U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

57–261 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–144] 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION OF 

GRANTS AND CONTRACTS IN IRAQ AND 

AFGHANISTAN: PROGRESS, OBSTACLES, 

AND PLANS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 23, 2010 
(II) 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

DREW WALTER, Professional Staff Member 

THOMAS HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member 

TREY HOWARD, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, March 23, 2010, Interagency Coordination of Grants and Contracts 

in Iraq and Afghanistan: Progress, Obstacles, and Plans ................................ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 ........................................................................................ 31 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS IN 

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN: PROGRESS, OBSTACLES, AND PLANS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman, Oversight 

and Investigations Subcommittee ....................................................................... 1 

Wittman, Hon. Rob, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ............................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Hutton, John, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 8 

Michel, Ambassador James, Counselor to the Agency, U.S. Agency for International Development .......................................................................................... 6 

Moser, William, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (Logistics Management), 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 5 

Motsek, Gary, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program Support), U.S. Department of Defense ..................................................................... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Hutton, John ..................................................................................................... 58 

Michel, Ambassador James ............................................................................. 54 

Moser, William .................................................................................................. 50 

Motsek, Gary ..................................................................................................... 37 

Wittman, Hon. Rob ........................................................................................... 35 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 75 

(1) 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN: PROGRESS, OBSTACLES, AND PLANS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 23, 2010. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Dr. SNYDER. The hearing will come to order. 

Good afternoon, and welcome to the House Armed Services Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee hearing on Interagency coordination on contracts and grants in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Contracts total tens of billions of dollars per year—over 50,000 

individual contracts annually and well over 200,000 U.S. funded 

contractor personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is part of the 

committee’s ongoing oversight in the area of contracting in our war 

zones. 

You may remember we had a very similar panel of witnesses almost a year ago. The intention of today’s hearing is to check back 

on the progress of the Department of Defense [DOD], the Department of State [DOS], and the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID] have made in strengthening interagency contract 

coordination. 

We also intend to discuss some new obstacles and challenges that 

have arisen and discuss potential solutions. One such challenge 

that has come to our attention is the application of certain information requirements through the SPOT [Synchronized Pre-Deployment and Operational Tracker] system to non-governmental organizations [NGOs] operating in Iraq and Afghanistan under U.S. 

grants and cooperative agreements. 

Several major NGOs have said the information requirements endanger the neutrality of their organizations; endanger the safety 

and security of their Iraqi and Afghan local-national employees, 

and, therefore, endanger their entire operations in these countries. 

This subcommittee considers the work of these NGOs, as you do, 

critical to a successful outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would 

like to hear our witnesses’ understanding of the NGOs’ concerns. 

We would also like to understand if and how the agencies intend 

to address the NGOs’ concerns and their timetable for doing so. 
2 

This subcommittee recognizes that SPOT is just a tool that has 

been selected to assist the agencies in coordinating and collaborating on contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We would like to understand if and how this tool is helping or not helping achieve the 

broader goal. We want to make sure the agencies have the information they need to coordinate, manage, and oversee contracts and 

grants. 

We do not want the collection of this information to be a burden 

to the agencies or their contractors and grantees. And, as you all 

are aware, by statute, the SPOT system is not required. In fact, the 

statute that was passed in the Defense bills has been an aggregate 

requirement for information. 

Ultimately, we would like to ensure our government is doing everything it can to help our people and friends in Iraq and Afghanistan succeed whether they are in uniform, government civilians, 

supporting the efforts of contractors, or providing relief and assistance through NGOs. 

And we will now take Mr. Wittman’s statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Chairman Snyder. 

And, good afternoon, to our witnesses; I really appreciate you 

taking the time to be here with us today and as a follow up to our 

efforts last year. 

I want to applaud the chairman’s initiative in scheduling this 

hearing. And one of the strengths of this subcommittee is our persistence and ability to revisit issues after the passage of time, to 

measure progress. And as the chairman noted, we have had several 

hearings last spring on contractors in the battlefield. And those 

hearings highlighted the relatively disjointed state of coordination 

among the principle agencies involved—Defense, State and 

USAID—at a time when a well coordinated civilian-military effort 

is our only hope for success. 

Today’s hearings will show that we have made progress on one 

key aspect of the issue; namely, developing a database that identifies the number of contractors each agency employs. At the same 

time, the fact that we are still working to achieve that small step, 

and are having difficulties including non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, in that database, shows how far away we are from 

a unified national effort to achieve our objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

While much of today’s testimony will focus on that SPOT database, I am less concerned about the use of a particular computer 

system than in achieving our national objectives in a coordinated 

way. So I look forward to hearing a little more about how we can 

achieve that. 

And even though witnesses are here to discuss how their agencies are meeting statutory reporting requirements on contractors in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, I would like for you to touch on how well 

field operations and support are coordinated amongst the various 

agencies, civilian personnel, military personnel, and contract em-
3 

ployees. And that is our real concern—effective implementation of 

the SPOT or other databases is merely a step along the way. 

Ensuring our service men and women are fully supported in 

every way is my chief concern. And I try to keep that into perspective as I approach these types of issues. 

So, gentlemen, we look forward to hearing from you today and 

getting your perspective on how we can make sure we most effectively meet the needs of our men and women in uniform, in theater, and look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. 

Our witnesses today are Mr. Gary Motsek, Assistant Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for Program Support; Mr. William 

Moser, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Logistics Management; Ambassador James Michel, Counselor to the Agency at 

USAID; and Mr. John Hutton, Director of the Acquisition and 

Sourcing Management team at the GAO [Government Accountability Office]. 

Those bells that you are hearing are—as you may fear, we are 

going to have some votes. But we will start opening statements. We 

may get through one or two, or who knows? 

But we will start with you, Mr. Motsek. 

STATEMENT OF GARY MOTSEK, ASSISTANT DEPUTY UNDER 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PROGRAM SUPPORT), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. MOTSEK. Good afternoon, Chairman Snyder, Ranking Member Wittman, and Congressman Jones. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear again before you today 

to discuss the improvements and changes we have made with respect to the accountability and visibility of contractors in contingency operations, and our way ahead. I have submitted a larger 

written statement for the record, which gives some specifics. 

Dr. SNYDER. All of your written statements will be made part of 

the record. We will have the clock on. But if you need to go beyond 

that, go beyond that. It is a five-minute clock, just to give you an 

idea where we are. 

Mr. MOTSEK. I am doing my best to move out smartly. 

As you know, the Department established my office in 2006 comply with the congressional direction of section 854 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act [NDAA]. Our implementation of the 

Synchronized Pre-deployment Operational Tracker is a key aspect 

to our strategy to institutionalize the program management of 

operational contracting support. 

SPOT is a good example of a distributed enterprise system that 

was developed initially for a single, focused requirement which is 

now being used for much broader purposes than originally anticipated. We have established an aggressive timeline early to force 

the registration of SPOT. 

For DOD, we have approximately three-quarters of our deployed 

DOD-contractor population in the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] area of responsibility [AOR] registered in SPOT. The last 

time I appeared before you, I believe the number was 60 percent. 
4 

And we were only talking about, at that time, Iraq and Afghanistan. We are now including the entire area of operation that 

CENTCOM has. And this is in keeping with their changing of their 

Joint Contracting Command—the expansion of that mission, which 

we can discuss if you would like. So we have, now, contractor personnel located in Dubai, Qatar, and places like that, included—plus 

a large population in Kuwait. 

With the recent expansion of definitions provided by Congress 

last year and the introduction of the classified version of SPOT, we 

expect to see continued increase in the State Department and 

USAID contractor populations, which they can discuss. 

DOD’s primary challenge remains in the full participation of all 

of our contractor personnel in SPOT. And our particular challenge 

are those contractor personnel—always local-nationals—that have 

no access or support to our installations over there, but are operating off the installations, but are nonetheless paid by U.S. appropriations and, therefore, they have to be in the population. 

Our intention is to transition from the resource-intensive and 

dangerous CENTCOM manual census, which we still use as our 

primary numbers-counting document, and to rely on SPOT as soon 

as practical. We have a transition plan in place signed by the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. But it is conditions-based. 

We will not fully migrate and rely solely on the automated census until we are confident that SPOT reflects a true representation 

of our contractor-employee population, and, clearly, there are advantages to having real-time access to that information. 

Even as we adopt the SPOT database as the census, we will still 

spot check, on a random basis with a manual census, to prove that 

we have good numbers. 

In spite of these challenges, SPOT is being utilized to track the 

drawdown in Iraq, both in terms of DOD civilians and contractor 

populations. The State Department is also using SPOT to manage 

the Civilian Response Corps. Other nations are in the final phases 

of evaluation and adoption of the program. I just returned from the 

United Kingdom. They are already starting to utilize the program. 

The SPOT-generated letter of authorization has dramatically improved the transportation, medical, and installation-support services in their control. Congressionally mandated sub-element populations are managed today in both contingency areas. Both 

SOUTHCOM [U.S. Southern Command] and the U.S. mission to 

Haiti’s rapid request for the system during the initial stages of the 

humanitarian efforts there attest to its growing institutionalization 

within our government. 

It is important to remember that all of our efforts—or, indeed, 

our wider efforts—are not solely focused on the current operations. 

Congress has made it clear that we are institutionalizing these 

changes in management and oversight for future operations as 

well. We are establishing those policies in organizations to permit 

that to happen. 

And I am ready to answer any further questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mostek can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 
5 

Mr. Moser. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MOSER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE (LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. MOSER. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Wittman and Congressman Jones, I welcome the opportunity to provide you an update on the implementation of the Synchronized Pre-deployment 

Operational Tracker at the Department of State. 

Please allow me to, first, express how much we, at the State Department, appreciate the support of this subcommittee. I had the 

pleasure of briefing this subcommittee in April 2009 on SPOT. And 

I thank you for the invitation to provide you this update. 

As the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics Management, I 

am responsible for ensuring that our global logistics platform provides consistent, reliable support to the men and women who directly implement our foreign policy around the world. 

