Wildlife Services 3.102 5

(2) RONA Basis: WS programs are authorized to enter into interagency agreements
whereby Federal entities are not required to provide payment in advance of WS program’s
performance.

(3) ROWA Basis: WS programs are authorized to enter into CSAs whereby cooperators
provide payment in advance of the WS program’s performance.

(4) ROWE Basis: WS programs are authorized to enter into CSAs whereby cooperators
do not provide payment in advance of the WS program’s performance.

(5) TOWA Basis: WS programs are not authorized to establish trust fund accounts or
enter into CSAs on a TOWA basis. WS uses the ROWA instead of the TOWA when
cooperators are paying in advance.

d. Cost-Share Decision Model: The WS cost-share decision model contained at Enclosure
(1) establishes the framework within which program managers shall evaluate the dedication of
resources to cost-sharing for a particular project.

(1) Eligible Costs: It is WS policy that to the extent practicable, both direct and indirect
costs are eligible for cost-sharing with cooperators. However, WS programs shall not generally
waive or cost-share an amount that equals the sum of the APHIS and WS direct and indirect
(overhead) costs; in no case shall the cost-share amount exceed the sum of the APHIS and WS
direct and indirect costs.

(2) Request by a Cooperator: Performance must be requested by a cooperator and WS
must have the authority to provide the requested services. Program managers may agree to
provide services under a CSA only when it is determined that WS has or will obtain the required
resources to meet its obligations under the CSA.

(3) Alignment with Strategic Priorities: WS strategic goals guide our workforce as we
work to ensure we deliver services with respect to wildlife that is injurious to agriculture,
livestock and livelihoods, human health and safety, and natural resources and do so with
constrained resources. Program managers shall review the WS Strategic Plan to ensure that
delivery of goods and services to cooperators comport with WS guidance.

(4) Priority of Work Performed: WS recognizes that our stakeholders may request
assistance with tasks that are not directly linked to one of our strategic priorities; however, the
request may represent assistance that is nonetheless important and that may further other high-
priority core functions. Additionally, where appropriate, program managers may respond to
requests for assistance with work that represents lower priority core functions and other core
functions that are 100% funded by the cooperator.

(5) Core Functions: Program managers shall consider requests for assistance from
cooperators in relation to where on the list of core functions that request falls within the WS
Strategic Plan, and to the extent practicable, give preference to cost-sharing where requests


Enclosure (2)

Table of Direct, Pooled Job, and Indirect Costs

Direct Pooled Job State/NWRC Agency
Costs Office Indirect”
(11%) Indirect"
YES | NO | YES NO | YES NO | YES} NO
Salary/benefits x x
Wolunteer Salary/benefits x x x x
Travel x
W olunteer Travel x

Vehicle Usage (gas and x x
aintenance)

Supplies x x
Equipment used for project(s) x x
forces (aerial operations, dog hire, x x
orse hire)

poor Annual x
ave/Compensatory Time

Fccrued Sick Leave x
everance Pay, Lump Sum Leave x
ayouts
[Buyouts /VSIPs x
Relocation x
br costs tied directly to x x x x

Categories

ppropriated functions, not related to
imbursable work or outside of the

pgreement dates
Utilities
[Telecommunication Costs
(Copier Maintenance
General Office equipment
(General Administrative
Salary/Benefits
Facility Rent/Lease
Facility equipment and maintenance,
pther related services
State-wide NEPA
A ccidents (Tort)
Security Systems
(General Training

gency Costs x
indirect costs tied directly to x x x x
ppropriated functions, not related to
eimbursable work

LPS oe Joe Joe

*

*

> [>< [oe |<

1 For Interagency Agreements: State/NWRC Office indirect is 16.15% of direct costs; For Cooperative Service Agreements:
State/NWRC Office indirect is 15.15% of direct costs in FY 2013, decreasing 1% a year to 11% in FY 2017.

2 For Interagency Agreements: Agency indirect is 5.15% of direct costs; For Cooperative Service Agreements: Agency indirect
is 1% of direct costs in FY2013, increasing to 1% per year to 5.15% in FY 2017.



Enclosure (1)

Cost-Share Decision Model

Program Manager

- / Priority * No cost share
Receive ~ core : No ~ Local/State No > "= Cooperator pays
request \ funetion?! _“ Priority?> 100% of costs
I
Yes
Yes
‘Appropriated ‘
funds available Consider i
cost-share? Consider
to cost share?

cost-share*

No cost
3 share
2

Cost share at
appropriate rate*

i

Other
factors to

Appropriated
funds available
to cost share?

= No cost share
"= Cooperator pays
100% of costs

No

Consider those
factors

7

Other
factors to
consider?

Yes

UL Yes ——____|

Cost Share Decision Model Explanations and Guidance

1. Priority Core Functions:

Wildlife may cause significant damage to agricultural crops and livestock, forests, pastures,
property and infrastructure in urban and rural areas, and threatened and endangered species and
their habitats. Wildlife also can threaten human health and safety through animal-borne diseases
and hazards to aircraft. Prevention and management of wildlife conflicts is an essential and
responsible part of wildlife management. Wildlife Services (WS) uses a program-wide strategic
approach to planning and carrying out its missions.

