special Operations Forces (delayed 17 months):

State and DOD originally planned to initiate training activities in June 

2013 and equipment delivery in September 2013. DOD’s 

congressional notification of intent to transfer funds for this project 

was submitted in August 2012, and Congress approved DOD’s funds 

transfer in November 2012. State and DOD’s congressional 

notification of intent to initiate activities was submitted in April 2013, 

and the project was approved in August 2013. GSCF staff said the 

project was delayed due to the timing of congressional approval. In 

addition, the risk of unrest from the elections in Bangladesh also 

delayed the project. The first training course started in August 2014, 

and the first delivery of equipment is planned to occur between March 

and May 2015.

• Libya Special Operations Forces (delayed 12.5 months): State 

and DOD originally planned to initiate training activities any time 

between April and September 2013 and equipment delivery in April 

2013. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to transfer funds for 

this project was submitted in August 2012, and Congress approved 

DOD’s funds transfer in November 2012. State and DOD submitted 

the congressional notification of intent to initiate activities in April 

2013, and the project was approved in August 2013. GSCF staff said 

the project was delayed due to the timing of congressional approval 

and the deteriorated security situation in Libya. Initiation of training 

activities is pending the arrival of Libyan recruits to the training 

location in Morocco and this date is unknown; however, equipment 

delivery began in May 2014.29

 

29Marine Special Operations Command trainers arrived in Morocco in May 2014. 
 

Page 22 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

• Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia Special Operations Forces 

(delayed 7.5 months): State and DOD originally planned to initiate 

training activities and equipment delivery any time between January 

and February 2014. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to 

transfer funds for this project was submitted in August 2012, and 

Congress approved DOD’s funds transfer in November 2012. State 

and DOD submitted the congressional notification of intent to initiate 

activities in April 2013, and the project was approved in August 2013. 

GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of 

congressional approval and challenges with equipment encryption; 

also, training could not start until equipment delivery. Initiation of 

training activities is planned for November 2014, but equipment 

delivery began in August 2014.

• Libya Border Security (delayed 1.5 months): State and DOD 

planned to initiate training activities in January 2014 and equipment 

delivery in April 2014. DOD’s congressional notification of intent to 

transfer funds and State and DOD’s congressional notification of 

intent to initiate activities for this project were submitted in June 2013. 

DOD’s transfer of funds and the project were approved in August 

2013. GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of 

congressional approval and safety and security concerns in Libya. As 

of April 2014, the project is on hold and being rescoped; however, 

three iterations of a training activity were completed before the project 

was postponed.

• Philippines Maritime Security and Counterterrorism (delayed 3.5 

months): State and DOD planned to initiate training activities any 

time between January and March 2014 and equipment delivery any 

time between January 2014 and June 2015. DOD’s congressional 

notification of intent to transfer part of the funds for this project was 

submitted in August 2012 and approved in September 2012. State 

and DOD’s congressional notifications of intent to transfer the 

remaining funds and intent to initiate activities were submitted in 

August 2013, and the project was approved in September 2013. 

GSCF staff said the project was delayed due to the timing of 

congressional approval and a typhoon that hit the Philippines in 

November 2013. At the time of this report, initiation of training 

activities and equipment delivery was planned for October 2014.
 

Page 23 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

State’s March 2014 GSCF cable states that the GSCF program is to 

address near- to mid-term security concerns driven by emergent 

challenges or opportunities, but it does not clearly define what time 

frames constitute near- or mid-term. The cable outlines time frames for 

individual parts of the GSCF process, such as a goal to review project 

proposals within 10 business days. However, this does not provide 

stakeholders with information needed to know what meets the criteria for 

a near- or mid-term GSCF project. Moreover, State and DOD do not 

routinely track GSCF projects against established time frames. Our 

analysis shows that the five projects planned in fiscal year 2012 were an 

average of about 8 months late, assuming the projects meet the currently 

planned execution dates as of September 2014, as shown above in 

figure 8.

Key management practices call for developing control activities to ensure 

management’s directives are being met, such as clearly defining the time 

frame associated with projects and tracking whether the projects are 

meeting their goals.30

State officials said that GSCF is intended to address emergent challenges 

that fall outside of the normal budgeting and planning process; however, 

while this approach allows for flexibility, it does not clarify how long nearSpecifically, Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government state that control activities should be designed and 

implemented to ensure that management’s directives are achieved and 

require tracking projects so that managers can determine whether they 

are meeting their goals. State’s March 2014 GSCF cable states that the 

program is intended to be high impact, address near- to mid-term security 

concerns in partner nations, and be driven by emergent challenges or 

opportunities, but the guidance does not clearly define time frames for 

near- to mid-term GSCF projects. The guidance also outlines time frames 

for individual parts of the GSCF process, such as a goal to review project 

proposals within 10 business days, but this does not provide stakeholders 

with information needed to know what meets the criteria for a near- or 

mid-term GSCF project. Further enhancing the definition of the program 

by including a range of time for how long near- to mid-term GSCF 

projects should take and tracking the projects against these goals are 

examples of control activities that could ensure that management’s 

directives are achieved.