I am pleased to be able to state before you today that the implementation of SPOT is a good news story. Legislation originated by 

this body is part of that story. The Department of State, working 

with the Department of Defense and the United States Agency for 

International Development, has made great strides in implementing SPOT. 

As of today, the Department of State has 6,381 personnel in Iraq 

and 4,378 in Afghanistan registered in SPOT. These figures include 

both contractors’, as well as grantee, information, as required by 

the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Since the new legislation requires grantee information to be put 

in SPOT, State has successfully worked with the non-governmental 

organizations to meet these requirements. In January 2009, the 

Department of State procurement executive issued Grants Policy 

Directive 33, which requires the use of SPOT for grantees performing work in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The Department of State’s SPOT program manager also reached 

out to grants officers, grants-officer representatives, and grants organizations to provide information, training, and alternatives such 

as our blind-identity format to meet SPOT compliance for grantees. 

Due to outreach and education efforts, SPOT implementation at 

State, including NGO input, has proceeded with minimal problems. 

In addition to providing valuable information on counts of contractors and grantees to Congress, the Department of State is using 

SPOT to manage and coordinate contracts and grants at both strategic and operational levels. 

Using SPOT-generated letters of authorization, State is able to 

grant privileges to contractors and grantees in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as medical services, meals, and common-access cards. To 

enhance the use of the letters of authorization, last year, State purchased the Joint Asset Movement Management System—known affectionately as JAMMS—readers, and installed them in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 

State can now track contractor movements in theater, and verify 

work status by scanning individual letters of authorization with 

the JAMMS reader. This added functionality has increased oversight of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
6 

In the future, State and its interagency partners see this as a 

tool to assist in logistical planning. As SPOT matures, DOS—the 

Department of State—sees the level of utility from SPOT growing. 

For example, State will be working with its interagency partners 

to develop the Total Operational Presence Support System, TOPSS, 

which is an enhanced reporting tool that will allow State to run 

custom reports from the SPOT database. Examples of these reports 

may include individual contract reports to give names of individuals deployed against the contract with duty location at any given 

time. 

Much has been accomplished by the Department of State and its 

partners in the use of SPOT. SPOT’s system enhancements will 

continue as the Department of State, the Department of Defense, 

and the United States Agency for International Development continue to work together to improve our cooperative efforts in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

This concludes my testimony. And I am happy to answer any 

questions this subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moser can be found in the Appendix on page 50.] 

Dr. SNYDER. And we will be in recess. I would think we will be 

in the 20-to-30-minute range. 

Mr. MOSER. Okay. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Dr. SNYDER. We will resume. We think we are okay—at least for 

a little while. 

Ambassador Michel, your opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JAMES MICHEL, COUNSELOR 

TO THE AGENCY, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ambassador MICHEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Wittman, I appreciate the opportunity to 

join with colleagues from the Department of Defense, Department 

of State, and the Government Accountability Office, to discuss the 

implementation of SPOT. And, at the outset, I want to join the 

other witnesses in expressing appreciation to the subcommittee for 

your continuing interest and vigilance in overseeing the legislation. 

We have, I think, made some important steps forward to collect 

the report information that is called for under the legislation. And 

our progress, I think, has benefited substantially from your continuing oversight. 

USAID is committed to fulfilling its responsibilities under the 

law to report on the number of contractor and grantee personnel 

in a common database, as provided in the law. And I have learned 

of difficulties that the Agency encountered when it first entered 

into that MOU [memorandum of understanding] with Defense and 

State in 2008. 

While a substantial number of USAID contractor personnel in 

Iraq were registered in SPOT in 2009, there is no question that the 

agency struggled with the effort to apply this system more broadly 

to its programs in Iraq and in Afghanistan. 

And a particular concern, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, has been 

the concern of the NGOs [non-governmental organizations], but 
7 

also the contractor community, about the implications for the many 

thousands of individuals, most of them locally-engaged nationals, 

who work with USAID in implementing local activities such as in 

agriculture, community development, governance, humanitarian relief. And we have about 100–130 employees in Iraq, who manage 

the work of almost 1,500 implementing personnel who work with 

contractors and grantees. 

In Afghanistan, the workforce under the contracts and grants is 

even much larger, with about 260 USAID employees overseeing 

more than 20,000 implementing personnel on the ground. 

Very few of those people who work under the grants and contracts of USAID in Iraq and in Afghanistan have interaction with 

the Department of Defense that would require them to need a letter of authorization or other individual identification. And USAID 

has provided the required personal information about those in Iraq 

who do require a letters of authorization. 

And we have entered organizational-level information in SPOT 

about concerned—the grants and the contracts in both Iraq and in 

Afghanistan. And we have had discussions with Defense and State 

colleagues, and with our implementing partners, about how to 

make progress while accommodating the various interests and concerns consistent with the law. 

I am pleased to report that, last month, we met among the three 

agencies and arrived at a solution to assure timely and accurate reporting through SPOT on the numbers of USAID contractor and 

grantee personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. This reporting will 

avoid administrative burdens and financial burdens of entering 

unneeded detailed personal information about those people working 

locally throughout the communities of Iraq and Afghanistan. But 

it will fulfill the needs contemplated in the legislation. 

The solution, we are confident, conforms with the requirements 

of law and meets the concerns of the agencies and also the implementing partners. 

It is true that part of our concern has been the concerns of our 

implementing partners—which we share—that registration of individuals in SPOT could be misunderstood in the communities where 

they work and that this could give rise to concerns for personal 

safety. But as a result of the interagency agreement that we have 

reached, three good things have happened: 

First, we expect that the administrator of USAID will sign, 

today, the new MOU with State and Defense to provide a clear and 

authoritative basis for our participation in SPOT. Second, the technical staffs from Defense and USAID are meeting to assure that 

the operation of the data-entry procedures will facilitate the capture of the required information, so that we will be able to enter 

the personal detailed information with respect to those implementing partners—employees—who require letters of authorization 

and the necessary information for aggregate numbers of those personnel who do not require that. 

The third good thing that has happened is that the concerned 

management offices of the three agencies have agreed to meet periodically with a view to coordinating on matters of contract administration, and to identify and act on issues of common concern. 
8 

So I think that we are making progress; that these developments 

will contribute to better reporting, and to better interagency coordination, without substantial additional cost or a loss of efficiency. 

There is no doubt that the subcommittee’s oversight has been an 

important factor in the progress we have made. 

We welcome your continued interest and support. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Michel can be found in 

the Appendix on page 54.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

Mr. Hutton. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HUTTON, DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION AND 

SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. HUTTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wittman, and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you, again, for inviting us here to testify on 

ongoing efforts by DOD, State, and USAID to track information on 

contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and the personnel working under them in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Given the agencies’ extensive reliance on these personnel and the 

services they provide, reliable and meaningful data are critical to 

inform the agency decisions and to improve management and oversight. 

While our past work has focused on tracking contracts and contractor personnel, our ongoing work now includes grants and cooperative agreements in accordance with the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Joined from our prior work, I will first highlight how a lack of 

reliable information has hindered agencies’ ability to effectively 

manage and oversee contracts, grants, and associated personnel. I 

will then discuss ongoing agency efforts to track such information. 

The challenges of relying on contractors and grantees in contingency operations are well established. Our prior reports have 

shown how inadequate information may inhibit planning, increase 

costs, and introduce unnecessary risk. 

To illustrate: Our December 2006 review of DOD contractors supporting deployed forces in Iraq showed how a battalion commander 

could not determine the number of contractor-provided interpreters 

supporting his unit, which created challenges in planning and carrying out the missions. 

In May 2009, we found that, in Afghanistan, the U.S. Government risked duplicating efforts and missing opportunities to leverage existing resources because DOD lacked visibility into USAID’s 

development projects. 

DOD, State, and USAID agreed to use SPOT to respond to congressional direction to track information on contractor personnel 

and grants; and, now, grants, cooperative agreements, and their 

personnel. Agencies have made some progress in implementing 

SPOT, but their efforts still fall short in terms of having complete 

and reliable data to fulfill statutory requirements and improve 

management and oversight. 
9 

Specifically, criteria for which contractor personnel should be entered into SPOT varied both across the agencies and compared to 

their agreement. DOD officials in Iraq told us the need for a letter 

of authorization primarily determined whether contractor personnel were entered into SPOT. However, not all personnel—particularly local-nationals—need letters of authorization. 

USAID has not been entering data on local-nationals into SPOT, 

citing concerns for their safety, should the system be compromised. 

To address this concern, DOD is testing a classified version of 

SPOT. But USAID officials have told us their limited access to classified computers would restrict the utility of a classified system. 

Varying practices on who to enter into SPOT stem, in part, from 

differing views on the value of this personnel data. In not requiring 

its contractors to use SPOT in Afghanistan, USAID officials had 

questioned the need for detailed information on these contractors, 

as they typically have limited interaction with U.S. officials, or do 

not receive government-provided support services. 

Similarly, some DOD officials have questioned the value of tracking personnel individually, rather than by total numbers, given the 

cost of collecting such detailed information. While the mandate 

calls for, at a minimum, aggregated personnel data, SPOT currently requires users to manually enter detailed information for 

each person. 

Because of SPOT’s limitations, we and the agencies have relied 

on other sources such as periodic surveys, for information on contractor personnel, including those that were killed or wounded. 

However, our prior work has shown these data are generally incomplete and unreliable, particularly for identifying trends and 

drawing conclusions. 

Turning to contract information—although some information is 

entered into SPOT, the system cannot yet accurately import contract-data elements, such as contract values and descriptions of 

services provided, from FPDS–NG [Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation], the government’s system for tracking contract information. 

Even when systems are eventually linked, challenges may continue because data are not currently entered into SPOT in a standardized manner to permit unique contracts in order to be matched 

with information in FPDS. 

Preliminary insights based on our ongoing work indicate agencies may face similar challenges in tracking grants and cooperative 

agreements and personnel working under them. For example, 

USAID guidance for entering grantees into SPOT does not cover 

local-nationals. Moreover, agency-grants data reside in multiple 

databases that generally do not maintain information in a standardized manner, making future links to SPOT difficult. 