Program managers are required to ensure any work that is undertaken on behalf of a Federal
or non-Federal cooperator aligns with WS Strategic Plan and policies and the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) policies regarding national strategic intent, financial
accountability, and resource management.


Wildlife Services 3.102 6

represent higher priority work. Additionally, the fact that a project is 100% cooperator funded
shall not be the sole factor considered when responding to requests for assistance.

e. Cost Assessment Waivers: Generally, neither the APHIS nor the WS assessments
may be waived. However, to account for unique or unforeseen circumstances, both APHIS and
WS have created processes whereby a waiver for assessments may be requested. Factors that
may be used to support waiver requests include limitations on indirect charges as imposed by
statute or regulation. However, a cooperator’s lack of funding shall not be used to justify
waivers, except as provided for in Enclosure (1) and the WS Financial Control and Risk
Management Directive 2.215.

(1) APHIS Cost Assessment Waiver Process: The APHIS assessment shall generally
not be waived for any Agreement. However, on an exception basis, the Administrator (or his
designee) may waive the APHIS assessment. All such waivers must be submitted to the WS
Deputy Administrator for review and submission to the APHIS Administrator (or his designee)
in accordance with the procedures contained in the Financial Control and Risk Management
Directive 2.215.

(2) WS Pooled Job and Indirect Cost Assessment Waiver Process: The WS assessment
shall generally not be waived for any Agreement. However, on an exception basis, the Deputy
Administrator (or his designee) may waive the WS pooled job cost or indirect assessment,
subject to the limitations in provided for in Enclosure (1) and in the WS Financial Control and
Risk Management Directive 2.215.

8. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE
This Directive is applicable to all WS programs.
9. REFERENCES
a. 7 U.S.C. 426, 426b-c
b. 31 U.S.C. 1535 (Economy Act)
c. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 48, Subpart 17.5 (Federal Acquisition Regulation)
10. ENCLOSURES

Enclosure (1): Wildlife Services Cost Share Decision Model
Enclosure (2): Table of Direct, Pooled, and Indirect Costs

Deputy Administrator


allowable as a cost-share.

Cost-sharing may take the form of staff time; cost of materials; equipment costs; or, a
combination thereof. In such cases, a reasonable approximation of the value of the cost-share is
required, but shall not exceed the fair market value of the contribution. Additionally, cost-
sharing may include waiving a portion of the APHIS or WS direct or indirect charges. However,
in no instance shall the cost-share equal or exceed the sum of the APHIS and WS direct and
indirect costs.

Costs that are expressly unallowable for cost-sharing include: costs that were incurred prior
to the effective date of the agreement; costs incurred after the project’s termination date; and
costs that cannot be attributed to the WS program’s performance — either as direct or indirect
costs.

5. Local/State Priority:

Within the framework provided by the WS Strategic Plan, Regional Directors, Director of the
National Wildlife Research Center, and State Directors have wide latitude in determining
whether it is appropriate to respond to cooperators’ requests for assistance. Historically, the
center of gravity for WS operations was the State offices. And, to a large extent, that is still true.
However, in the era of declining Federal resources and greater emphasis on strategic goals, WS
program managers must adhere to overarching principles that will ensure the required level of
consistency across all WS programs and the continued viability of Wildlife Services.

As local and State priorities may be as varied as the locations themselves, it is neither
possible nor practical to attempt to prioritize work at that level. State Directors shall continue to
mitigate operational and financial risks by carefully managing appropriated resources.


United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services Directive

3.102
August 30, 2013

COOPERATIVE COST SHARE PROGRAMS

1. PURPOSE

To provide guidelines for Wildlife Services (WS) cost-sharing practices in interagency and
cooperative service agreements (CSAs).

2. REPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
This is a new directive.
3. AUTHORITY

Interagency Agreements: Authority to enter into interagency agreements with other Federal
agencies for the acquisition or provision of goods and services is pursuant to the Economy Act,
31 USC § 1535.

Cooperative Service Agreements: Authority to enter into mutual interest CSA’s with non-
Federal entities to control nuisance mammals and birds is pursuant to 7 USC § 426 (and
appropriate subsections therein).

4. POLICY

a. It is WS policy that program managers cooperate with Federal, State, and local agencies
and public stakeholders to conduct wildlife damage management programs. Where permitted,
program managers may use WS appropriated funds to cost-share (i.e., use WS Federal funding to
support the cost of a particular project) with the cooperating entity.

b. Itis WS policy that program managers may not use Federal appropriations to cost-share
with other Federal entities unless specific statutory authority exists that allows for such cost-
sharing. However, WS program managers may use WS appropriated funds to cost-share with
non-Federal entities to the extent that such funding is available, and as approved by Congress.

c. Program managers shall consult and adhere to the cost-share decision model contained at
Enclosure (1). There is no specific formula for cost-sharing, as cost-sharing shall be based on
whether the work supports WS strategic priorities; whether it is appropriate for the cooperator


General Administrative Salary/Benefits: As indirect cost—general office administrative costs
related to project work but not tied to any specific project (example, clerk salary), costs charged
to state/NWRC’s indirect account (costs can be split with an appropriated account if costs are
also tied to appropriated work).

