SIGAR Audit-12-13

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION

Selected Public Diplomacy Awards Mostly Achieved 

Objectives, but Embassy Can Take Steps to Enhance 

Grant Management and Oversight

July 30, 2012
SIGAR Audit-12-13

SIGAR

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

SIGAR Audit-12-13 July 2012

Selected Public Diplomacy Awards Mostly Achieved 

Objectives, but Embassy Can Take Steps to Enhance 

Grant Management and Oversight

What SIGAR Reviewed

U.S. Embassy Kabul’s Public Affairs Section (PAS) awarded 560 public diplomacy grants and cooperative agreements during fiscal years 

2010-2011 that provided about $148 million for efforts to help the Afghan government communicate a common vision of progress and urge 

Afghan people to resist insurgent influence and reject violent extremism. This audit sought to determine the extent to which (1) PAS 

followed award selection and management procedures, (2) awards were consistent with U.S. strategic objectives and achieving intended 

results, and (3) PAS addressed the sustainability of grant-funded equipment and facilities. 

To accomplish these objectives, SIGAR obtained data from and met with officials from the Department of State’s Bureau of South and 

Central Asian Affairs/Office of Press and Public Diplomacy and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. SIGAR reviewed the selection and oversight 

of 20 of the larger (above $1 million) public diplomacy awards issued by PAS during fiscal years 2010-2011. With values totaling 

approximately $57 million, the selected awards represented about 38 percent of the total value of all public diplomacy awards issued by PAS 

during that period. SIGAR conducted work from September 2011 to June 2012 in Washington, D.C. and at several sites in Afghanistan, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

What SIGAR Found

Lack of documentation prevented SIGAR from determining whether PAS completed required pre-award activities, including assessments of 

risk, recipient capacity, use of sub-awards, and costs. Consequently, SIGAR was unable to determine the extent to which PAS ensured that 

risks were identified and mitigated, recipients were capable of managing grant funds, subrecipients did not include excluded parties, and 

estimated costs were reasonable. SIGAR found that half of the awards reviewed were sole-sourced and that documentation on the use of fair 

and open competition was absent for several of the other awards. In 2011, PAS took steps to improve its award assessment and selection 

procedures. SIGAR also found that the untimely closeout of a terminated grant resulted in unused cash advances totaling $253,432 that had

not been recovered or de-obligated, and about $12 million disbursed under the 20 awards had not been subjected to financial audits. 

(According to Embassy Kabul, the $253,432 has subsequently been recovered and de-obligated.) 

PAS awarded grants that were consistent with the U.S. government’s civilian-military campaign plan for Afghanistan. While recipients for 

15 of the 20 awards reviewed had achieved or were likely to achieve their intended results, SIGAR found that five grants were not likely to

achieve intended results, including one grant that was terminated due to lack of cooperation between Afghan ministry officials and the grant 

recipient. 

Although 14 of the 20 awards required some degree of sustainability funding to continue staffing, operations, or maintenance after the award 

period ended, none had sustainability plans because such plans were not required prior to fiscal year 2012. Consequently, up to $32 million 

invested in those awards is at risk of being wasted if efforts are not made to sustain these projects. PAS has taken some steps to address 

sustainability for these grants and began requiring sustainability plans for new awards funded in fiscal year 2012.

What SIGAR Recommends

SIGAR is recommending that the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (1) ensure that required pre-award assessments, including cost estimates, 

are documented; (2) ensure timely close-out of completed awards; (3) recover and de-obligate $253,432 in unused cash advances under a 

terminated grant; (4) obtain financial audits of public diplomacy awards; (5) review the viability of awards not likely to achieve their 

intended results, and (6) develop sustainability plans for 14 grants requiring investment after the award period ends. U.S. Embassy Kabul 

concurred with five recommendations and did not fully concur with one. The Embassy’s comments are reproduced in appendix IV. 

For more information contact: SIGAR Public Affairs at (703) 545-5974 or sigar.pentagon.ccr.mbx.public-affairs@mail.mil
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Main: 703-545-6000

1550 Crystal Drive, 9th Floor

Arlington, VA 

 John F. Sopko, Special Inspector General www.sigar.mil

SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page i

July 30, 2012

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

The Honorable James B. Cunningham

U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan

This report discusses the results of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction’s (SIGAR) audit of the U.S. Department of State’s public diplomacy grant program in 

Afghanistan. We reviewed 20 grants totaling about $57 million, or about 38 percent of the total value of 

all public diplomacy awards issued by the embassy during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Overall, we found 

that 15 of the 20 grants were likely to meet intended results, while 5 grants faced delays and other 

implementation challenges. In addition, although the majority of projects funded under these awards will 

likely require some degree of sustainability funding to continue operations, such plans were not required 

prior to fiscal year 2012. The embassy also faced some initial challenges in documenting required preaward assessments and ensuring timely grant close-out and financial audits. The embassy has since taken 

some steps to improve its award assessment and selection procedures, ensure timely grant close-out, and 

address sustainability issues for these grants. This report includes six recommendations to the U.S. 

Ambassador to Afghanistan to further improve oversight of its public diplomacy grants program.

When preparing the final report, we considered comments from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. 

These comments are reproduced in appendix IV. SIGAR conducted this performance audit under the 

authority of Public Law No. 110-181, as amended; the Inspector General Act of 1978; and the Inspector 

General Reform Act of 2008.

John F. Sopko

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background...................................................................................................................................................2

Documentation Was Inadequate to Determine the Extent of Pre-award 

Assessments and Competition, and PAS Had Not Ensured That Expired 

Awards Were Closed Out or Financial Audits Conducted.....................................................................5

Most Awards Reviewed Were Likely to Achieve Intended Results but Several 

Awards Faced Delays and Other Challenges .........................................................................................9

Sustainability Plans Were Not Required for Initial Awards, but PAS Has Taken 

Steps to Address Sustainability issues..................................................................................................12

Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................13

Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................13

Comments...................................................................................................................................................14

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................................15

Appendix II: Award Details.......................................................................................................................17

Appendix III: Summaries of Public Diplomacy Awards Reviewed ..........................................................18

Appendix IV: Comments from U.S. Embassy Kabul ................................................................................23

TABLES

Table 1: Distribution of Selected Awards by Organizational Category.......................................................3

Table 2: Distribution of Selected Awards by Project Type .........................................................................4

Table 3: Awards Not Likely to Achieve Intended Results ........................................................................10

FIGURES

Figure 1: Number of Public Diplomacy Awards for Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 

2007-2011...............................................................................................................................................3

Figure 2: Total Dollar Value of Public Diplomacy Awards for Afghanistan, 

Fiscal Years 2007-2011..........................................................................................................................3
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page iii

ACRONYMS

GMIC Government Media Information Center

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

PAS Public Affairs Section

SIGAR Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

State Department of State
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 1

Selected Public Diplomacy Awards Mostly Achieved Objectives, but Embassy 

Can Take Steps to Enhance Grant Management and Oversight

In line with the “Claiming the Information Initiative” of the U.S. Government’s Integrated CivilianMilitary Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul’s Public Affairs Section 

(PAS) awarded 560 public diplomacy grants and cooperative agreements during fiscal years 2010 and 

2011 to help the Afghan government communicate a common vision of hope and progress and to 

convince the Afghan people to resist insurgent influence and reject violent extremism. With a total value 

of approximately $148 million, these awards constituted the largest embassy-based public diplomacy 

program administered by the Department of State (State) during that period.

The public diplomacy program in Afghanistan was delivered through a combination of grants and 

cooperative agreements awarded mostly to Afghan nongovernmental organizations and commercial firms. 

Most award proposals were solicited by PAS through an Annual Program Statement, which requested 

proposals designed to, among other things, expand media engagement, build the communication capacity 

of the Afghan people and their government to confront ideological support for terrorism, and strengthen 

partnership between Afghan communities and between the peoples of Afghanistan and the United States. 

We conducted this performance audit to determine the extent to which (1) PAS followed award selection 

and management procedures, (2) awards were consistent with U.S. strategic objectives and achieving 

intended results, and (3) PAS addressed the sustainability of grant-funded equipment and facilities.