To address shortcomings in agency implementation of SPOT, last 

October, we recommended the agencies jointly develop and execute 

a plan to better ensure contractor data are consistently entered 

into SPOT. In response, the agencies did not agree a plan was 

needed, citing ongoing coordination efforts and anticipated system 

upgrades as sufficient. 

We believe that, without a plan with specific timeframes to address shortcomings, there are few assurances SPOT will fulfill its 
10 

potential, leaving the agency without reliable information to address management and oversight challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutton can be found in the Appendix on page 58.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you all for your testimony. 

We will put ourselves on the five-minute clock here and ask some 

questions. 

I am not sure where to begin, exactly. I think what I will do is 

begin with, Mr. Ambassador, your statement that a—your testimony is that a new memorandum of understanding between 

USAID, the State Department, and the DOD is being signed today. 

Is that correct? Is a new MOU—— 

Ambassador MICHEL. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. Between your three agencies—State 

Department, USAID, and Department of Defense—being signed 

today? Has it been signed? 

Ambassador MICHEL. Yes, it has gone forward to our administrator. And I am told that he is expected to sign it today. He has 

been in and out, but I think he will sign it today. 

Dr. SNYDER. So, when you say, ‘‘He is going to sign it,’’ that is 

the USAID administrator. Has DOD and State already signed off 

on that? 

Go ahead. 

Mr. MOTSEK. Mr. Chairman, yes—February. 

Mr. MOSER. Yes, and the State Department—we expect the— 

Deputy Secretary Lew to sign it either this afternoon or tomorrow. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do you agree with Ambassador Michel’s description 

of what the MOU does? I mean, it changes the requirement that 

you are imposing on contractors, does it not, as you outlined in 

your testimony? 

Mr. MOSER. No. The MOU is actually a revision of the previous 

MOU that we have had. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. 

Mr. MOSER. The agreement that we have tried to strike—the balance that we tried to strike in the NGO community, and how we 

approached the grantees—is actually an agreement among the 

three agencies. 

Wouldn’t you agree with that, Gary? 

Mr. MOTSEK. Yes, sir. 

The challenge was, when we expanded the definitions last year, 

to include cooperative agreements and grantees—in general terms, 

we opened the bigger basket. And we hadn’t complied with the earlier basket. So we had to work through that process. 

If you recall, by law, the only people that we actually have to 

have in there by name are those associated as private security contractors, or interpreters-slash-translators. Well, there were two sections of previous NDAAs that required those two. 

We, in DOD, have always pushed for ‘‘by name’’ across the board. 

The State Department has generally done that. But this recognition that aggregate numbers are sufficient to—to do the management that we are talking about—if, for example—I don’t want to 
11 

put words in Ambassador Michel’s mouth—but if he has a large 

grantee—if he can simply put the aggregate number in there, and 

have it divided up by the broad categories of U.S., local-national, 

third-country nationals—we have that management tool that we 

use in the larger aggregate. And we can manage the population in 

that respect. 

Is that about right? 

Ambassador MICHEL. That is absolutely right. Now, we do think 

that this agreement that we have reached among ourselves about 

how we can move forward to give effect to the legislation within the 

framework of the MOU—and I think the amendments to the MOU 

really reflect the new legislation of the 2009 and 2010—they are 

not changing anything basic about the relationships. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, let me get this right. 

So, Mr. Moser, in your written statement, you talk about using 

a blind-identity to meet SPOT compliance for grantees. 

Mr. MOSER. Right. 

You know, I think that this deserves a little context. I know that 

the NGO community, or members of Congress and their staff have 

heard a lot from the NGO community in the last several months 

because of this question about grantees’ inputs because of the 

changes in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. However, 

State had always thought that the grantees were to be in SPOT— 

that that was our interpretation of the original legislation in 2008. 

When we started applying the legislation in 2008 and 2009, we 

got concerns from our embassy in Baghdad that they were concerned about the identity of local-nationals being in the system in 

a country that, admittedly, has a high degree of sectarian conflict. 

Therefore, we came up, in consultation with our partners in DOD, 

with our blind-identity scheme in order to protect the identity of 

those individuals that we felt that were under threat, who were not 

private security contractors. 

So we came up with a—you know, essentially, it is like Iraqi-one, 

Iraqi-two, Iraqi-three—so that we actually input them as individual 

fields in SPOT. And then, in order to comply with the actual enumeration that we needed for these individuals—but not in a fashion that would endanger their identity. 

So that is just a long way of saying—is that this issue about the 

identification of individuals is not a new issue for us. And it is 

something that we have recognized for some time. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, okay. 

Now, help me understand this. According to this, what you are 

saying is that you all are in agreement with—you are going to use 

the SPOT system for those people who need letters of authorization 

to come onto a base—— 

Mr. MOSER. Correct. 

Dr. SNYDER. And so the only people who will be in the SPOT system will be security folks—— 

Mr. MOSER. No, sir. No, sir. 

The people that need letters of authorization have to be named 

by name. But it is the other class of individuals who were not— 

who were in—generally in the grantee community, who did not receive any support services from the Department of Defense in the 

field, whose—the need for that identity information for the agen-
12 

cies was minimal. And, really, we don’t see a real tangible need for 

that. 

Gary, wouldn’t you agree with that? 

And those are the ones that we said that could really be subject 

to the blind-identity scheme. 

Dr. SNYDER. So you are not using the blind-identity scheme anymore? 

Mr. MOSER. Yes, we still—State is still using it now. We have not 

switched to an aggregate number; although, we are in the process 

of discussing that with our agency counterparts. 

Dr. SNYDER. I hope my time has—oh, yes, it has run out—because I have done nothing but confuse myself. 

Mr. MOSER. Okay. 

Dr. SNYDER. But, fortunately, I get to do this as many times as 

I want. 

I thought you said you were all on the same page now—all three 

agencies. 

Mr. Ambassador, do you all use blind-identity schemes? 

Ambassador MICHEL. We do not, for a couple of—— 

Dr. SNYDER. All right, then; I rest my case. You are not all doing 

this the same way. 

Ambassador MICHEL. There is not—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Do you agree with that, Mr. Moser—you are not all 

doing it the same way? 

Mr. MOSER. I would say that, in the past, we have not been doing 

it the same way. But we think that, through the consultations that 

we have had in the last—within the last month—that we think, 

going forward, that we will actually have a consistent input—— 

Dr. SNYDER. All right. Well, do you all want to talk amongst 

yourself and decide if you do have or do not have a blind-identity 

scheme for SPOT? 

Ambassador MICHEL. Now, Mr. Chairman, I—— 

Dr. SNYDER. I mean, do you or do you not? 

Ambassador MICHEL. Mr. Chair, we do not have a consistent way 

of entering the data. We do not have what Mr. Hutton had described as being a ‘‘uniform’’ way of entering the data. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, my time is over—— 

Ambassador MICHEL. And there are differences in the way we operate that we think provide a rational basis for some distinctions. 

We are not talking about exactly the same kinds of activities. 

There are two points I would make here. One is that we are all 

in agreement on meeting the requirement of the aggregate numbers, which is the legislative standard. And we believe that expanding the population of this database with those aggregate numbers, 

which we had not figured out how to do earlier, will provide us 

with useful information that will facilitate the interagency coordination that is the ultimate objective here. It is not to have—‘‘How 

many names can you get into the database?’’ but, ‘‘Does that information help you to coordinate better?’’ 

And I would say that, for USAID, where our work is not on bases 

or in embassies, but in communities at a—you know, out into the 

countryside—the cost of trying to record names of these individuals 

would be substantial. And the value of it in terms of what it would 
13 

add to the information that we hope we will be developing through 

the aggregate-number entries would be a serious question. 

We do believe that, in addition to this computer system—that 

there are many things we need to do to assure that our interagency 

coordination is contributing to the effectiveness of our mission, and 

carrying out our national objectives in these environments in Iraq 

and in Afghanistan. 

There is a whole array of additional measures that are taken 

through, for example, interagency committees; joint-coordination 

committees in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We have Ambassador 

Haslach in Iraq, who looks over the range of assistance matters. 

We have Ambassador Wayne in Afghanistan. We have Ambassador 

Holbrooke in Washington. 

We have USAID participation in activities like the committees 

that look at the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program funds, 

and compares what is going on with those DOD funds, and what 

is going on with the USAID funding. We have USAID people serving on the PRTs [provincial reconstruction teams], who are engaging with Defense colleagues and State colleagues. 

So I think there is a whole array of things that we are doing. 

And the increased interagency dialogue that is part of what we 

have all agreed on here, I think, gives us an opportunity to look 

at the contribution that SPOT has, but also that these other mechanisms have for improving coordination and advancing our missions in these difficult countries. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

We will come back to this, because I am more confused now than 

when I started. 

Ambassador MICHEL. Okay. 

Dr. SNYDER. I am more confused now than when I started. And 

we are not leaving here today until I am not confused. 

Ambassador MICHEL. Okay. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to build on Chairman Snyder’s question. It seems 

that there has been an elongated period of time to have all the 

agencies come together with this MOU. And my question is—as we 

have heard pretty emphatically from the NGOs about the onerous 

reporting requirements for SPOT that they have to go through for 

local-national employees—let me ask this: How did you, or did you, 

reach out to the NGOs in developing the MOU to understand what 

their concerns are so that we are actually trying to make this system more workable and actually try to get information that doesn’t 

require extraordinary measures by NGOs there—sometimes, 

maybe, creating more problems than what we are trying to solve. 

So, did you all, collectively, reach out to the NGOs and get their 

ideas on what needs to be in this MOU? 

Mr. MOTSEK. The baseline for the MOU—the changes to the 

MOU were statutory. They were not based on anything else. 

If I could step back—because I know why we have confused you, 

I think. 