 

30GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

State and DOD Have 

Not Defined Time 

Frames to Guide and 

Track GSCF Projects
 

Page 24 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

to mid-term GSCF projects should take. Officials from U.S. Africa 

Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command stated 

that the uncertain time frames and onerous process associated with 

GSCF have inhibited the usefulness of the program to date. As a result, 

officials stated that they were reluctant to propose GSCF projects 

because of the lengthy time frames associated with the program.

Once projects begin execution, State and DOD officials said that they 

hold biweekly meetings with project implementers to discuss the status of 

projects; however, these meetings do not track the time frame from 

project proposal to the beginning of project execution. Without clearly 

defining a range of time for near- to mid-term GSCF projects, 

stakeholders, including those proposing and approving GSCF projects, 

will not know the criteria for how long a project should take. Furthermore, 

without clearly defined time frames, State and DOD do not have a goal to 

track GSCF projects against. Therefore, it may be difficult to assess 

whether the GSCF program is meeting its goal to provide timely 

assistance.

The timely provision of U.S. assistance to build partner nation capacity to 

address emerging threats has become vital to U.S. national security. 

Congress created GSCF as a pilot program to pool State’s and DOD’s 

funds and expertise on building partner capacity to address emergent 

challenges and opportunities. State and DOD have developed guidance 

for the GSCF program that notes that GSCF is to focus on near- to midterm projects. While the departments have planned seven GSCF projects, 

the five GSCF projects planned in fiscal year 2012 have not met their 

original execution target dates contained in their congressional 

notification packages. State and DOD have not defined time frames for 

near- to mid-term GSCF projects and have not routinely tracked the 

projects against these goals. Clearly defined time frames will give State 

and DOD goals to track GSCF projects against and will allow 

stakeholders to assess whether the GSCF program is meeting its goal to 

provide timely assistance. Clearly defined time frames may also help 

Congress determine whether the pilot authority should be continued.

To enhance the definition of the GSCF program and assist stakeholders 

in assessing whether GSCF is meeting its goals, we recommend that the 

Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense take the following two 

actions:

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 25 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

• Provide a range of time to clarify the time frames associated with

near- to mid-term GSCF projects, and

• track GSCF projects against established time frames.

We provided a draft of this report to State and DOD for review and 

comment. State and DOD provided written comments, which are 

summarized below and reprinted in appendix II and III, respectively. State 

and DOD also provided technical comments, which we have 

incorporated, as appropriate. In the written comments, State did not agree 

and DOD partially agreed with the first recommendation, and both 

departments agreed with the second recommendation.

With respect to the report’s first recommendation, State did not agree and 

DOD partially agreed that the departments should clearly define what 

time frames constitute “near- to mid-term” for GSCF projects. In their 

written comments, both departments reprinted portions of the GSCF 

guidance and stated that this guidance provides policy makers and 

planners flexibility in defining requirements and tailoring training and 

equipment assistance, consistent with the GSCF authority, needed to 

address emergent challenges or opportunities. For example, State noted 

that in many partner nations receiving GSCF assistance, the situation on 

the ground is fluid and frequently unpredictable; therefore, it is important 

that proposals are driven by requirements, not timelines. In addition, State 

and DOD said that the guidance allows proposal submissions to occur on 

a rolling basis. State’s response also noted that this flexibility enables 

them to maximize their use of the authority, to include the ability to 

provide assistance across ministries in partner nations. In addition, DOD 

noted that GSCF guidance addresses general near- to mid-term 

conditions that would warrant submission of a project proposal, but that 

defining specific time frames would restrict the program’s ability to 

develop detailed plans that address emergent needs. 

We understand and agree with the desire for flexibility in the GSCF 

program. We initially drafted the recommendation for State and DOD to 

clearly define the time frames associated with near- to mid-term GSCF 

projects. However, because we agree with State and DOD about the 

importance of flexibility, we modified our recommendation to clarify our 

intent and specify that State and DOD should define a range of time for 

GSCF projects. Defining a range of time for GSCF projects would not limit 

the departments’ flexibility for developing detailed plans that address 

emergent needs, would still address the need for time frames for GSCF 

projects, and would give key stakeholders a clear expectation of how long 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 26 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

GSCF projects should take. As noted in the report, all of the GSCF 

projects planned in fiscal year 2012 have experienced delays, and it is 

difficult to independently assess the severity of these delays because the 

GSCF guidance does not set overall expectations about how long these 

projects should take. Moreover, the uncertainty around GSCF time 

frames has impacted key stakeholders trying to use the program. As 

noted in the report, officials from the three geographic combatant 

commands with GSCF projects told us that the uncertain time frames 

have inhibited the usefulness of GSCF to date and the lengthy time 

frames associated with the program caused them to be reluctant to 

propose GSCF projects in the future. Finally, the lack of time frames for 

GSCF projects creates financial risks because GSCF funds do not expire 

after Congress approves the transfer of funds and initiation of activities.