To accomplish these objectives, we selected and analyzed 20 of the larger (more than $1 million) public 

diplomacy awards issued by PAS during fiscal years 2010-2011. With values totaling approximately 

$57 million, the selected awards represented about 38 percent of the total value of all public diplomacy 

awards issued by PAS during that same period. We also interviewed State officials in Washington, D.C. 

and at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, as well as representatives from all the recipients in our selection. We 

visited award-funded project sites in five Afghan provinces, including Balkh, Kabul, Helmand, Herat, and 

Nangarhar. We conducted our fieldwork from September 2011 through June 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed discussion of our scope and 

methodology is included as appendix I.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 2

BACKGROUND 

The public diplomacy program in Afghanistan is part of the overall U.S. effort to disrupt, dismantle, and 

defeat al Qaeda and prevent its capacity to threaten the United States and its allies. The U.S. 

government’s campaign plan to support Afghanistan includes the transformative effect of “Claiming the 

Information Initiative.”1

 Consistent with that initiative is an integrated communication plan that has the 

goal of helping the Afghan government communicate a common vision of hope and progress to the 

Afghan people, decrease violence, and increase resistance to insurgent influence. Toward this end, the 

communication plan identifies four strategic objectives to (1) counter extremist voices, (2) strengthen 

people-to-people ties and promote a shared vision of Afghanistan’s future, (3) build Afghan 

communication capacity, and (4) expand media outreach.

The public diplomacy program is primarily administered by PAS. At the time of our fieldwork, PAS 

consisted of a press office, cultural affairs office, strategic communication section, an advisory unit 

working at the Government Media Information Center (GMIC), and a deployed military information 

support team. In addition to their assigned duties, PAS employees may serve as grant officers,2 grant 

officer representatives, and members of an award review panel. The grant officer representative is the 

primary PAS contact with the award recipient and is designated in writing by the grant officer to assist in 

the management of federal assistance awards. Employees of other federal agencies working in 

Afghanistan often serve as grant officer representatives for PAS. Special considerations in selecting a 

grant officer representative may include training and experience in the technical aspects of the project, 

knowledge of applicable laws, regulations, and policies, and knowledge of the awarding office’s goals 

and program priorities. 

PAS administers the public diplomacy program by awarding grants and cooperative agreements.3

 Public 

diplomacy awards typically consist of a high volume of low dollar value grants, often used to support the 

travel of host nation officials and promote international understanding. In May 2010, in anticipation of a 

large funding increase for the public diplomacy program in Afghanistan, PAS issued an annual program 

statement to generate proposals for new and larger awards. The statement encouraged the submission of 

unique and creative proposals that were aligned with strategic objectives in the U.S. government’s 

communication plan for Afghanistan.

The number and value of public diplomacy awards for Afghanistan increased substantially in fiscal years 

2010 and 2011. Between fiscal years 2007 and 2009, PAS issued 204 awards, with a total value of 

approximately $1.5 million and an average value of $7,238. During fiscal years 2010 and 2011, PAS 

issued 560 awards, with a total value of approximately $148 million and an average value of $264,140. 

Figures 1 and 2 below illustrate the significant increase in the number and value of public diplomacy 

awards issued by PAS during fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

 1

U.S. Embassy in Kabul/U.S. Forces-Afghanistan: United States Government Integrated Civilian-Military 

Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan (Kabul, Afghanistan: Mar. 26, 2010). 2

The grant officer is appointed by State’s Procurement Executive through a warrant certificate to award, amend, and 

terminate federal assistance agreements. 3

A grant is an assistance instrument used when it is anticipated that there will be no substantial involvement between 

the agency and the recipient during the performance of the activity. A cooperative agreement is an award to transfer 

money, property, or services to a recipient to accomplish a public purpose and substantial involvement is anticipated 

by the U.S. government during performance of the activity.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 3

Figure 1: Number of Public Diplomacy Awards 

for Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2007-2011

Figure 2: Total Dollar Value of Public Diplomacy 

Awards for Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2007-2011

Source: SIGAR analysis of U.S. Department of State data Source: SIGAR analysis of U.S. Department of State data

To accomplish our audit objectives, we judgmentally selected and analyzed 20 of the larger public 

diplomacy awards (above $1 million) issued by PAS during fiscal years 2010-2011. Our audit focused on 

the high-dollar awards used to further reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan rather than the smaller 

traditional educational and cultural awards. Of the 20 awards we selected, 8 were given to Afghan 

nongovernmental organizations, 7 to commercial firms (including 6 Afghan and 1 U.S.), 3 to international 

or U.S. nonprofit organizations, and 2 to an Afghan government-type entity. Table 1 summarizes the 

distribution of awards by type of organization. 

Table 1: Distribution of Selected Awards by Organizational Category 

Type of organization Number of 

award 

recipients

Number of awards Value of awards

Afghan nongovernmental 

organizations

4 8 $21,493,569

Afghan commercial firms 5 6 17,269,528

International /U.S. nonprofit 

organizations

3 3 8,902,904

Afghan government-type entity 1 2 7,005,524

U.S. commercial firm 1 1 1,931,371

Total 14 20 $56,602,896

Source: SIGAR analysis of U.S. Department of State data

The awards to Afghan nongovernmental organizations focused primarily on promoting new media 

outlets, developing the capacity of university journalism and media operations, and increasing the number 

of programs to counter extremist voices. Awards to commercial firms were intended to develop the 

capacity of Afghan television and radio stations to promote principles of respect, human rights, ethnic and 

religious tolerance, democratic behavior, and national cohesion. The international or U.S.-based 

nonprofit organizations sought to use award funds to strengthen communication by providing access to 

internet services at universities, assist Afghan Parliament in establishing an on-site media pool, and 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of 

Awards

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Millions

Dollar 

Value of 

Awards
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 4

promote cooperation through a series of seminars. The awards to the Afghan government-type entity 

focused on developing Afghan ministerial and provincial government media skills and structure. 

About half of the value of the awards we selected funded the purchase of equipment or construction. The 

funding for operations of Afghan news agencies and development of the Afghan government media 

capacity accounted for one-fourth of the total value of the awards in our selection. The balance supported 

TV/radio programming and provided funding for informational jirgas and seminars. 4

 Table 2 displays 

the distribution of selected awards by type of project. 

Table 2: Distribution of Selected Awards by Project Type 

Type of Project Number of Awards Value of Awards

Construction and equipment 5 $20,210,865

Equipment 3 7,290,583

News media operations 4 7,816,413

Afghan government capacity development 2 7,005,524

TV & radio content 3 9,360,171

Jirgas and seminars 3 4,919,340

Totals 20 $56,602,896

Source: SIGAR analysis of U.S. Department of State data.

 4

Jirga is a traditional community council used to resolve local, tribal, and national conflicts in Afghanistan.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 5

DOCUMENTATION WAS INADEQUATE TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF PREAWARD ASSESSMENTS AND COMPETITION, AND PAS HAD NOT ENSURED 

THAT EXPIRED AWARDS WERE CLOSED OUT OR FINANCIAL AUDITS 

CONDUCTED

According to internal control standards as set forth by the Government Accountability Office, significant 

events performed by federal agencies need to be clearly documented, and the documentation should be 

readily available for examination.5

 Further, State has issued policy directives, including Grants Policy 

Directive 23, that outline the level of documentation required in award files.6

 According to Embassy 

Kabul and State officials, the lack of documentation of pre-award assessments and competition for the 20 

awards that we reviewed was primarily due to the understaffing of PAS positions at the embassy when the 

quantity and value of public diplomacy awards rapidly increased in 2010.

7

 Although State increased PAS 

staffing levels in Afghanistan as the quantity and value of public diplomacy awards grew, initial project 

development for many of the awards we reviewed took place while PAS had a limited number of 

permanent staff. Because of the lack of documentation, we could not determine the extent to which the 

awards we reviewed were subjected to pre-award assessments or competition.

Risk and Capacity Assessments 

State’s policy on assessing the risk of award applicants requires responsible officers to make every 

reasonable effort to guard against risk and ensure that awards are made in the best interests of the U.S. 

government. Grants Policy Directive 43 specifically requires program officers to conduct an initial risk 

assessment to determine whether a grants officer should take additional measures to mitigate identified 

risks.8

 The Federal Assistance Policy Manual includes a pre-award template that may be used to 

document the results of the assessment.9

 Pre-award risk assessments are necessary to determine whether 

additional provisions should be incorporated into an award and to assist in selecting the appropriate type 

of award instrument. Adequately assessing risks before making an award helps enable a grantor to 

minimize the misuse or loss of federal funds by identifying and mitigating “high risk” elements in federal 

assistance programs. For the 20 awards we reviewed, PAS officials did not include sufficient 

documentation in the award files to support whether they had assessed an award applicant’s risk prior to 

making the award. The lack of documentation of risk assessments in the award files prevented us from 

determining the existence and quality of pre-award risk assessments by PAS.