When we initially established the program back in 2006–2007, 

the system was designed by a ‘‘by name’’ input. That was the base-
14 

line for what we did. We couldn’t do anything unless you put 

names in there. And that is how we delineated everyone. 

When we had the legislation last year that—and we initiated it 

because we wanted the larger picture, to be blunt about it—and we 

expanded that to include cooperative agreements and grantees, 

which really opened up the aperture that USAID has to participate 

in, it—it started causing concerns by populating by name, inside 

the database. 

The law requires us to do much more than that. Really, what we 

are trying to do is link the population of contractors—and, again, 

those three broad bins—because we treat them differently—against 

the contractor, grant, or cooperative agreement—a description of 

the item, the length of time that contract is in effect. And, then, 

there are other things that you have required us to do. I have to 

be able to account for deaths against a particular contract, cooperative agreement, or grant. 

So there is a pull-down menu. Now, it is far easier if all the 

names are in there, because, on that person’s name, we can pull 

it down and say, ‘‘Deceased,’’ and we can aggregate the numbers. 

We didn’t have that option, quite frankly. We went back and made 

changes to the system to accommodate a count by a contract number—for lack of a better term—‘‘Give us number of people associated with this contract.’’ ‘‘We have 200 local-nationals; we have 43 

third-country nationals; and two Americans,’’ for example. And we 

can aggregate them, then, that way, from now on. 

So we still have the management tool to work it. But we don’t 

necessarily have it in all three of our agencies, by name, every 

time, with those two exceptions that are required by law. 

Mr. MOSER. And, Congressman Wittman, if I can just take your 

question—in my testimony, I referenced the grant-policy directive 

that we issued in 2009. 

At that time, as I said earlier, we had already made the policy 

decision that we were going to put grantees in. Even though the 

law at that time did not specifically require it, we felt that that 

was Congress’ intent. So it was a policy decision within State in 

order to do that. 

Our procurement executive regularly meets with all the program 

offices that have grantees. And we had a great discussion at that 

time about how the SPOT data entry would proceed without the— 

with notification with them. And so there was a discussion—we 

presumed that there was an active discussion between the relevant 

program offices and their grantee community. That is the reason 

we felt like we have always had it. I have been pretty assured by 

that in my discussions with those program offices. 

However, at that time, we did have a lengthy discussion about 

what to do about public international organizations. And those, we 

purposefully exempted from SPOT, even though they received U.S. 

Government funds from the State Department—that we did not— 

that they were under the auspices of the U.N. [United Nations] or 

other international organizations. And we decided to not enter 

them. 

So we had a rather extensive dialogue about what to do about 

grantees at that time. 
15 

Ambassador MICHEL. I might just add, Mr. Wittman, that when 

we entered into this—and I was not here in 2008, so I can’t speak 

to it—but my understanding is that when this original MOU was 

entered into in 2008—that this was all new experience for USAID, 

and there was a learning curve. 

And the implications of this—and it is not only for the NGOs. It 

is also for the contractors that are operating in similar environments out in the countryside—that this was a learning experience. 

And it is true that the NGOs have been the most outspoken in 

their concerns. And we have had extensive discussions with them 

in the course of developing this interagency agreement that will 

allow us to proceed with the entry of the aggregate data by contract. 

And so there has been, certainly, extensive discussion with the 

NGO community. 

Mr. MOTSEK. Sir, if I might add—because, what do you do with 

this information? That is really the question. 

From a practical standpoint, just the brief descriptions of what 

the grant, cooperative agreement, or contract it is associated with, 

is de-conflicting issues right on the ground. We are getting away 

from three agencies independently trying to drill the same well in 

the same location, because we are sharing, by geographical location, those contracts, grants, or whatever, in the database. And we 

were able to size—just by looking at the dollar value and looking 

at the numbers of people associated with that contract, we can size 

what is going on. 

So, for example, I have a member of my staff that has been in 

Afghanistan for over a year now. And this is one of her areas of 

concern. And she is using the database to do this. And as it becomes more populated by USAID—and, in fact, it is being offered 

to other non-U.S. agencies on a voluntary basis, to put data in as 

well, so that we can look across a broad stripe of what is going on 

there. 

So, from a practical standpoint, we don’t need the names of the 

people associated with what is going on. And that is kind of a revolutionary change of thought in our process, here—to be blunt about 

it. But we do know what is being performed in a location. And we 

can start making those economic trades that we need to make so 

we are not stepping over each other. 

Mr. WITTMAN. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am sure I am as 

confused as anyone else. 

But I wanted to turn to Mr. Hutton, if I might, for a moment, 

because, in your concluding remarks, you mentioned that—and I 

know that you do this work—does what we are talking about here 

satisfy your criteria that there is a plan, with specific timeframes 

for executing it? 

Mr. HUTTON. That is a great question. 

And I sat here listening to some of the discussions about where 

SPOT is today. And what I would say, first of all, though, is when 

the requirement came in that the three agencies were to get together and sign an MOU and figure out how they are going to 

track specific pieces of data, I look at it at two levels. 
16 

First, at that point in time, an agency stepping back and thinking about, ‘‘Okay. I want to better manage my contractors and provide better oversight. What do I need to do that?’’—and think 

through what the criteria are—I mean, we are talking about weapons systems and everything else—the importance of defining your 

requirements up front. 

Now, the agencies may very well have different requirements as 

to what they want to put into that database. And, from my standpoint, you know, if people are meeting the minimum that the law 

requires, okay. They satisfied that. But the bigger test is, ‘‘Are you 

satisfying your own information needs for how you want to manage 

your contractors and, now, grants?’’ 

So, now, we are two years down the road. And I think where we 

find ourselves, quite frankly, is, maybe, a little bit more reacting 

to what we are seeing as it relates to how we are going to deal with 

grantees versus maybe being proactive up front. 

I think, as I said, at the start—thinking about how they want to 

use the information. Mr. Motsek mentions that they brought—they 

went with SPOT, I think, several months—maybe up to a year— 

before they decided to use that for their reasons to track contractors. And I think there are certain valid reasons why one would 

want to have detailed information on contractors in a system; particularly if they are supporting the deployed troops, they are getting services, there are security concerns—very real issues. 

And, yes, I thought the LOA [letter of authorization] was a good 

trigger, perhaps, for Iraq. The question, then, became, ‘‘Well, every 

country is not the same. Does Afghanistan require the same extent 

of an LOA as you do in Iraq?’’ 

So I think you have to kind of look at it almost on a case-by-case. 

But you have to stand back and really ask yourself, ‘‘What do I 

really need to manage?’’ Grantees—maybe aggregate numbers at 

one level are fine. Maybe you don’t need to name the names. But 

I think it would depend on what you are asking these groups to 

do for you, and think about the sensitivities of that, and make real 

proactive judgments about it. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Are you seeing instances where information is collected that really isn’t needed, but, perhaps, there is a sense on the 

part of one agency that they should be collecting it because somebody else is collecting it? I mean, how do you get at that? 

Mr. HUTTON. Well, there is a lot of information in SPOT right 

now. And, again, I think it takes it back to the requirements. DOD 

may have very specific things they want to have in SPOT. That 

may be fine for certain types of contractors, and for what they are 

trying to get to in terms of managing their contractors. 

The question to me is, ‘‘Well, there may be a lot of data elements 

in SPOT. But, maybe for certain types of activities you don’t have 

to have all that information.’’ 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. HUTTON. But it is hard for me to put myself in the place of 

an administration—an agency—as to how they manage their contractors—as to what they think they need to better manage. I think 

that is for them to figure out, then work together. And that is 

where we had our recommendation. I think coordination is helpful. 

This hearing is helpful. 
17 

I think, last year, when we had the hearing, it helped nudge 

things along. This hearing, I think, is helping to nudge things 

along. But, quite frankly, our recommendation was aimed at—yes, 

coordination is good. And we do believe—we see that there is discussion going on. But we felt, with a very specific plan with milestones—milestones will help you get to where you need to be, hopefully quicker. And, you know, hearings like this kind of help move 

it along. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Anybody else want to comment on his comments? 

Mr. MOTSEK. Ma’am, he is absolutely correct. 

Our agencies have different requirements. In simplistic terms, 

we need to know because the bulk of our folks do, in fact, go on 

or off our installations. So there is a binding requirement. That is 

clear. It is evident. But our military leaders in the field need aggregate numbers of people that are associated with the U.S. if, for no 

other reason, than to enforce protection in that broad area that 

they have a general responsibility for. 

Because, you know, no matter what happens in the—when they 

had the explosion of the U.N. compound in Kabul—the person you 

are going to turn to, to sort it out, to provide the initial protection, 

to do the initial extraction, are going to be the U.S. military because they are the ones with the most toys in the area, and the 

most capability. 

And so that commander on the ground—while I agree—because 

we do have different requirements, and we have—this has been a 

learning process for us—does not necessarily need to know the 

names, they do need to know that, in Helmand Province, ‘‘There 

are X-thousand USAID personnel that may require assistance 

when these particular trigger points occur.’’ 

So it is, in fact, in my mind, critical that we continue this collective database to get the numbers in there so that we can perform 

those tasks. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. 

Oh, go on—— 

Ambassador MICHEL. May I add a point to that? And I agree 

with everything everyone has said here. But if USAID was going 

to create a database for tracking contractor personnel and grantee 

personnel—we would not, because of the nature of the work we do, 

which is very dispersed out into the communities, out into the 

fields—or agriculture projects and so on—we would not create 

something that has the capabilities that the Defense Department 

decided it wanted to have when it created SPOT for a different 

kind of contractor workforce. 

Now, I think the Congress, in establishing it for the aggregate 

data to be required under the law—there should be a common 

database—that was a great thing, because we are all now going to 

be applying SPOT as the way to get the information into the system in the same way. And when it says, ‘‘This contract has a value 

of X, or it has a purpose of Y,’’ no matter which of the agencies 

puts that in, they are using the same definitions and the same 

standards. 

I think that has a value that can be useful to us in coordinating, 

and can be useful to Congress in overseeing what we are doing. 