As noted in the report, funds transferred into the GSCF account remain 

available indefinitely. Without defining a range of time for GSCF projects, 

State and DOD may lack reasonable assurance that GSCF activities are 

conducted and funds expended in a timely manner. Therefore, we believe 

that defining a range of time associated with near- to mid-term GSCF 

projects is needed so the departments and stakeholders can manage and 

assess the program and ensure accountability. Thus, we believe that 

State and DOD should fully implement our modified recommendation.

With respect to the report’s second recommendation, State and DOD

agreed that the departments should track GSCF projects against 

established time frames. State and DOD said that the departments plan 

to track the projects against the congressional notification timelines and 

plan to continue holding biweekly calls with project implementers to 

identify and address implementation considerations. However, as noted in 

the report, these biweekly calls discuss the status of projects and do not 

track the time frame from project proposal to the beginning of project 

execution. In its response, State also noted that it does not believe it 

would be appropriate to track projects according to the near- to mid-term 

time frame that we recommend. However, we continue to believe that 

tracking projects against established time frames, as discussed above,

will be crucial for ensuring accountability. Until the departments track 

projects against established time frames, they are limited in assessing

whether the program is meeting its goal of providing timely assistance.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition, this report is available at 

no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 27 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov, 

or John H. Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@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 key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.

Director

International Affairs and Trade

John H. Pendleton

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
 

Page 28 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Robert Menendez

Chairman

The Honorable Bob Corker

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Chairman

The Honorable Lindsey Graham

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives
 

Page 29 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

The Honorable Edward R. Royce

Chairman

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Affairs

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Kay Granger

Chairwoman

The Honorable Nita Lowey

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 required GAO to review the 

Department of State (State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) 

procedures to administer and implement activities funded by the Global 

Security Contingency Fund (GSCF). This report (1) describes the 

processes State and DOD have developed to manage the program, (2) 

describes the status of GSCF projects, and (3) assesses the extent to 

which State and DOD have clearly defined time frames for GSCF 

projects. To conduct this work and address our objectives, we identified 

sources of information within State and DOD that would provide 

information on the processes the departments developed to manage the 

GSCF program.

To describe the processes State and DOD developed to manage the 

GSCF program, we collected and analyzed guidance documents that the 

departments developed to manage the GSCF program. Specifically, we 

collected and analyzed the March 2014 diplomatic cable titled Utilizing the 

Global Security Contingency Fund, which provides step-by-step 

information on how State and DOD are to develop projects from proposal 

idea to project execution.1 We also collected and analyzed State’s March 

2014 information memorandum titled Global Security Contingency Fund 

Program Execution Guidance, which provides step-by-step information on 

how State and DOD are to notify Congress of their intent to transfer funds 

and initiate GSCF projects as well as how the departments transfer 

funding into the joint GSCF account.2

To describe the status of GSCF projects, we gathered information from 

congressional notification packages, funding transfer documents, and 

status updates provided by State and DOD since the initiation of the 

program. Specifically, we analyzed the amounts transferred for each 

GSCF project from the information contained in the congressional 

notifications. We also compiled the planned execution time frames from 

congressional notification packages for each GSCF project, to include the 

initiation of training activities and equipment delivery, as well as the 

revised dates from State and DOD briefings on GSCF projects’ status. 

 

1

Department of State, Utilizing the Global Security Contingency Fund (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 28, 2014). 

2

Department of State, Global Security Contingency Fund Program Execution Guidance

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2014). 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

We also discussed the reasons for any project delays and obtained 

current information on the planned training and equipment delivery dates 

from State and DOD officials.

To assess the extent to which State and DOD have clearly defined time 

frames for GSCF projects, we obtained and analyzed State and DOD’s 

congressional notification packages for GSCF projects, GSCF project 

updates to Congress, and State’s GSCF guidance documents. We 

compared this information to criteria in the Standards for Internal Control 

in the Federal Government.

3

We interviewed officials, or when appropriate obtained documentation, 

from the organizations listed below:

We also interviewed State and DOD officials 

about their management of the GSCF projects, reasons for the delays in 

GSCF projects, and whether State and DOD clearly defined time frames 

or track GSCF projects.

Department of State

• Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

• Office of Congressional and Public Affairs

• Office of Security Assistance

• Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance

• Bureau of African Affairs

• Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

• Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

• Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs

Department of Defense

• Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

• Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

• Defense Security Cooperation Agency

• Joint Staff

• U.S. Africa Command

• U.S. Central Command

• U.S. European Command

 

3

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

• U.S. Northern Command

• U.S. Pacific Command

• Office of Defense Cooperation Bangladesh

• Joint U.S. Military Assistance Group Philippines

• U.S. Southern Command

• U.S. Special Operations Command

We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to November 2014 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those 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 II: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 33 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 34 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 35 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 36 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 37 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 38 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense

GAO received DOD’s 

letter on October 31, 

2014.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 39 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 40 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and 

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 41 GAO-15-75 Building Partner Capacity

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov

John H. Pendleton, (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov

In addition to the contacts named above, Judith McCloskey, Assistant 

Director; Tracy Barnes; Laurie Choi; Mary Pitts; Richard Powelson; Erika 

Prochaska; Michael Silver; Amie Steele; and Esther Toledo made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100028)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.