Assessing a potential recipient’s capacity to perform assistance activities is intended to determine the 

likelihood that award activities will be performed successfully and in accordance with applicable terms 

and conditions. Capability assessments also identify significant weaknesses in a potential recipient’s 

internal controls. Grants Policy Directive 43 and the Federal Assistance Policy Manual require grant 

officers to assess a potential recipient’s capacity to adequately perform proposed federal assistance 

activities in accordance with guidelines established by State and the Office of Management and Budget. 

This includes a review of the applicant’s accounting, record keeping, and overall financial management 

 5

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

Accountability Office (Washington, D.C.: November 1999), p.15.

6

Grants Policy Directive 23, Federal Assistance File Folder: United States Department of State, Bureau of 

Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division (undated).

7

According to Department of State officials, Embassy Kabul postponed using some of the public diplomacy funding 

until PAS was fully staffed.

8

Grants Policy Directive 43, Pre-Award Responsibility Determination: United States Department of State, Bureau 

of Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division (June 21, 2010).

9

Federal Assistance Policy Manual: United States Department of State, Bureau of Administration, Office of the 

Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division (03-2008, Section 3.2.1).
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 6

and internal control systems.10 None of the 20 award files we reviewed included evidence that PAS

conducted assessments of the recipients’ capacity to perform, or of their financial management and 

internal control systems, prior to making the awards. 

Use of Sub-Awards

In 8 of the 20 assistance awards we reviewed, the applicants included in the proposed budget a line for 

contractual expenses which indicated that they planned to use subrecipients to accomplish the grant or 

cooperative agreement objectives. The Federal Assistance Policy Manual requires grant officers to 

approve the primary recipient’s potential use of sub-awards.11 The primary recipient is required to 

submit to the grant officer a copy of the proposed budget and detailed plans of sub-award activities to 

substantiate the budget expense line item in the primary award. However, we found that PAS files for the 

8 awards that included a line item for contracting did not contain evidence that recipients had submitted 

the required proposed budget and detailed plans for the sub-award. Similarly, the award files contained 

no information on whether recipients had checked potential sub-awardees against the Excluded Parties 

List, which State requires to ensure that award money is being used in the best interest of the U.S. 

government.12 

Cost Assessments

PAS awarded 7 of the 20 awards to commercial firms. Grants to commercial firms are subject to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation, which recommends that a cost analysis be used to establish 

reasonableness of the proposed prices. Although State does not specifically require independent estimates 

of project costs for assistance awards, its policy directives require that a grants officer review pre-award 

costs for reasonableness. According to PAS officials and a review of the award files, PAS did not 

develop independent cost estimates or evaluate reasonableness of cost estimates for the 20 awards that we 

reviewed. PAS records showed discussion of cost proposals for some of the awards in ad hoc email 

discussions that we examined; however, these discussions lacked evidence that reasonableness of costs 

was methodically evaluated. For example, PAS awarded approximately $5.5 million to support the 

construction of three transmission towers and a production facility. The recipient submitted a detailed 

price estimate for the cost associated with the equipment needed to upgrade the proposed facilities. This 

budget included very specific line items reflecting the cost of each piece of equipment; however, PAS did 

not independently assess these costs or determine if less expensive suppliers were available. 

Competition

Grants Policy Directive 5 encourages full and open competition to promote fairness, transparency, and 

equity in selecting and awarding federal assistance.13 According to this directive, full and open 

competition requires (1) public notice of intended funding priorities for assistance programs and (2) an 

impartial review and evaluation of applications received in response to the public announcement. 

 10Grants Policy Directive 43, Excluded Parties List System, Pre-Award Due-Diligence Requirements: United States 

Department of State, Bureau of Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division 

(6.21.2010).; Federal Assistance Policy Manual: United States Department of State, Bureau of Administration, 

Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division (March 2008).

11Federal Assistance Policy Manual: United States Department of State, Bureau of Administration, Office of the 

Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division (March 2008, Section 3.4.9) 12Grants Policy Directive 19, Excluded Parties List System, Pre-Award Due-Diligence Requirements: United States 

Department of State, Bureau of Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division 

(Jan.29, 2007) and Grants Policy Directive 37, Risk Assessment for Terrorisms Finance Federal Assistance Award: 

United States Department of State, Bureau of Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal 

Assistance Division (June.25,2009).

13Grants Policy Directive 5, Competition Requirements for Assistance Grants: United States Department of State, 

Bureau of Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division (4.25.2011).
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 7

Of the 20 awards in our selection, 6 included documentation that they were competed in accordance with 

this directive. Of the remaining 14 awards, 10 were sole-sourced and 4 lacked documentary support of 

their selection methodology. 

The six awards that were awarded in accordance with State’s guidance for free and open competition, 

including the use of requests for proposals and selection panels with documented results, were valued at 

approximately $19 million. The largest of these awards was to construct and equip media operations 

centers on four university campuses; others supported the development of television content and the 

construction of a media pool facility at the Afghan Parliament.

Seven of the ten sole-sourced awards—representing nearly $20 million of the approximately $57 million 

in awards we reviewed—funded TV towers, media equipment, an Afghan government-type office, and 

media programming for the underserved demographics of Pashto language speakers. The sole-source 

justifications for these projects cited the ability of the recipient to operate in specific regions of the 

country or that they were deemed to be the only viable entities in a limited media market. The 

justification for assistance to the Afghan government-type entity cited its unique structure and exclusive 

capability as support for the sole-source award. However, the other three sole-sourced awards, valued at 

$6 million, lacked adequate justification for non-competition for construction of two university media 

centers and providing seminar assistance to an Afghan government ministry. The justification narratives 

cited the need for immediate programs in general terms, rather than outlining the specific requirements 

and why the proposed recipient was uniquely qualified to merit a sole-source award. We were unable to 

determine the conditions under which an additional four awards, totaling approximately $10 million, were 

awarded due to the lack of documentation in the award files.

14

According to a U.S. Embassy official, PAS did not have awards committees or other formal procedures

for awarding grants during the first half of fiscal year 2010. In the absence of such procedures, the 

Embassy Public Affairs Officer decided which organizations would receive public diplomacy awards. 

Toward the end of fiscal year 2010, State supplemented PAS’s limited permanent staff with grant officers 

who were temporarily assigned to Kabul to help obligate funds before the end of the fiscal year. By this 

time, PAS had established a formal grants awarding system that included establishment of a grants award 

committee and formal processes for requesting proposals and dealing with unsolicited proposals. This 

improved the ability of PAS to develop and manage public diplomacy awards.

Close-out of Two Awards and Financial Audits Had Not Been Completed

PAS did not close out two expired awards in a timely manner and one expired award included $253,432 

in unexpended funds that PAS had not recovered or de-obligated at the time of our review. Also, PAS did 

not ensure that financial audits were conducted of expenditures by award recipients. 

Lack of Timely Closeout of Award Contributed to Delay in Recovery of Unused Funds 

State’s Federal Assistance Policy Manual indicates that closeout procedures for expired grants should 

provide, among other things, for the immediate refund of any unexpended funds. According to the 

manual, recipients must submit all financial, performance and other reports as required by the terms and 

conditions of the award within 90 calendar days after the end of an award. After the final reports have 

been received, the recipient is to promptly refund any excess balances of unexpended funds. The grant 

officer is responsible for processing any requests for reimbursement of funds or payment of amounts due 

to State. After all required documentation has been received, the un-liquidated balance of funds from 

State’s accounting records must be de-obligated.

 14State’s Office of the Procurement Executive cited the lack of competition of grants at Embassy Kabul as a 

weakness in May 2010: “Grants Management Oversight Review,” United States Department of State, Bureau of 

Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division (4.29.2010)
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 8

As of June 2012, 2 of the 20 awards we reviewed had been expired for at least 6 months without PAS 

completing the required closeout actions. One award was for equipment and all funds provided by PAS 

under the award had been expended by the award recipient. However, the other award was terminated in 

July 2011 and had a balance of $253,432 in unexpended funds that PAS had advanced to the recipient 

prior to terminating the award.15 The grant officer sent a termination notice to the recipient in July 2011 

requesting that the recipient return the unexpended funds. In commenting on our draft report, the 

embassy stated that the recipient returned a total of $253,432 via electronic funds transfer in June 2012, 

which was subsequently de-obligated.

Financial Audits of Recipient Expenditures Had Not Been Conducted 

As of June 2012, $12 million had been expended under the 20 awards we reviewed, but none of those 

expenditures had been audited as recommended by State guidance and in accordance with best practices 

within the federal government.

16 The standard terms and conditions incorporated into each of the awards 

require award recipients to maintain financial records and supporting documents for up to 3 years after 

their final expenditure report was submitted, and to make those records available to U.S. government 

representatives. However, the standard terms and conditions do not specifically require that a financial 

audit of award expenditures be conducted17 because State had not established standard requirements or 

procedures for conducting financial audits of its overseas recipients. 