But for us to try to duplicate all of the information that the De-
18 

fense Department wants to have for its contractors, when it is not 

value-added sufficient to incur the costs—argues, in my mind, 

against identical implementation in the—in the degree of detail 

that we each put in. 

I think each of us is putting in a basic set of information that 

will be useful. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. MOSER. And Congresswoman Davis, if I could give you a 

comment or a perspective from the Department of State—I am a 

big believer in standardization—that you have to have some standardized system. And this is the reason why—that we agreed upon 

SPOT. Was it the ideal system if we began from scratch? It is hard 

to say. 

But one thing I have learned in system development that I carry 

on in my other logistics activity—you choose the tool that will meet 

most of your needs, or can share good use as a common platform. 

So I think that we arrived—when Gary and I first met, it was actually in our initial discussion about SPOT—I only wish Ambassador 

Michel had been able to join us at that time, but he was otherwise 

employed—but that you go on from there. 

Now, what has our recent experience been? And I think this is 

one of the SPOT success stories. The management counselor at our 

embassy in Kabul asked me, ‘‘Will, how can I control my contractors—the State Department contractors—that I have some responsibility for supporting?’’ Well, SPOT ended up to be the ideal tool 

for that. And we have set up the hardware for them to start to use 

that. And we had a similar situation with our diplomatic security 

program, where they are using the features of SPOT in order to 

track their contract personnel. 

And the reason I mentioned this is that you decide on the—you 

know, to get the jointness, we have to have that—but, then, each 

agency can really adapt it to its own business requirements, and 

get some of the good benefits that we can get over the—out of this 

over time. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. We will go another round here. 

Mr. Ambassador, your—I am going to go with your summary of 

what the MOU that you say is being signed today, or is about to 

be signed today—you say, ‘‘USAID will ensure that all required 

personal information will be provided with respect to personnel of 

USAID, implementing partners, both contractors and grantees as 

follows.’’ And the first section is, ‘‘Personnel who require letters of 

authorization due to logistical support, military interface or other 

reasons.’’ 

Now, what you are saying there is if somebody needs a letter of 

authorization to go onto a base—this form or something like it, 

with all the personal information, has to be filled out. And, Mr. 

Motsek, is that—do you agree with that—that if they are coming 

on to your bases or—— 

Mr. MOTSEK. Absolutely. He will have several tiers of data, depending upon your personal—— 

Dr. SNYDER. To get that letters of authorization, I don’t think we 

have any alternative but to enter exactly the information that is 

required—— 
19 

Ambassador MICHEL. That is not—— 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. With a real name. You can’t say, ‘‘Iraqi 

number one?’’ 

Ambassador MICHEL. No, no, no, no. 

Dr. SNYDER. Okay. 

And, then, the second one says, ‘‘Personnel other than locally engaged nationals who perform security functions in Iraq or Afghanistan.’’ 

Ambassador MICHEL. I am sorry. We moved that out of the testimony. And I am sorry I didn’t get that corrected version to you, because this raises another issue, which confuses me. And I don’t 

want to get into it much in depth. 

Dr. SNYDER. Oh. 

Ambassador MICHEL. But there is another process—— 

Dr. SNYDER. You—— 

Ambassador MICHEL [continuing]. By which a regulation under a 

different section of the law will make provision for registering the 

security personnel. 

So we are not addressing that in this MOU—or, at least, not in 

our discussion of how we will—it is covered. Yes. 

Dr. SNYDER. So the MOU, now, is going to discuss those who 

would require a letters of authorization. We are all in agreement— 

they will need to fill out the form completely. 

And I am sorry I didn’t—I guess you had just given us that revised version an hour before the committee hearing. 

Ambassador MICHEL. I am sorry, sir. We had some confusion in, 

I think, our understanding of how these different pieces of the law 

worked together. 

Dr. SNYDER. All right. 

Ambassador MICHEL. And so we submitted the corrected testimony. And I will admit that was very late. 

Dr. SNYDER. All right. 

And, then, the second part of it is: Is number two still the 

same—‘‘USAID will assure that timely and complete information 

will be provided, indicating aggregate numbers of other personnel 

of USAID implementing partners, both contractors and grantees in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, and aggregate numbers of such personnel 

who are killed or wounded’’? 

Ambassador MICHEL. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. So those are the aggregate numbers? 

Ambassador MICHEL. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. Those people, according to your memorandum of understanding—they will not need to be entered in SPOT on this 

form. 

Ambassador MICHEL. Yes. 

The memorandum of understanding does not go into specific detail on this. This is what we have worked out among ourselves to 

accommodate the different ways of doing business that we have— 

the different missions that we have, and the different partners that 

we have, and, at the same time, meeting the requirements of the 

law, and providing this additional information that Mr. Motsek described, that allow us to coordinate among the contracts of the 

three different agencies. 

Dr. SNYDER. So I want to be sure here, all right? 
20 

Are you all in agreement that, with regard to personnel other 

than those requiring LOAs, all you need is aggregate information? 

They do not need to be submitted on the SPOT form? Is that accurate or not? 

Mr. MOTSEK. It is accurate for him. But we require ‘‘by name.’’ 

We, DOD, require—what has happened, sir, is we have now established a new baseline of minimal requirements which did not 

exist before. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Motsek, let me interrupt you. When you say it 

is ‘‘accurate for him,’’ but not for you, do you mean it is accurate 

for USAID personnel, but not for DOD personnel? 

Mr. MOTSEK. Correct; correct. 

For our particular needs, we still intend to put everyone in there 

by name, by association, primarily because the bulk—not everybody, but the bulk of our contract personnel do have a relationship 

to and from an installation. Either they need a full LOA, as you 

have seen there, or they are providing some degree of support via 

satellite installation—via some sort of transportation. 

We have to do some sort of vetting on them so that we have some 

degree of satisfaction that—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Now, that was—and that was the original purpose 

of SPOT, wasn’t it—before we had the statutory stuff? 

Mr. MOTSEK. Yes. 

Dr. SNYDER. I mean, Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational Tracker—— 

Mr. MOTSEK. Right. 

Dr. SNYDER. You are DOD. You want to be able to track some 

people. 

Mr. MOTSEK. Right, and—— 

Dr. SNYDER. That is different than using it as a tool to give the 

Congress aggregate information. 

Okay, so—— 

Mr. MOTSEK. That is correct. Sir, it was initially the point to take 

care of U.S. contractors leaving the U.S., going over there. And we 

have since expanded it to come up—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 

Mr. MOTSEK [continuing]. With a tool to count all U.S. contractors in the AOR, to—in simplistic terms. All of them—and in those 

broad bins—to be able to account for deaths, killed in action—to be 

able to account for all those contracts in a single database that 

says, ‘‘Okay, we can see what everyone is doing in one place, what 

the length of that contract is so we don’t inadvertently provide support to a contractor who is been expired.’’ 

Dr. SNYDER. But these are decisions that your—would have made 

regardless of the statute, but said, ‘‘We wanted aggregate information on people’’? 

Mr. MOTSEK. Without the statute, we would have still tried to 

have—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 

Mr. MOTSEK [continuing]. Still tried to have aggregate—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 

Mr. MOTSEK [continuing]. Information. 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 
21 

Mr. MOTSEK. But the statute did require such things as recording deaths in the database. 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 

Mr. MOTSEK. We had always heretofore relied on the Department 

of Labor. Well, we changed the process so we can record the deaths 

now in this common database. It didn’t have to be SPOT, but the— 

the committee’s knowledge and Congress’ intellectual honesty 

about saying, ‘‘Don’t reinvent the wheel three, four, five different 

times,’’ was probably the best thing you could have done, because 

instead of having to sit here and argue about nuances, we would 

be arguing about the whole totality of what we wanted to do. 

And, so, we actually are talking amongst each other. I can read 

his data, if necessary. I can sequester his data, if necessary. We 

have got the system intact. We just have to continue the population 

of it. 

Dr. SNYDER. So, Mr. Moser—does the State Department now 

work that this memorandum of understanding for State Department—do you just do aggregate personnel—aggregate numbers for 

folks other than those who require letters of authorization? 

Mr. MOSER. As I have said—is that our criterion has really been 

those who feel that they are endangered have reason—you know, 

have a reasonable degree of fear—those local-nationals. 

We have tended to put in more names rather than less names, 

and that has been our criterion in the past, given our agreement—— 

Dr. SNYDER. All right, let me interrupt you here. 

So we have already passed number one. If we require a letter of 

authorization, you know, obviously, you have to fill out the form. 

Mr. MOSER. It will be in there. 

Dr. SNYDER. And, then, what you said—you just said, ‘‘Those who 

feel fear’’—— 

Mr. MOSER. Yes, that has been—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Now you have employees of contractors, whether an 

American or from another nationality, or a local—— 

Mr. MOSER. No, sir. We never exempt Americans or third-country 

nationals. We are talking about host-country nationals only. 

Dr. SNYDER. So if an American employee of the—— 

Mr. MOSER. Every American employee is going to be in SPOT by 

name, and identified. And we have always done that. 

Dr. SNYDER. Even if they don’t require a letter of authorization? 

Mr. MOSER. That is correct. 

We have always done that. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, I mean, that may be a perfectly reasonable 

thing—— 

Mr. MOSER. Because—— 

Dr. SNYDER. It is not what this MOU that I—all said we agree 

on. 

Mr. MOSER. No, but, you know, it goes back to—we felt that that 

was best for our own business process in order to control our contractor and grantee community. 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. I understand. 

All right, so with regard to third—to Iraq or Afghan nationals—— 

Mr. MOSER. Yes? 
22 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. The only time—are you saying now 

that for the—for State Department purposes, the only time they 

end up in SPOT is if they require a letters of authorization that— 

for whatever reason—to come onto the facility? Or if, in their subjective opinion, they feel fear and request to be included in SPOT— 

that is the only time a local Iraqi or Afghan would be included? 

Mr. MOSER. Well, no, because we will put them in if they’re conducting private security functions. 

Dr. SNYDER. Okay. 