According to Grants Policy Directive 42, audit reports can be an effective and valuable method for 

monitoring a recipient's financial performance, particularly with regard to the adequacy of recipient 

internal controls and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Other U.S. federal agencies that 

award funds to foreign organizations have established audit requirements to ensure accountability for 

award funds. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires foreign 

organizations to have a financial audit if they expend more than $500,000 of federal funds during their 

fiscal year. Also, the U.S. Agency for International Development requires a financial audit of foreign 

award recipients that expend over $300,000 in funding per year. 

The lack of financial audits of these awards reduces the assurance that the public diplomacy funds 

provided by PAS are properly accounted for and used for their intended purposes. Financial audits of 

recipients often result in savings to the U.S. government by identifying costs that may be disallowed and 

recovered because they do not comply with the terms of an award, lack adequate supporting 

documentation, are not allocable to a specific program, or are deemed to be unreasonable.

Recognizing that the lack of financial audits is a significant weakness, PAS officials solicited proposals 

from public accounting firms in September 2011 to perform financial audits on its public diplomacy 

awards; however, no firms bid on the solicitation. Other organizations, however, have successfully 

contracted for audit services in Afghanistan. For example, the U.S. Agency for International 

Development has contracted for financial audits of some of its contractors and grantees in Afghanistan 

from a list of twelve pre-approved firms.

 15The terminated grant’s total award value was about $1.09 million of which PAS had advanced $850,000 to the 

recipient. Of that amount, the recipient expended $596,568, leaving $253,432 for recovery and de-obligatation. 16Federal Assistance Handbook: United States Department of State, Bureau of Administration, Office of the 

Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division (03-2011, Section 4.3); U.S. Government Accountability 

Office: Government Auditing Standards, Section 1.01 and 1.02, GAO-07-73IG November 2011. 17One award had unique language that required that the recipient have an internationally recognized, certified 

accounting firm complete an audit, but the resulting report was of a comprehensive assessment of the grantee’s 

financial, procurement, administration, and personnel systems, rather than a financial audit of U.S.-funded 

expenditures. 
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 9

MOST AWARDS REVIEWED WERE LIKELY TO ACHIEVE INTENDED RESULTS

BUT SEVERAL AWARDS FACED DELAYS AND OTHER CHALLENGES

PAS awarded public diplomacy grants and cooperative agreements that were consistent with the 

overarching U.S. strategic communication objectives specified in the Integrated Civilian-Military 

Communications Plan.

18 Embassy Kabul’s communication plan included four strategic objectives—

(1) Counter Extremist Voices, (2) Strengthen People-to-People Ties, (3) Build Afghan Communications 

Capacity, and (4) Expand Media Outreach. The 20 grants and cooperative agreements that we reviewed 

were consistent with these strategic objectives as described below.19

• Counter Extremist Voices: Guided by the communication plan, PAS aimed to counter insurgent 

messages by funding projects that decrease the influence of insurgent communication and provide 

alternative source of information for Afghans in provinces most affected by the insurgency. 

Public diplomacy projects that aim to counter extremist voices included projects that provide 

news services, encourage national unity through radio programming, and promote discussions 

about the daily social challenges for the Afghan youth on TV.

• Strengthen People-to-People Ties: To promote a shared vision of Afghanistan’s future and to 

strengthen people-to-people ties, PAS funded a series of jirgas, seminars, and conferences to 

expose the Afghan people to different regional and international Islamic ideologies. Through 

these projects PAS aimed to develop a global network of Islamic scholars and peace-building 

activities to support Afghan clerics and religious leaders in furthering peace, prosperity, and 

moderate messaging.

• Build Afghan Communications Capacity: To increase the effectiveness of communication by 

the Afghan government, the independent media, and the Afghan public, PAS funded projects that 

built communication facilities, provided modern equipment, and provided training and advisory 

services. These projects include building media centers at six Afghan universities, developing 

Government and Media Information Center, and building onsite professional broadcasting 

infrastructure of the Afghan Parliament.

• Expand Media Outreach: To inform and persuade the populations in the rural areas of 

Afghanistan, PAS funded the expansion of TV and radio production facilities and transmission 

capabilities. Other examples of public diplomacy funded media outreach projects include funding 

increased news coverage and expanding high-speed internet access to students and teachers in 

seven provinces in Afghanistan. 

The Embassy’s Annual Program Statement solicited proposals aimed at furthering these objectives. 

According to the communication plan, achieving these objectives would help the Afghan government and 

community leadership communicate a common vision of hope and progress to the Afghan people, 

decrease violence, and increase resistance to insurgent influences. 

Fifteen of Twenty Awards Are Likely to Achieve Intended Results, but Five Grants Have 

Experienced Delays and Other Challenges

Fifteen awards, valued at approximately $37 million, funded the production and broadcast of TV and 

radio programs, covered operating costs of radio and print news agencies, upgraded equipment for local 

media stations, developed media infrastructure, and facilitated public events. The TV production awards 

 18The communications plan was created by the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, the International Security Assistance Force, 

and the U.S. Forces-Afghanistan in 2010. 19To make this determination, we reviewed PAS files pertaining to the awards and were able to categorize each 

award under one or more of the four strategic objectives under the communication plan. 
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 10

have produced and broadcasted several short films, television dramas, feature-length films, and 

documentaries to promote the importance of an independent justice system and role of women in society. 

Other successful awards developed the Afghan media capacity through building, equipping, and training 

Afghan journalists and facilitating the expansion of TV, radio, and print news sources to various 

provinces of Afghanistan. In addition, some of the awards assisted Afghan ministries and nongovernmental organizations to organize and conduct local, national, and international jirgas, seminars, 

and conferences.

At the time of our fieldwork, a majority of the awards we reviewed were still ongoing, either under the 

awards’ original timeframe or due to an extension of the period of performance granted by PAS. 

However, we were able to determine that 5 of the 20 awards had not achieved, or were not likely to 

achieve, their intended results, including one award that was terminated early and two others terminated 

in June 2012. We made this determination based on our site visits for all 20 awards, interviews with PAS 

officials and grant recipients, and reviews of progress reports for each award. The five awards are shown 

in table 3.

Table 3: Awards Not Likely to Achieve Intended Results

Award Number Award Number 

in Appendix II

Intended Result Award 

Amount

SAF20010GR217 16 Fund GMIC operations and construct 5 provincial offices $3,944,500

SAF20010GR201 17 Provide internet access for 9000 students and their teachers 3,255,213

SAF20011GR172 18 Fund the construction of 3 additional GMIC provincial offices and 

develop press halls for 8 selected ministries

3,061,024

SAF20010GR245 19 Build and equip university media centers in four provinces 8,374,239

SAF20010GR143 20 Organize public events with Afghan ministry 1,093,820

Total $19,728,796

Source: SIGAR analysis of Department of State data.

Although two awards called for the establishment of eight new GMIC provincial offices, at the time of 

our audit only the provincial office in Kandahar had been completed, with another office in Jalalabad 

under construction. While the awards helped GMIC increase the ability of the Afghan government to 

effectively disseminate information, they were not likely to result in the construction of the remaining 

provincial offices during the timeframe of the communication plan. Embassy officials stated that the 

initial provincial offices took longer to establish than planned due to the added coordination and training 

required with provincial centers and the lack of strong ties between the provincial and national 

government organizations. The current PAS leadership is reevaluating whether all the provincial offices 

will be constructed.20

Similarly, an award that intended to build and equip four university media centers around the country is 

not likely to accomplish its intended results. In September 2010, 1 month after the awards for similar 

projects for universities in Kabul and Herat were signed, PAS awarded the same recipient an additional 

$8.4 million grant to build and outfit media operation centers at four other Afghan universities in Balkh, 

Kandahar, Khost, and Nangarhar. In November 2011, we visited the sites in Balkh and Nangarhar and 

observed limited progress beyond site selection and geological testing for those media centers. Review of 

the award documents and interviews with PAS staff and the recipient indicated that the status of the 

 20Subsequent to our audit fieldwork, PAS officials informed us that the U.S. Embassy had decided to end funding 

for GMIC and use any remaining funds for a replacement grant to complete the originally intended activities of 

building media capacity in the provinces.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 11

media centers at the other two universities in Kandahar and Khost was the same. According to grant 

documents, the recipient considers the media centers in Kabul and Herat as phase one of the project and 

the remaining four media centers as phase two. Discussions with the grant recipient and grant officer 

representative for this award revealed that the recipient would not begin substantive work on these four 

media centers until the projects in Kabul and Herat were completed. However, the Kabul and Herat 

projects were experiencing delays that resulted in time extensions and cost increases.21 PAS agreed to 

delay the start of the work at the other four universities due to the recipient’s inability to perform at six 

construction sites concurrently. Delays for the four projects funded by this award will likely result in 

increased construction costs. With minimal progress on the four university projects 16 months after the 

grant was awarded, and using the same rate of cost increase experienced with the first two university 

projects, this grant is likely to incur approximately $3.4 million (40 percent) in additional costs in 

construction materials and labor.22

Another award not likely to achieve results as intended is the internet access project, which supplied 

computer hardware without the required internet administrator to maintain the hardware and software 

provided by the award. The award intended to provide high-speed internet access for 9,000 students and 

their teachers in seven provincial Afghan universities and to enhance the existing bandwidth provided by 

the project for 28,000 students and teachers at five major Afghan universities. Review of the grant 

documents and interviews with university officials indicated that no provisions were made by the 

recipient or the universities to establish an internet administrator position, leaving the project vulnerable 

to failure if technical changes are required after the initial setup. We observed that one university used

computer science professors to administer the network on an ad hoc basis, but university officials 

expressed serious concerns about the sustainability of this plan. Furthermore, during our fieldwork we 

were informed by the students and officials at three other universities that students only had access to the 

internet during computer lab classes. Embassy officials stated they recognized the vulnerability in this 

situation, as several other donor initiatives also depended on the successful expansion of the internet to 

provide services to students and faculty. PAS plans to establish an intergovernmental working group with 

broad membership of all parties reliant on university internet expansion to strategically address this issue.

In addition, a grant valued at about $1 million and awarded to organize public events with a government 

ministry was terminated early due to lack of cooperation between ministry officials and the grant 

recipient. The initial period of performance for this award was June 2010 to June 2011, and required 

organization of 70 events. In December 2010, the grant was amended to extend the period of 

performance to September 30, 2011, to accommodate project delays and a change in personnel at the 

ministry, and the scope of the project was reduced from 70 to 38 events. PAS terminated the grant in July 

2011, when the recipient had delivered only 21 events. Interviews with the recipient and ministry 

officials and review of the grant documents indicated that lack of cooperation between the ministry and 

recipient led to the project’s failure. The ministry insisted on handling all logistics for these public 

events, diminishing the need for the recipient to take primary responsibility for fulfilling the terms of the 

award and control the award funds. PAS terminated the grant to avoid potential misuse of U.S. 

government funds. This action, although justifiable, limited the number of events held, thereby reducing 

the ministry’s outreach and partnership with Afghan citizens.

 21The media center in Herat was awarded $806,995 in additional funds and was extended to June 2012. Similarly, 

the media center in Kabul was awarded $867,520 in additional funds and was extended to June 2012. 

22Calculation of increased funding requirement is based on application of the rate of cost overruns in the Kabul and 

Herat media centers. SIGAR determined the average of the overruns ($806,995 for Herat and $867,520 for Kabul) 

and multiplied it by the four projects. Average of Kabul and Herat projects is $837,257 X 4 unfinished projects = 

$3,349,028 in forecasted requirement for additional funds.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 12

SUSTAINABILITY PLANS WERE NOT REQUIRED FOR INITIAL AWARDS, BUT 

PAS HAS TAKEN STEPS TO ADDRESS SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

None of the awards we reviewed had plans for sustainment in the award records because PAS did not 

require sustainability plans as a selection factor when awarding grants from 2007 to 2011. The inclusion 

of sustainability plans is an essential element of international capacity development and a key lesson 

learned from the U.S. government’s experience in Iraq. The Special Inspector General for Iraq 

Reconstruction23 and the United States Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 

cited sustainability as a necessary requirement to avoid waste of the initial foreign assistance 

investment.24 Of the 20 public diplomacy awards that we reviewed, 14 grants totaling $32 million require 

some degree of sustainability funding for staffing, operations, or maintenance after the award period to 

avoid the waste of the U.S. investment in these projects. Recipients for 11 of the 14 awards requiring 

sustainability funding told us they intended to ask for continued donor funding as their first choice to 

cover ongoing operations and maintenance costs after their current PAS award funding ended. Of the 14

awards requiring operations and maintenance of fixed assets, 7 directly or indirectly benefited Afghan 

government entities, and 7 went to commercial firms. 

The sustainability challenges facing governmental entities such as universities, GMIC, and the Parliament 

Press Center, are similar to those of public sector agencies. These recipients lack authorizations for the 

government personnel that will run these organizations after donor funding expires. We confirmed that 

the initial steps to add personnel to the GMIC had occurred; however, at the time of our audit only 

positions for senior management had been approved. Additionally, staff levels in the GMIC were based 

on the current level of donor funding, rather than the number needed to support the GMIC mission or the 

number that could be supported by Afghan government funding. Further, no maintenance budgets had

been approved.

25

According to PAS, the office began requiring detailed sustainability plans with the fiscal year 2012 

Annual Program Statement and for specific requests for proposals prior to awarding grants or cooperative 

agreements. In addition, U.S. Embassy Kabul contributes to the support and long term sustainability of 

the public diplomacy program through follow on programs and complementary awards, as well as 

leveraging its influence within the host government and civil society. For example, a sustainability 

component of the university media centers will be partnership grants for each Afghan journalism school 

with a U.S.-based university for a 3-year period. This project aims to update journalism curriculum and 

develop teaching capacity of the faculties at the Afghan universities. However, the university media 

centers and journalism partnership initiatives depend heavily on the success of the NATO internet 

connectivity grant, which is at risk of failing due to the lack of funding for trained computer network 

support staff at the universities. PAS identified this vulnerability and has formed an interagency group of 

NATO internet project contributors to mitigate the human capital risks.

The commercial firm recipients that we interviewed indicated they planned to sell advertisement and 

programming as a means of funding future operations. However, embassy officials said that commercial 

advertising is limited in Afghanistan. Senior PAS officials cite the influx of donor programming grants as 

short term and unsustainable. They also anticipate a significant contraction of the public media sector 

once international funding ends, making it unlikely that all broadcasting grantees will be able to continue 

 23Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Hard Lesson: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience, 

(Washington D.C. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, February 2, 2009).

24United States Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sustainability: Hidden Costs Risk 

New Waste (Washington D.C., Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan Special Report 5, June 

3, 2011) 1.

25Subsequent to our audit fieldwork, PAS officials informed us that, pursuant to the termination of U.S. Embassy 

funding of GMIC, GMIC activities were incorporated into the Afghan government’s Office of the Spokesperson and 

that those activities would be sustained by the Afghan government.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 13

operations. To normalize the programming market and reduce cost, PAS does not fund broadcast 

expenses.

CONCLUSIONS

State’s public diplomacy program for Afghanistan received a significant funding increase in 2010 and 

2011, making it the largest public diplomacy program administered by a U.S. embassy. However, State 

did not initially have the necessary staffing in place as funding and grant workload ramped up. 

Consequently, PAS faced challenges in documenting required pre-award procedures, including the 

documentation of required risk and cost assessments and the use of fair and open competition. Therefore, 

we were unable to determine the extent to which PAS ensured that risks were identified and mitigated, 

recipients were capable of managing grant funds, subrecipients did not include excluded parties, costs 

were reasonable, and awards were competed. As half of the awards we reviewed were sole-sourced, and 

some of those sole-sourced awards lacked adequate justification, PAS may not have received the highest 

value for the funds awarded. 

At the time of our review, a terminated but not closed grant resulted in unused cash advances totaling 

$253,432 that PAS needed to recover and de-obligate. Also, none of the $12 million expended under the

20 awards we reviewed had been audited. The lack of financial audits reduces the assurance that the 

funds provided by PAS were properly accounted for and used for their intended purposes. 

Although not required, without sustainment plans the U.S. government runs a risk of wasting the initial 

public diplomacy grant investment. Continued investment by the donor community is needed to avoid 

the waste of approximately $32 million invested in the public diplomacy awards in our selection. 

Although PAS changed its grant selection criteria in fiscal year 2012 to require sustainability planning 

and is now encouraging grantees to develop sustainable business plans at the inception of grants, those 

corrective actions will not help ensure the sustainability of the awards issued prior to fiscal year 2012.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To provide better oversight of funds provided to award recipients for public diplomacy programs in 

Afghanistan and to provide for greater assurance of achieving award results, we recommend that the U.S. 

Ambassador to Afghanistan:

1. Take steps to ensure that PAS documents pre-award assessments and selection procedures

for public diplomacy grants in accordance with State’s Grants Policy Directives. 