Mr. MOSER. Because that is actually required by law. 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 

Mr. MOSER. And we will put them in for that. 

Now, as I have said, we have been doing a blind-identity scheme. 

But with the systems modifications that USAID has asked for, and 

that Mr. Motsek has agreed to do—then we will probably switch to 

bulk numbers when we have a group of employees that this is subject to, because it will actually reduce the amount of data entry 

that needs to be done, and the cost. That is right. 

Dr. SNYDER. But the numbers—— 

Mr. MOSER. But the numbers would be the same. It is just that 

what they are talking about in aggregate data, we actually achieve 

by doing individual entries under a blind-identity scheme. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman, I am sorry. I have taken—— 

Mr. MOSER. I hope that was clear. 

Mr. WITTMAN. I want to go back to Mr. Hutton’s comment in his 

presentation. And when he talked about developing and executing 

a plan—and there is some resistance among the various agencies 

there—he states, ‘‘By joining, developing, and executing a plan 

with specific timeframes, the agencies can identify the concrete 

steps needed to assess their progress, ensuring that SPOT collects 

the data necessary to fulfill statutory requirements. 

‘‘By working with potential users of SPOT data to better understand their information needs, each agency can help ensure the information entered into the system is sufficiently, but not overly, detailed and will assist in managing and overseeing contracts, grants, 

and cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan.’’ 

It sounds like, to me—that we still haven’t gotten to the point 

to really understand what is needed and what is not. How do we 

make this system workable for everybody? 

Do you all believe that the recommendation here to develop a 

plan at this point, with where you are with the MOU, is necessary; 

and if so, why; and if not, why not? 

Ambassador MICHEL. Let me take a start at it. 

I think what we have here is that we have an MOU that sets 

the ground—the floor of this. And we have, among ourselves, at 

this point, agreed that some will put more and some will put less, 

but all meeting the legal requirement—depending on not arbitrary 

considerations, but rather our perception of what our respective 

missions are, and the information that will contribute to shared information that will facilitate coordination among us. 

So it is not that the MOU is interpreted differently by us, but 

rather, the MOU, which creates the base, is implemented in a variable way among the three agencies to reflect the different way that 
23 

we do business, but with a consistency of the basic information that 

we are all providing and—consistent definitions. 

Now, we are just beginning, now, to talk among ourselves, as we 

begin to implement this understanding about—we can coordinate. 

And it seems to me, Mr. Wittman, that that discussion should include consideration of a concrete plan. But I don’t know that that 

will be the right outcome or not until these discussions take place. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. 

Ambassador MICHEL. I would think that the discussions among 

the three agencies going forward, on implementation, should include consideration of some milestones. I don’t know, sitting here, 

whether that is—where that should come out. They may, after discussing it, decide, ‘‘Well, no, that is not necessary,’’ or it is not appropriate. It seems to me it should be considered. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sure. 

Mr. Hutton, let me ask, based on what you know of the MOU— 

do you believe that that negates the need for a specific detailed 

plan with timeframes, as you suggest? 

Ambassador MICHEL. I think that a detailed plan with timeframes is something that should be discussed and considered 

among the three agencies to see what that might entail and whether it is a practical and useful thing to do. And I don’t think I can 

say that a priori as to whether those discussions will reach that 

conclusion or not. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. 

Mr. Hutton, your thoughts on that? 

Mr. HUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. HUTTON. I think that is a great question, because the way 

I look at it, sir, is that you have a congressional mandate—asked 

the three agencies to get together and agree on an MOU. 

What we found, and what you can see, is the MOU is high-level. 

You have heard a lot of discussion here about what the MOU contains. And just, maybe, to make sure there is some clarity on— 

what the original mandate said that the agencies needed to do was 

to agree on databases—not necessarily one, but they agreed to the 

SPOT. I won’t, you know, take issue with that. 

But there were specific things that it was to include. And that 

was the brief description of the contract, its total value, whether 

it was awarded competitively. On the personnel side—total number 

employed, total number performing security functions, and total 

number killed or wounded. 

Now, the way I look at it—as I stated earlier, you have the MOU 

here. You have the mandate and the MOU. My point is all this is 

about better managing your contracts and having better oversight. 

That may be over here. So how do you get from here, at the MOU 

point, to an ultimate outcome of better management of your contractors? 

And so that is where we submit that each agency may have different requirements. Take it in-house. Figure out what you need to 

better manage your contractors. Put it down on a paper. Give yourself some milestones. Because I will tell you what—you go to Mr. 

Motsek, who has the system over there—there may be some things 

that people are wanting to do that we want to make sure we are 
24 

not going to conflict with anybody else, we are not asking for something that, you know, might be difficult to do. I don’t know—or 

maybe you have to have some kind of phased planning. 

But, ultimately, they all have to bring their requirements together. We just submit that having clarity of what that is, because 

I do believe there may be differences by agency. There may be differences by service that the contractors or grantees are providing. 

And, as you have heard today, there are other issues that some— 

there are sensitivities involved in this information. 

So put that down. Figure out what you need. Then, get together 

and de-conflict. Figure out where there are similarities and differences, and then move ahead to what ultimately is what you all 

are asking for. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Hutton. I think that is a great point. And I am 

concerned about, operationally, where do we go from here? It is 

great to have the MOU, but if you still don’t have the type of coordination there with resources, among the three different agencies, then the MOU isn’t necessarily going to get you where you 

need to be. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I wanted to just be sure—Mr. Hutton, you looked like you had 

something to say before. And I wanted to be sure you had a chance 

to respond. Maybe you have just answered it. 

Mr. HUTTON. Well, thank you for the offer. I think I have tried 

to work in several thoughts. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. 

One of the things that just—I would wonder about—and, clearly, 

there is a reason for standardization and a kind of quality control, 

if you will—and everyone is not created equal here, in terms of 

skill level—but to what extent is that a problem—are the folks who 

are engaged in these operations—is everybody pretty much on the 

same page in terms of skill level, or is there some disparity that 

really should be addressed across the agencies and the kind of 

training—and this may be totally irrelevant to this discussion. 

But I remember another one when we were looking at contracting, and we had not brought the number of auditors on board 

with the kind of skill levels that were required to do the work. I 

mean, you know, we were—they were swamped. And they really 

weren’t as skilled as they could have or should have been. 

To what extent is that an issue here? 

Mr. MOSER. Congresswoman Davis, I will—I volunteered to answer this question because this is one hard spot that I feel that our 

agency has actually done a pretty good job with. 

The Department of Defense has developed some very good training videos. They are Internet-based videos. And we have embraced 

those. And we feel that those do a pretty good job of training our 

contracting officers and the ones that have to modify data and— 

and input. 

But one of the things that—I should put this in context, where 

people understand it—is that it is the contractors, or the vendors, 

that have to do the initial data entry into SPOT. And they are the 
25 

ones that—and we feel that—and it is the job of our contracting officers or grants officials that they monitor their data input. 

Now, one of the things I did not bring in—didn’t grab it off my 

desk before I came—is we have a training manual that we distributed widely throughout the agency that my staff developed. And I 

am actually very proud of the work that they did in developing this 

so that they—we could have a shared manual that really explained 

how to do SPOT. And this is something that we have shared with 

our colleagues at USAID. And I think they have found it helpful. 

So I would say that all three agencies working together have 

really found a way to try—you are not going to get perfection and, 

particularly, not across a wide range of individuals. But you do 

your best in trying to make a sincere—a sincere effort to get the 

common training materials that everyone uses, and then do quality 

control to check the results. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, Mr. Motsek? 

Mr. MOTSEK. Thank you, ma’am. 

The—the whole concept of training and getting organized—I 

mean, it is the one good news in the MOU, as we are piecemealing 

it—there is a very significant change in us. First of all, it is very 

difficult to get three agencies to agree on anything when they have 

their own, you know—their own cultures and the like. And, to be 

blunt about it, I think the signing of this MOU is kind of woefully 

behind. It is just tough stuff to get this to happen. 

Two major changes occurred in this MOU. One is I have given 

up some of my—what I perceived to be my authority and responsibility, in that we have now, in the MOU, required us to effectively 

establish a board of directors amongst the three of us. And we 

must be appointed by our secretaries and meet periodically to resolve those issues. That was not there before. Up to that point, it 

was just dumped in my lap and I—you know, we did the best we 

could, and we had informal discussions. 

It is now formalized. We have a body that is going to work these 

issues. We have a process that says when we can’t resolve them— 

where it has to go. And the second thing that we did—I think 

which was a very practical standpoint—is the initial MOU was 

signed at the deputy-secretary level—a very high level; very difficult to make any changes; very difficult to make any nuances 

about it. 

We have pushed that down to—basically, to the undersecretary 

level. So we have a more practical level of operation than we had 

before. 

We shot, in my personal opinion, a little too high by going to the 

deputy-secretary level, because nothing changes up there easily. 

This has given us a bit more flexibility in management and what 

we are doing. 

The other piece is that all of our training information is also colocated on the SPOT Web site. So even if you are a contractor that 

has to go in cold, your training is there, to go through the process. 

Because we have this board of directors now that has been established, what I see is our implementation plan is not another plan. 

It is our business processes and our business rules that we establish, which we will do collectively now. I was essentially doing 

those unilaterally up to this point. 
26 

We are no longer doing it unilaterally. We are doing it collectively. And a year from now, when you have another hearing, you 

are going to ask us how well we have implemented that. But I 

think we have, frankly, sufficiently good oversight, potentially. We 

have got a board of directors. We have got our business rules. I say 

we execute. 

Mrs. DAVIS. What is the worst thing that can happen in this 

transition period, and as you move forward and, hopefully, before 

the next hearing that could happen? I mean, what is the kind of 

glitch that, you know, would keep you up at night? 

Mr. MOTSEK. The worst thing is we are—is practical. It is monetary. 

Up to this point, SPOT has been funded by supplemental—cash 

in hand, every year. We are in the process, as the executive agent, 

to institutionalize it as a system of record. We presume we will be 

successful. Once we are successful, we have a common baseline of 

funding, and we have reasonableness in the program. If that was 

to fail, I will be knocking on your door again to push me out another year. 