2. Take steps to ensure timely close-out of completed public diplomacy awards. 

3. Recover and de-obligate $253,432 in cash advances made under a public diplomacy grant 

that was subsequently terminated. 

4. Re-solicit the contract for financial audits of public diplomacy awards and, if necessary, 

coordinate with other organizations that have awarded audit contracts in Afghanistan.

5. Review the progress of two awards (university media centers and university internet access)

facing difficulties in achieving intended results to determine whether to continue, modify, or 

terminate the awards. 

6. Determine sustainability requirements and develop sustainability plans for 14 grants 

awarded in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 totaling $32 million and requiring resources for 

staffing, operations, or maintenance after the award period ends. 
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 14

COMMENTS 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the PAS made some general and specific comments, which we 

considered and incorporated as appropriate into this final report. With regard to the recommendations in 

the draft report, PAS concurred with five and did not concur with two. (Based on information about the 

grantee in the embassy’s comments, we removed one recommendation from the draft report prior to 

finalizing this report.) PAS reported recovering the $253,432 in June 2012 included in recommendation 3 

and de-obligating that same amount. The embassy’s comments and our point-by-point responses are 

included in appendix IV.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 15

APPENDIX I: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) initiated this audit of U.S. 

Department of State (State) awards administered by U.S. Embassy Kabul’s Public Affairs Section (PAS) 

in support of State’s public diplomacy program in Afghanistan. Our audit focused on costs, activities, 

oversight, and sustainability for public diplomacy awards issued by State relating to Afghanistan 

reconstruction during fiscal years 2010-2011. This work was part of SIGAR’s comprehensive audit plan 

to assess the manner in which agreement requirements were developed, awarded, and implemented.

The objectives of this audit were to determine the extent to which (1) PAS followed award selection and 

management procedures, (2) awards were consistent with U.S. strategic objectives and achieving intended 

results, and (3) PAS addressed the sustainability of grant-funded equipment and facilities.

To determine the funding and staffing provided for the public diplomacy grants program in Afghanistan, 

we reviewed the universe of public diplomacy awards for Afghanistan in State’s Grants Database 

Management System issued during fiscal years 2007-2011. We identified 764 grants valued at a total of 

$148 million. We analyzed the quantity and value of awards by fiscal year and then calculated and 

compared average quantities and values during fiscal years 2007-2009 and 2010-2011. We relied on

State’s computer-processed data for award value information, independently tracing and verifying the 

data to ensure its accuracy. We obtained staffing data from the Embassy and verified its consistency by 

interviewing State officials who were present during 2010-2011. 

To determine the extent to which PAS followed award selection and management procedures, we first 

identified a sample of awards to test individually. We did this by sorting the universe of State awards by

value, revealing 38 awards totaling $101,207,139 with an award value over one million dollars. We then 

separated the 38 awards into two categories: (1) reconstruction awards focusing on construction, 

equipment, and capacity development; and 2) traditional grants under the legacy (base) Fulbright Hayes 

authorization.26 We judgmentally selected the 20 largest reconstruction awards valued at $56,602,896 as 

the audit sample for review and fieldwork. The selected awards were all issued during fiscal years 2010-

2011 and represented approximately 38 percent of the total value of all public diplomacy awards by PAS 

during fiscal years 2007-2011.

To determine the process that PAS used to award public diplomacy grants, we requested the pre-award 

documents for all the sample grants from the Department of State’s Bureau of South and Central Asian 

Affairs. We reviewed State’s Grants Policy Directives, which provide guidelines for federal assistance 

award processes and analyzed the pre-award documentation and award process for the 20 selected awards

against those guidelines. During our fieldwork, we also interviewed PAS officials and grantees regarding 

the current and past pre-award selection processes. 

To determine whether the awards were consistent with U.S. strategic objectives, we obtained and 

reviewed the objectives of the award documents in the sample; reviewed the PAS annual program 

statement; and interviewed embassy officials. We identified the U.S. strategic objectives as outlined in 

the four pillars of the strategic communication sections of the United States Government Integrated 

Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan (campaign plan). We then compared the 

award objectives as presented in the award documents to the objectives in the campaign plan. 

To determine the extent to which the sampled awards achieved, or were likely to achieve, their intended 

results, we interviewed representatives for each recipient and visited construction and operation sites in 

 26Programs funded through the Fulbright-Hayes authorization are intended to promote mutual understanding 

between citizens of the United States and foreign countries primarily through educational exchange programs. We 

did not consider such programs to be reconstruction and therefore eliminated them from the scope of our audit.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 16

five provinces (Kabul, Balkh, Herat, Nangarhar, and Helmand) in Afghanistan. We also spoke with 

Afghan government and university officials who were third-party beneficiaries of some of the awards.

Due to security concerns and limited transportation resources, we were not able to travel to all the award

sites, including Spin Bolduk and Torkham in southern and eastern Afghanistan. In those cases, we sought 

to acquire verification of grant deliverables in those locations through satellite imagery. In order to 

evaluate performance with regard to the cost and schedule of the awards, we reviewed obligation and 

disbursement data from State’s financial management system.

To evaluate the extent to which PAS has addressed the sustainability of grant-funded equipment and 

facilities, we analyzed each award in our sample to determine whether it had a sustainability plan and 

whether it required some degree of sustainment funding to continue providing staffing, operations, or 

maintenance after the award period. We searched for criteria that would require State to develop 

sustainment plans for its awards and reviewed the criteria for transfer of assets by awardees to the 

intended recipient, including Afghan government organizations. 

In conducting the audit, we assessed internal controls regarding the administration of funds disbursed 

under the grant and achievement of intended results. Specifically, we identified and reviewed internal 

control procedures required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation and State’s Federal Assistance Policy 

Handbook and sought to determine whether those procedures were adequately design and administered.

We relied on available documents in the award files, reviewed policy and procedures manuals, and 

interviewed stakeholders of the awards process.

We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., and Kabul, Afghanistan, from August 2011 to June 2012 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 the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. SIGAR conducted this 

audit under the authority of Public Law No. 110-181, Section 842(h), as amended, the Inspector General 

Act of 1978, and the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. 
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 17

APPENDIX II: AWARD DETAILS

Award Number Award name Original 

cost

Additional 

cost

Original

end date

Amended 

end date

Likely to 

achieve 

intended 

results

1 SAF20010CA014 TV content manager 4,931,600 - 01-Oct.-2011 30-Jun-2012 Yes

2 SAF20010GR141 Radio programming 2,029,156 $500,000 31-May-2011 31-May-2012 Yes

3 SAF20010GR140 Newspaper 1,035,400 1,000,963 31-May-2011 31-May-2012 Yes

4 SAF20010GR083 Studio equipment 1,075,000 - 23-Jun-2010 Yes

5 SAF20011GR054 Afghan Parliament media 

pool 2,960,370 - 31-Jan-2012 31-May-2012 Yes

6 SAF20011GR137 Islamic cooperation 2,687,321 - 14-Feb-2013 Yes

7 SAF20010GR181 Construction of TV 

towers 5,414,625 - 31-Aug-2010 Yes

8 SAF20010CA013 Radio programming 1,577,599 353,772 06-Nov-2011 Yesa

9 SAF20010GR238 Youth drama serial 2,497,200 - 15-Oct-2011 15-May-2012 Yes

10 SAF20010GR250 News service 1,879,947 - 30-Sep-2011 31-Mar-2012 Yes

11 SAF20010GR193 Radio programming 1,471,156 - 01-Sep-2011 31-Dec-2011 Yes

12 SAF20010GR208 News service 1,370,947 - 31-Aug-2011 30-Jan-2012 Yes

13 SAF20011GR090 Ministry seminars 1,138,199 - 29-Dec-2011 30-Jun-2012 Yes

14 SAF20010GR146 Herat media center 1,703,750 806,995 31-Aug-2011 30-Jun-2012 Yes 

15 SAF20010GR147 Kabul media center 1,572,580 867,520 31-Aug-2011 30-Jun-2012 Yes 

16 SAF20010GR217 GMIC operations 3,944,500 - 31-Aug-2011 31-Dec-2011 No

17 SAF20010GR201 Internet project 3,109,850 145,363 16-Sep-2013 No

18 SAF20011GR172 GMIC- ministry makeover 3,061,024 - 31-May-2012 No

19 SAF20010GR245 4 university media 

centers 8,374,239 - 29-Sep-2011 31-Jul-2012 No

20 SAF20010GR143 Ministry seminars 1,000,000 93,820 30-Jun-2011 Terminated No

Total $52,834,463 $3,768,433

Source: SIGAR analysis of U.S. Department of State data.