I don’t see that as a problem, in the sense that we are working 

to institutionalize it. But that would be the deal-breaker—if funding was cut off suddenly—to continue the process. 

Ambassador MICHEL. Mrs. Davis, I might interject another point, 

which is a slightly different one. 

And that is that USAID, as you may know, went through a period of sharp decline in its operational funding, and in its staffing, 

to where we had fewer than 1,000 Foreign Service officers. And we 

are in a process of rebuilding. 

SPOT is a tool. And it is an important one. But we really have 

to have the capacity within the agency, through a general training 

program and through restoring the levels of personnel, which we 

are doing—rebuilding the Foreign Service—so that we will be able 

to engage not only in the use of SPOT, but in all the other ways 

of interagency coordination—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. On a scale of 1 to 10, where are you now? 

Ambassador MICHEL. We are about a three, I believe, now, on 

the rebuilding. We have brought in, I think, somewhere in excess 

of 300 new Foreign Service officers under a program that will double the USAID Foreign Service over 3 years. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Does that say we were kind of at a half? 

Ambassador MICHEL. We were not in good shape. 

Mrs. DAVIS. ‘‘Not in good shape’’? Okay. 

Any other comment, Mr. Hutton? 

Mr. HUTTON. One thing I might do to give you a little context 

from my point of view as to where SPOT is today—when you think 

about the fact that we have another report due October 1st of this 

year—this will be the third report—the scope of our work this time 

will be covering all of fiscal year 2009, and the first half of fiscal 

year 2010. So, basically, this month is when we are going to do our 

cutoff for data. 

We are pretty much—as we have done in the prior years—going 

through and largely doing manual pulls with the agencies. For example, for DOD, you know, we are still going to plan on the census. 

One thing that we didn’t get into that I think Mr. Motsek might 
27 

have had in his statement is talking about moving from reconciling 

SPOT to census. And I think they call it SPOT Plus. And that is 

another step towards looking to make sure that there is more information in SPOT now than there might have been a year ago. And 

I think, when you look back a year ago to today, there are more 

names in there. 

Just to use another example—we won’t be pulling contract information directly from FPDS. Now, last year, there was a capability 

brought in to the SPOT system that is going to allow marrying up 

FPDS to say, for example, ‘‘Pull in contract information.’’ But as 

our report in last October mentioned, when we talked about standardization, I wasn’t talking about standardization of what level of 

detail for each type of contractors you need, necessarily. It was 

more of, ‘‘How do you standardize the data input so that when people are out there putting in contract information, they are doing it 

in a format that is going to be readily matched to how you can pull 

it from FPDS.’’ 

So those are just a couple illustrations. I don’t mean to just use 

DOD. But I recognize there is time. But I think DOD is probably 

a little further along in some sense with their census. But I think 

State is doing a census, as well as USAID. So that gives you a 

snapshot of—if you were to ask, ‘‘Where is SPOT today? Are we relying on SPOT to fulfill our mandate requirement?’’ I would say we 

are still pretty much doing the approach that we have used in the 

past. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Good news for you, gentlemen. We have more votes. 

Mr. Motsek—I believe we will be able to finish up, I think, here. 

Yes. 

Mr. Motsek, I am going to try to describe where I think you are 

at with all this, which is essentially—you have a system. SPOT is 

your system. It is your requirement—this reporting to Congress— 

because it was—through the Department of Defense—because you 

all own the war zones—that any contractors employee does get entered into the system, whether somebody requires a letter of authorization to go onto a base; whether they are a U.S. citizen or 

third-country national; or whether they are an Iraqi or Afghan national. If they are an employee of a contractor or a grantee, you require them to be entered into the SPOT database. Is that accurate? 

Mr. MOTSEK. That is exactly our intent. Now, our success 

rate—— 

Dr. SNYDER. I wanted to be sure—— 

Mr. MOTSEK. That is an issue, but—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Now, do for me, with that same wonderful level of 

clarity—describe for me policy and practice of the State Department and USAID, on those groups. 

Mr. MOTSEK. From my perception? From my—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, yes. You own the system. 

Mr. MOTSEK. Well, up to this point, by and large, the State Department has mirrored our policy, up to this point in time, with 

one exception—this was before the new MOU—in that they had 

very discrete numbers of people that, for lack of a better term, had 
28 

a dummy name in the database—I think is the best way of putting 

it. 

But from a numbers standpoint—from assigning numbers to a 

contract, and whether they were a local-national or a—well, in fact, 

they were only local-nationals that we are talking about—they 

were there. So in the past year, their numbers have gone up demonstrably. So—— 

Dr. SNYDER. No. I want to talk about their policy. What is their 

policy, going forward from today? 

Mr. MOTSEK. From this moment forward, all the agencies have 

the same opportunity that, with the exception of those mandated 

by law, we can put aggregate numbers into the database to manage 

the numbers of contractors against those contract vehicles that we 

are talking about. We need not put the data in by name if it is not 

required by our agency to do so, with the two exemptions by law. 

Dr. SNYDER. So, Mr. Moser, if somebody needs a letter of authorization, they go into your system by name—— 

Mr. MOSER. Absolutely. 

Dr. SNYDER. If they are a U.S. citizen or a third-country national, 

they go into your system by name. 

Mr. MOSER. That is correct. 

Dr. SNYDER. If they are an Iraqi or Afghan national who are not 

involved in any kind of security work, they do not go into your system by name, or any personal information. Is that accurate? 

Mr. MOSER. Not entirely, because, actually—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Unless they want to be. 

Mr. MOSER. Unless they want to be, yes. 

Dr. SNYDER. So it is voluntary on the part of the Iraqi or Afghan 

national—— 

Mr. MOSER. Actually, not of the individual—of the company—— 

Dr. SNYDER. If the contractor required them by hiring for your— 

‘‘So we can follow you as you are caravanning around, we want you 

to be in the system. If you can’t live with that, we won’t hire you.’’ 

But if the NGO doesn’t want them to be in that system, they 

don’t have to have—— 

Mr. MOSER. And we will be satisfied with an aggregate number. 

And that really was what our blind-identity scheme was in the 

past. 

Dr. SNYDER. But you are giving up on the blind-identity scheme? 

Mr. MOSER. Well, it is just a matter of convenience—you know, 

just the data entry, you know, because we were actually filling out 

every, you know—fields in SPOT that, if we do go to aggregate 

numbers, we don’t need to do. 

Dr. SNYDER. Ambassador Michel, is that—are you on the same 

exact page, identically, as Mr. Moser? 

Ambassador MICHEL. I think we are—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Microphone, please; microphone, please; microphone, please. 

Ambassador MICHEL. I am sorry, sir. 

We are using SPOT for those individuals, with the full detailed 

information, when a letter of authorization is required. 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 
29 

Ambassador MICHEL. And we are using the aggregate entry—we 

are including the contract information, and we are including, with 

respect to individuals, the aggregate numbers associated with—— 

Dr. SNYDER. All right. I want to run through the list. 

Anyone requiring a letter of authorization, they are in the SPOT 

system—— 

Ambassador MICHEL. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. Because Mr. Motsek says they have to 

be. 

Any U.S. national or third-country national—do they go into the 

SPOT system? 

Ambassador MICHEL. Not necessarily. 

Dr. SNYDER. Not your policy—— 

Ambassador MICHEL. They would be included in the aggregate 

bit as a normal. 

Dr. SNYDER. All right. And if they are an Iraqi or Afghan national—— 

Ambassador MICHEL. Aggregate data. 

Dr. SNYDER. Aggregate data per contract. 

If, for whatever reasons, a contractor came to you and said, ‘‘My 

20 employees—we would like to be in that system so you could follow us better,’’ would you put them in? Or is that not happening? 

Ambassador MICHEL. It is an unlikely contingency that has never 

happened. 

Dr. SNYDER. I don’t know if I understand this well. But I don’t 

feel confused. 

And, on that note, we are adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 23, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 23, 2010 

(35) 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 23, 2010 

(75) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Dr. SNYDER. When will the modification be made to the SPOT database so that 

it can record aggregate numbers of personnel working under a contract, grant, or 

cooperative agreement? 

Mr. MOTSEK. We don’t believe that there is a requirement to modify the database. 

SPOT will continue to collect contract information and individual contractor information associated with contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements. Currently, 

there are two other methods for determining an aggregate number of contractor personnel. 

First, USAID and other agencies can provide the aggregate number of contractor 

personnel employed on a specific contract, grant or cooperative agreement in a 

spreadsheet (Excel) form. Information provided on the spreadsheet would be ‘‘back 

loaded’’ into SPOT on a routine basis. The Total Operational Picture Support System (TOPSS) can then be used to generate a report combining information contained in SPOT with the aggregate information supplied in the spreadsheet. This 

information would not be available through the automatically generated SPOT reports, but rather, would be a manual ‘‘off-line’’ report. 

Agencies also have the option to load a mock individual record (using a unique 

identifier that is not traceable to an individual) against a contract or grant in the 

current SPOT database. This unique identifier could include minimal information 

on a contractor’s citizenship, for example. This process allows the number of contractors employed on all contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements to be automatically accessible in the SPOT database. 

Dr. SNYDER. When will the modification be made to the SPOT database so that 

it can record aggregate numbers of personnel killed or wounded while working 

under a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement? 

Mr. MOTSEK. We can and do provide the ability to capture this information on 

individual contractors in SPOT—no modification is required. Compliance monitoring 

by contracting activities would help to insure this information is captured as a part 

of the official deployment close out. 

Similar to providing aggregate information on numbers of contractor personnel, 

there are two other methods for submitting information on contractors killed or 

wounded while working on a contract, grant or cooperative agreement. Agencies can 

provide the number of personnel killed or wounded in a spreadsheet (Excel) form. 

Information provided on the spreadsheet would be ‘‘back loaded’’ into SPOT on a 

routine basis. 