Note: aThe project was completed in November 2011 during SIGAR field work for this audit.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 18

APPENDIX III: SUMMARIES OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AWARDS REVIEWED

1. Grant: SAF20010CA014 Afghan TV Content Manager

Award Amount: $4,931,600

The purpose of this grant is for the grantee to act as an Afghan TV Content Production Manager.

----------------------

2. Grant: SAF20010GR141 Radio Programming

Award Amount: $2,529,156

The purpose of this grant is to establish the introduction of new radio programming in Afghanistan.

----------------------

3. Grant: SAF20010GR140 Newspaper

Award Amount: $2,036,363

The purpose of this grant was to support a newspaper project which was launched by a previous U.S. 

Embassy Grant. The aim of this grant was to fund the organization to cover the costs of the 

newspaper for the year. The recipient produces and distributes 12,000 newspapers with delivery to 14 

provinces: Kabul, Kandahar, Nangahar, Khost, Konar, Helmand, Uruzgan, Paktiya, Paktika, Zabul, 

Laghman, Baghlan, Balk and Kunduz.

----------------------

4. Grant: SAF20010GR083 Studio Equipment Upgrade

Award Amount: $1,075,000

The purpose of this grant was to provide necessary equipment upgrade and capabilities to a Pushtospeaking broadcast news. The expansion would enable the subsequent program greatly expanding 

Afghanistan independent media capacity and broadcast ability to the area of the country least 

connected to the central government and international community. Its programming and shows have 

been found to be acceptable to the conservative Pashtun regions of Afghanistan that are critical to the 

success of Afghan nation building.

----------------------

5. Grant: SAF20011GR054 Afghan Parliament Media Pool

Award Amount: $2, 960,370 

The aim of this project is to provide professional broadcast quality video and audio infrastructure at 

the Afghan Parliament within budget and time and within BBC’s International quality standards. The 

project will aim to set up a system to enhance and improve the current business and media pool 

workflow at the Afghan Lower House. The three main objectives are: 1) construct an Afghan 

Parliament Media Pool, 2) equip media pool with modern press equipment, and 3) train Afghan 

Media to utilize the parliament media pool. 

----------------------
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 19

6. Grant: SAF20011GR137 Islamic Cooperation

Award Amount: $2,687,321

The purpose of the grant is to promote Islamic cooperation for a peaceful future in Afghanistan.

----------------------

7. Grant: SAF20010GR181 Construction of TV towers

Award Amount: $5,414,625

The purpose of this grant is to support the expansion of television through the construction of a main 

production facility in Kabul, two mobile studios in Kandahar and Nangarhar, and construction and 

installation of three transmission towers. The towers will be strategically placed in areas deemed 

critical to the war effort. Project activities will include operations, maintenance, and training of 

professionals. The project also aimed to equip studios with professional video equipments such as 

cameras, audio, van for live transmissions, system converters, play box system for satellite 

transmissions, and antenna towers. 

----------------------

8. Grant: SAF20010CA013 Radio Programming

Award Amount: $1,931,371

The purpose of this grant is to support new radio programming.

----------------------

9. Grant: SAF20010GR238 Radio Youth Drama Serial

Award Amount: $2,497,200 

The recipient will produce and broadcast a drama serial program.

----------------------

10. Grant: SAF20010GR250 Afghan News Service

Award Amount: $1,879,947 

The purpose of this grant is to support the core operations of an Afghan news service. The objective 

of this project, according to the grant application, is to replace equipment, replenish the agency’s 

capital base, and provide core funding for the station’s operations. Furthermore, the grant would 

enable the news agency to enhance its coverage by expanding to new topical and geographic areas 

and platforms, implement new technologies to syndicate content to Afghan and international 

audiences; and embrace new marketing initiatives to increase the news agency’s subscriber base and 

contribute to sustainability.

----------------------

11. Grant: SAF20010GR193 Expand FM Radio

Award Amount: $1,471,156
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 20

The purpose of this grant is to expand FM radio to cities outside of Kabul such as Kandahar, Ghazni, 

Jalalabad and Kunduz. Through this grant the radio station aims to expand its call-in program, which 

provides Afghans to call in to live radio program and make their voices heard about all issues that 

matter to them. The project also intended to purchase equipment required for seven local radio 

stations. The project activities included establishment of offices, studios, and broadcasting sites; 

construction of broadcasting towers; recruitment and training of local staff; and broadcast 

programming. 

----------------------

12. Grant: SAF20010GR208 Pashto News Agency

Award Amount: $1,370,947.41

The purpose of this grant is to support the project for Afghan Pashto Radio News Agency Service. 

The agency would use staff in Kabul and the provinces to produce up to seven Pashto-language news 

stories every day for circulation to Pashto radio stations throughout Afghanistan and pilot cell phones 

to deliver news stories direct to subscribers. The agency would train staff and also use staff seconded 

from other Afghan radio stations. The proposed goal of the project is to produce five audio reports, 

seven days per week, that package narrative with audio clips from people in the news. Although not 

specified in the grant document or the grant application, the grant also assisted the news agency in the 

construction of recording studios and purchase of equipment required for its operations. Furthermore, 

the grant also aimed to assist the news agency in payments to cell phone companies for pilot projects 

in order for the news to be distributed free to subscribers through cell phones.

----------------------

13. Grant: SAF20011GR090 Seminars with Afghan Ministry 

Award Amount: $1,138,199

The purpose of this grant was to assist an Afghan nongovernmental organization to partner with the 

Ministry of the Hajj and Religious Affairs for a face-to-face education program for traditional leaders 

and communicators. This grant is intended to fund 10 seminars over a 12-month period. The 

nongovernmental organization supports the ministry with event planning, financial management and 

reporting. Topics of the seminars include communication skills, public speaking, leadership, and civic 

education. The seminars are spaced approximately one month apart and hosted in different locations 

within Afghanistan. The ministry selects the location of training, plans the event, coordinates 

logistical support as well as with the Ministry of Interior for event security. The nongovernmental 

organization coordinates with the ministry to adjust the seminar length and number of attendees based 

on location cost. 

----------------------

14. SAF20010GR146 University Media Herat

Award Amount: $2,510,745

This project will provide Herat University with the necessary training, facilities, and equipment for 

students and faculty to be able to develop and distribute print, radio, and television content. It will 

provide the university journalism department with the ability to do print, radio, and television 

production in both Dari and Pashto and will allow future journalist, to conduct radio and TV talk 

shows with local leaders on key issues. It will also significantly expand radio services throughout 

Afghanistan, while providing the student community with their own media voice. This project has 

been approved by the Afghanistan Ministry of Higher Education. The university and its faculty shall 
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 21

be responsible for the maintenance of its media center ensuring faculty and student involvement and 

for the inclusion of training materials related to the centers journalism curriculum.

----------------------

15. SAF20010GR147 University Media Kabul

Award Amount: $2,440,100 

This project will provide Kabul University with the necessary training, facilities, and equipment for 

students and faculty to be able to develop and distribute print, radio, and television content. It will 

provide this university journalism departments with the ability to do print, radio, and television 

production in both Dari and Pashto and will allow future journalist to conduct radio and TV talk 

shows with local leaders on key issues in these areas. It will also significantly expand radio services 

throughout Afghanistan, while providing the student community with their own media voice. This 

project has been approved by the Afghanistan Ministry of Higher Education. The university and its 

faculty shall be responsible for the maintenance of its media center ensuring faculty and student 

involvement and for the inclusion of training materials related to the centers journalism curriculum.

----------------------

16. Grant: SAF20010GR217 GMIC Operations

Award Amount: $3,944,500

The purpose of this grant is to allow GMIC to complete unfinished office and conference spaces and 

install proper heating and ventilation systems. Additional elements include installment of a modern 

production studio, establishing news desks for security and development issues, expanded training, 

funding staff salaries, funding necessary equipment and program expenses for a period of twelve 

months, and support for GMIC efforts to improve ministerial and provincial communication capacity 

and performance. Phase two of this project aims to permanently establish the GMIC as the Afghan 

government's nerve center for communication improvements and to lay a strong foundation for the 

build out of the Afghan Government Information Service which will formally begin toward the end 

of 2010 and continue through 2013. The project aims to (1) increase staff to 110, (2) establish 5 

provincial Offices (Jalalabad, Herat, Khost, LashKargah, Mazar-i-Sharif), (3) set up news desks for 

security and dvelopment issues, ( 4) establish training programs, and (5) produce rapid response radio 

and TV products.

----------------------

17. Grant: SAF20010GR201 Internet Project

Award Amount: $3,255,213

The purpose of this grant is to provide access to the internet by joining the newly launched "SILKAfghanistan" program and this expansion project will provide high-speed internet access for 9,000 

students and their teaching staff in seven provincial Afghan universities (Baghlan, Faryab, Ghazni, 

Helmand, Kunduz, Paktia, and Parvan). It will enhance the existing bandwidth provided by the 

NATO project for 28,000 students and lecturers at five major Afghan universities (Balkh, Herat, 

Kabul Educational and Polytechnic, and Nangarhar) during a period of three years for a daily cost of 

7.7 cents per student.

----------------------
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 22

18. Grant: SAF20011GR172 GMIC Ministerial Makeover Program

Award Amount: $3,061,024 

This grant was awarded to the Government Media & Information Center (GMIC) for improving 

Afghan Ministerial and Provincial Communication Performance. The activities under this grant will 

include organizing effective media engagements, specialized training and on-site mentoring by 

Afghan experts, improvements to facilities, assistance with strategic planning and message 

development, rapid response and public service announcement media products, and improve Afghan 

ownership of message development and delivery. Additionally, GMIC staff will explain and seek 

support for the establishment of an integrated Afghan Government Information Service (AGIS), to be 

fully operational by the end of 2013.

----------------------

19. Grant: SAF20010GR245 University Media Operations Center

Award Amount: $8,374,239

The purpose of this grant is to support the project titled Afghanistan University Media Operations 

Center Project, which aims to improve educational and learning resources, technical capacities, and 

enhance the expertise of journalism faculty and student outcomes, through the establishment of a 

“New Multi-purpose Media Center”. The four universities selected for this specific project were in 

Nangahar, Mazar, Kandahar, and Khost. Each university will receive the same standard structure 

model, three story building, and equipment. The building will provide a printing facility which will 

be able to print books, magazines, and other print material; a fully functional radio station; and a TV 

production studio and editing room. Another component of this project is for the grantee to ensure 

that the faculty is on par with instructing and operating the proper use of the equipment. The grant 

documents indicate when the period of performance expires, the title to the property specified in this 

award transfers to the respective universities chosen for this project. 

----------------------

20. Grant: SAF20010GR143 Ministry Seminars

Award Amount: $1,093,820

The purpose of this grant was to enhance people-to-people ties through face-to-face communication 

programs.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 23

APPENDIX IV: COMMENTS FROM U.S. EMBASSY KABUL
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 24
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 25
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 26
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 27
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 28
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 29
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 30

SIGAR Responses to U.S. Embassy Kabul’s July 12, 2012 Memorandum

1. We did not always consider delays in activities or no-cost extensions to be indications that 

awards would be less effective or not meet their goals. While 16 of the 20 grants had time or 

cost extensions (at least 4 of which had both), we found that only 5 awards had not, or were not 

likely to, achieve their intended results. Of those, the award to build four university media 

centers had the most egregious delays with only minimal progress made more than 16 months 

after the grant was awarded.

2. We agree that the Embassy Public Affairs Officer did not actually sign grant awards. The awards 

were signed by grants officers. We have revised the report’s discussion of staffing for clarity. 

However, we note that, during the period with no award selection committees, the Embassy 

Public Affairs Officer unilaterally decided which organizations would receive an award.

3. Our report notes that State supplemented PAS’ limited permanent staff with temporary duty 

personnel during 2010, which helped improve PAS’ ability to develop and manage public 

diplomacy awards. However, State and Embassy officials agreed that PAS was not fully staffed 

to handle the initial funding increase in 2010 and that this understaffing contributed to some of 

the deficiencies identified in our report.

4. We agree that Grants Policy Directive 58 was issued after most of the grants in our sample had 

been awarded and noted this in our draft report. Although it includes much useful guidance for 

future awards, we have removed it from this final report as it was not in effect during the preaward phase for the majority of the grants we reviewed.

5. We are aware that budgeted contractual expenses do not always indicate the planned use of 

sub-recipients, and we removed four awards from our original finding for that reason. However, 

we verified that recipients of the remaining eight awards either used or planned to use grant 

funds to utilize sub-recipients or subcontractors for purposes such as construction, design, 

testing, and training. 

6. We acknowledge in our report that State policy directives do not specifically require 

independent estimates of costs for grants. However, they do require grant officers to review 

pre-award costs for reasonableness. During our fieldwork we found insufficient documentation 

to prove that these reviews were completed. Further, we note that in its comments addressing 

recommendation 1, Embassy Kabul indicated PAS had initiated a market pricing survey in 

December 2011 to evaluate reasonable cost estimates across Afghanistan.

7. The documentary support provided by PAS regarding selection methodology for the four awards 

mentioned in the report was not sufficient evidence to prove that a proper selection

methodology was applied or that it resulted in the objective and competitive selection of award 

recipients.

8. We acknowledge that the recovery and de-obligation of unused advanced funds for terminated 

grants requires a reconciliation of expenditures. The reason we included a finding and 
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 31

recommendation regarding this particular grant was that, at the time we completed our review, 

over 6 months had elapsed since the grant was terminated and the recovery and de-obligation 

of unused funds had not yet been resolved. We have updated the final report to reflect 

Embassy Kabul’s reported recovery and de-obligation of $253,432 in advanced funds and look 

forward to receiving documentary evidence of those actions in order to close the 

recommendation.

9. We have revised the report to show that PAS terminated the grant to avoid the potential misuse 

of U.S. government funds. This action, while commendable, still limited the number of events 

held, thereby reducing the ministry’s outreach and partnership with Afghan citizens.

10. PAS did not agree with recommendation 6 and recommended that it be removed from the 

report. However, its response misconstrues our recommendation. We did not recommend that 

the 14 grants receive additional U.S. government funding, but that PAS determine sustainability 

requirements and develop sustainability plans. To be sustainable, future resources would 

ideally come from the Afghan government or other donors, rather than the U.S. government. 

PAS then indicated that, of the 14 awards, 2 were no longer being funded, 4 had already 

achieved sustainability, and 4 were never intended to be long-term, sustainable programs. PAS 

indicated that it was working with the recipients of the other 4 grants to address sustainability 

concerns. Rather than remove this recommendation as requested by PAS, we will follow up 

with PAS to obtain documentary support of these conditions and actions so that we may better 

evaluate them in terms of satisfying the sustainability needs identified in this report.

11. We agree that the termination of U.S. funding removes the need to develop sustainability plans 

for the two GMIC awards. However, as part of the close-out process addressed in 

recommendation 2 of this report, PAS should follow up with the Afghan government to ensure 

that the facilities, operations, and equipment funded under the awards are properly transferred 

and utilized.

12. The termination of U.S. funding to GMIC negates the need to obtain a required certification for 

direct funding of an Afghan government entity. Therefore, we have removed recommendation 

7 and its related finding from the final report.
SIGAR Audit-12-13 Page 32

(This performance audit was conducted under the audit project code SIGAR-050A).
SIGAR’s Mission The mission of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 

Reconstruction (SIGAR) is to enhance oversight of programs for 

the reconstruction of Afghanistan by conducting independent 

and objective audits, inspections, and investigations on the use 

of taxpayer dollars and related funds. SIGAR works to provide 

accurate and balanced information, evaluations, analysis, and 

recommendations to help the U.S. Congress, U.S. agencies, and 

other decision-makers to make informed oversight, policy, and 

funding decisions to:

• improve effectiveness of the overall reconstruction 

strategy and its component programs;

• improve management and accountability over funds 

administered by U.S. and Afghan agencies and their 

contractors;

• improve contracting and contract management 

processes;

• prevent fraud, waste, and abuse; and

• advance U.S. interests in reconstructing Afghanistan.

Obtaining Copies of SIGAR 

Reports and Testimonies

To obtain copies of SIGAR documents at no cost, go to 

SIGAR’s Web site (www.sigar.mil). SIGAR posts all publically 

released reports, testimonies, and correspondence on its Web 

site.

To Report Fraud, Waste, and 

Abuse in Afghanistan 

Reconstruction Programs

To help prevent fraud, waste, and abuse by reporting allegations 

of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and reprisal contact 

SIGAR’s hotline:

• Web: www.sigar.mil/fraud

• Email: hotline@sigar.mil

• Phone Afghanistan: +93 (0) 700-10-7300

• Phone DSN Afghanistan 318-237-2575

• Phone International: +1-866-329-8893

• Phone DSN International: 312-664-0378

• U.S. fax: +1-703-604-0983

Public Affairs Public Affairs Officer

• Phone: 703-545-5974

• Email: sigar.pentagon.ccr.mbx.public-affairs@mail.mil

• Mail: SIGAR Public Affairs

400 Army Navy Drive

Arlington, VA 22202