Agencies also have the option to load a mock individual record (using a unique 

identifier that is not traceable to an individual) against a contract or grant in the 

current SPOT database. A record within SPOT could be updated to reflect an individual’s change in status (e.g. killed or wounded). Using this process, aggregate 

numbers of personnel killed or wounded would be automatically accessible in the 

SPOT database. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please provide a copy of the new Memorandum of Understanding to 

committee staff 

Mr. MOTSEK. Section 861 of the NDAA for FY 2008 requires the identification of 

common databases among the DOD, DOS, and USAID to serve as repositories of information on contracts and contractor personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on July 8, 2008. In it, the agencies agreed that SPOT will serve as the interagency database for information on 

contractor personnel. An updated MOU which incorporates legislative requirements 

from sections 854 of the FY 2009 NDAA and 813 of the FY 2010 NDAA has been 

signed by DOD and DOS and USAID. 

We have provided this updated MOU to your staff. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the Department of Defense desire any legislative changes to the 

current information gathering requirements mandated by statute for contracts, 

grants, and cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Mr. MOTSEK. No additional legislation is necessary at this time. 

Dr. SNYDER. What specific actions is Department of State taking to address the 

information requirement concerns expressed by non-governmental organizations 
76 

working under grants and cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan? What 

is your timeframe for implementing these actions and publishing modified and consistent policy, guidance, and business rules? 

Mr. MOSER. The Department of State (DOS) is beginning to use an aggregate 

count spreadsheet in which non-governmental organizations can enter a number 

count for local nationals who do not wish to have their names entered into the Synchronized Pre-Deployment Operational Tracker (SPOT) database. The spreadsheet 

will include a column where an identifier, such as ‘‘Iraqi 1,’’ is put in place of an 

actual name. Once this spreadsheet is filled out, the DOS will submit it to the Department of Defense for uploading into the SPOT database. The DOS is currently 

piloting this aggregate count spreadsheet process with one bureau. If successful, the 

DOS will implement the process with all bureaus that utilize grants and/or cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our policy and business rules will then 

be edited and submitted to the Office of the Procurement Executive. We expect this 

process to be completed by the end of May. 

Dr. SNYDER. What actions is your agency taking to ensure that once the modifications enabling input of aggregate personnel information into SPOT are complete, 

that such information will be fully entered within 60 days? 

Mr. MOSER. The Department of State (DOS) is in the process of updating its policies and procedures to ensure that aggregate personnel information is entered into 

SPOT in a timely and accurate manner. This process will be completed by the end 

of May, at which time our SPOT Program Manager, Grants Officers, and Grants Officer’s Representatives will be reaching out to non-governmental organizations to ensure the new policies are disseminated and information is collected for submission 

to the SPOT database. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is your understanding of the requirements imposed on the 

State Department by Section 1248 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008? Is the submission of detailed personal information and biometrics 

by Iraqi nationals working under U.S. contracts and grants required, or optional? 

Mr. MOSER. We share your concern about the issue of employment verification of 

Iraqi nationals that Congress addressed with this bill. The Department of State’s 

(DOS) understanding of the requirements imposed by Section 1248 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act is that we must request and collect from each federal assistance award recipient, information that can be used to verify the employment of 

Iraqi citizens and nationals by such recipient. This includes work performed in Iraq 

since March 20, 2003 under DOS federal assistance awards valued in excess of 

$100,000. The submission of this information by the award recipients is strongly encouraged but the current law does not have any mechanism to compel individuals 

to submit their personal information. However, DOS has taken a proactive approach 

to the information request. The DOS issued Grants Policy Directive (GPD) 44 in December 2009, which provides guidance to non-governmental organizations on Section 

1248 legislation. The directive includes four attachments. The first attachment provides detailed information about the requirements of the law and the applicable language which must be included in new federal assistance awards. The second attachment provides a letter for recipients describing the information collection process. 

The third attachment is the Office of Management and Budget-approved information collection form (Form DS–7655). This form is used by DOS to collect the information required by 1248 legislation. The fourth attachment provides instructions to 

recipients for completing the collection form. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the Department of State desire any legislative changes to the 

current information requirements mandated by statute for contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Mr. MOSER. The Department of State does not desire any legislative changes to 

the current information requirements mandated by statute. 

Dr. SNYDER. What specific actions is USAID taking to address the information requirement concerns expressed by non-governmental organizations working under 

grants and cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan? What is your timeframe for implementing these actions and publishing modified and consistent policy, 

guidance, and business rules? 

Ambassador MICHEL. USAID works closely with our implementing partners in 

Iraq and Afghanistan to deliver sustainable results as we improve the conditions 

and lives for the Iraq and Afghan people. In order to address our partners’ concerns 

while complying with the law, USAID worked diligently with our Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of State (DOS) colleagues to reach mutual agreements 

for Agency implementation of the Synchronized Pre-deployment Operational Tracker 

(SPOT). The solution agreed upon on February 26, 2010, after numerous discussions, allowed for USAID compliance with the National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) while addressing the concerns of our partners—without producing signifi-
77 

cant administrative and financial burdens for our partner community and the Agency. 

At the February 26 meeting and at the hearing on March 23, 2010, DOD confirmed that USAID could move forward with providing aggregate number information directly into SPOT. USAID plans to continue to generate personal data on all 

implementing personnel who must hold a Letter of Authorization (LOA), which is 

currently applicable in Iraq, to conduct their USAID-funded activities. The Agency 

will also provide information required by regulation for those personnel carrying out 

security functions under USAID contracts or grants in Iraq or Afghanistan. For all 

other partner personnel, the Agency will provide the aggregate figures into SPOT 

to comply with the terms of the NDAA and the revised interagency Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU), which USAID signed on March 24, 2010. 

Since agreement for USAID’s implementation of SPOT was reached, we have met 

with our implementing partner communities and have revised our draft Business 

Rules for SPOT users. Concurrently, the Agency is adapting its Acquisition & Assistance Policy Directive (AAPD) 09–01 for Iraq to include Afghanistan. Once the 

draft is finalized, the review and clearance process generally requires 90 days. 

In follow-up discussions on providing the necessary aggregate figures directly into 

SPOT, DOD, State, and USAID met on April 30, 2010. At that time, DOD informed 

us that the existing SPOT database would not accept aggregate figures. Therefore, 

the Agency is seeking explanation from DOD and is reviewing the costs and benefits 

associated with potential options including: 1) creating a functionality in SPOT to 

receive aggregate data; 2) tracking line by line pseudonym or ‘‘dummy’’ data for 

each of the more than 23,000 implementing personnel we have in Iraq and Afghanistan and keeping this information up-to-date in real-time fashion; or 3) providing 

modification to the reporting requirements so that aggregate data responsive to the 

needs of Congress can be provided without actually entering the data into SPOT. 

Dr. SNYDER. What action is your agency taking to ensure that once the modifications enabling input of aggregate personnel information into SPOT are complete, 

that such information will be fully entered within 60 days? 

Ambassador MICHEL. USAID has made strides to fully staff both the Afghanistan 

and Iraq desks in Washington D.C. and our Missions overseas appropriately to meet 

requirements and input, maintain, and troubleshoot aggregate data information directly into SPOT. In Washington D.C., the Agency has a dedicated full-time position 

for SPOT implementation in Iraq. For Afghanistan, we are moving forward with hiring the appropriate level of human resources to commit to full support and implementation of SPOT by early 2011. 

USAID has been working closely with our DOD counterparts since agreement on 

providing aggregate figures was reached in February 2010. We will now work to 

identify the best model possible to meet the NDAA requirements without high costs 

or significant administrative burdens on USAID or our implementing partners. We 

must also ensure that the concerns of our development partners who are conducting 

on-the-ground activities are addressed. Once a finalized and acceptable format is 

available, USAID will begin all inputs. 

To ensure a smooth roll-out of SPOT in Afghanistan as well as fully inform 

USAID Contracting and Agreement Officers about the system, USAID Contracting 

and Agreement officers from Iraq, Afghanistan, and those who will be heading to 

these posts met with DOD and their SPOT prime contractor during a May 2010 

USAID conference for acquisition and assistance officers. 

Dr. SNYDER. When will USAID fully implement SPOT requirements for its contractors, grantees, and cooperative agreement partners in Afghanistan? 

Ambassador MICHEL. USAID seeks to implement SPOT requirements for its contractors, grantees, and cooperative agreement partners working in Afghanistan as 

soon as possible and no later than early 2011. In order to stand the system up fully 

for more than 100 active awards, USAID and its partners require clear details on 

how SPOT implementation shall work at an aggregate numbers level or in another 

acceptable format. We must receive confirmation from our DOD counterparts before 

we can move forward with input of data, final release of the USAID SPOT Business 

Rules, or the updated AAPD. 

In the interim, USAID will be pleased to provide the committee with aggregate 

figures upon request or in a periodic fashion. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does USAID desire any legislative changes to the current information-gathering requirements mandated by statute for contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Ambassador MICHEL. USAID seeks to comply with the law to provide the necessary information to Congress concerning our programs and activities in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. USAID can provide aggregate numbers in any manner appropriate for 

the committee. The requirements of a common database for USAID, DOD, and State 
78 

have certainly motivated agencies to collaboratively work together to find solutions. 

It also has highlighted the necessary differences in business processes to meet our 

distinct missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. USAID seeks a solution that does not inhibit partner participation in our development efforts or overburden Agency capabilities (via high administrative or cost requirements) in favor of more detailed and 

more extensive reporting requirements. We do hope the committee can accept our 

aggregate figures as reported to the SPOT team as sufficient to meeting the needs 

of the committee and the legislation requiring this common database. Should it 

prove impossible to enable SPOT to accept aggregate data for the majority of USAID 

contractor and grantee personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, and should alternatives 

prove to be impracticable, we would explore the possibility of legislative relief to enable the desired information to be provided in a manner compatible with SPOT, but 

at less cost and without raising understandable concerns of USAID’s implementing 

partners. 

Æ