General Office Equipment: As indirect cost—general office equipment costs related to project
work but not tied to any specific project (example, furniture, computers, printers), costs charged
to State/NWRC’s indirect account (costs can be split with an appropriated account if costs are
also tied to appropriated work).

General Training: As indirect cost—General training costs related to project work but not tied
to any specific project, spread out among all projects (example, mandatory annual agency
training), costs charged to State/(NWRC’s indirect account (costs can be split with an
appropriated account if costs are also tied to appropriated work).

Indirect costs tied directly to appropriated functions, not related to reimbursable work: Not
allowed to charge indirect costs tied directly to appropriated functions, not related to

reimbursable work.

Relocation: As pooled job cost— Relocation of staff working directly on more than one
project/pooled to spread cost to many projects, at the field level (example, all relocation costs
incurred during the year), costs charged to pooled job cost account.

Salary/Benefits: As direct cost—staff working directly and exclusively on the project, at the
field level (example, wildlife technician), costs charged to direct account; As pooled job cost—
staff working directly on more than one project, at the field level (example, District Supervisor),
costs charged to pooled job cost account.

Security systems: As indirect cost—Security systems related to project work but not tied to any
specific project, spread out among all projects (example, security system on firearms storage
building), costs charged to State/NWRC’s indirect account (costs can be split with an
appropriated account if costs are also tied to appropriated work).

Services (aerial operations, dog hire, horse hire): As direct cost—project services used directly
and exclusively on the project, at the field level (example, dog hire conducted for the cooperator,

ongoing relationship), costs charged to direct account; as pooled job cost— project services
used on more than one project, at the field level (example, aerial operations), costs charged to
pooled job cost account.

Severance pay, lump sum leave payouts: As pooled job cost—lump sum leave/severance pay of
staff working directly on more than one project/pooled to spread cost to many projects, at the
field level (example, all lump sum leave/severance pay incurred during the year), costs charged
to pooled job cost account.

State-wide National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): As indirect cost—State-wide NEPA


Direct, Pooled Job, and Indirect Cost Definitions

Accidents (Tort): As indirect cost—Tort claim costs related to project work but not tied to any
specific project, spread out among all projects (example, small tort claim charged to state/NWRC
office for accident), costs charged to State/NWRC’s indirect account (costs can be split with an
appropriated account if costs are also tied to appropriated work).

Accrued Annual Leave/Compensatory Time: As pooled job cost—annual leave of staff working
directly on more than one project/pooled to spread cost to many projects, at the field level
(example, all annual leave taken during the year), costs charged to pooled job cost account.

Accrued Sick Leave: As pooled job cost—sick leave of staff working directly on more than one
project/pooled to spread cost to many projects, at the field level (example, all sick leave taken
during the year), costs charged to pooled job cost account.

Agency Costs: As indirect cost—Agency indirect costs mandated to be collected (example,
5.15% of direct costs on an interagency agreement), costs collected for the agency’s indirect
account.

Buyouts /Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP): As pooled job cost—buy outs /VSIP

costs of staff working directly on more than one project/pooled to spread cost to many projects,
at the field level (example, all buy outs /VSIPs incurred during the year), costs charged to
pooled job cost account.

Copier Maintenance: As indirect cost—general copier maintenance costs related to project
work but not tied to any specific project (example, copier maintenance contract), costs charged to
state/NWRC’s indirect account (costs can be split with an appropriated account if costs are also
tied to appropriated work).

Direct costs tied directly to appropriated functions, not related to reimbursable work or outside of
the agreement dates: Not allowed to charge direct costs tied directly to appropriated functions,

not related to reimbursable work or outside of the agreement dates.

Equipment used for project(s): As direct cost—project equipment used directly and exclusively
on the project, at the field level (example, ATV for only project conducted for the cooperator,
ongoing relationship), costs charged to direct account; as pooled job cost—equipment used by
one or more identifiable projects (example, a vehicle).

Facility Rent/Lease: As indirect cost—general office rent/lease costs related to project work but
not tied to any specific project (example, District Office lease), costs charged to State/NWRC’s
indirect account (costs can be split with an appropriated account if costs are also tied to
appropriated work).

Facility equipment and maintenance, other related services: As indirect cost—general facility
maintenance costs related to project work but not tied to any specific project (example,

equipment lift for vehicles and equipment maintenance), costs charged to State/NWRC’s indirect
account (costs can be split with an appropriated account if costs are also tied to appropriated
work).


2. Consider Cost-Share:

Cost-sharing refers to the practice of using appropriated funds to cover a portion of a cost for
the services provided to non-Federal cooperators. Cost-sharing represents the portion of the
costs not borne by the cooperator. WS programs are not required to cost-share; however, it is
Congress’ intent that WS maximizes the use of cost-sharing to reduce the burden on program
operations — that intent has been documented in legislative reports that accompany our
appropriations.

3. Other Factors to Consider:

A determination whether cost-share is appropriate should be based on technical and
programmatic considerations. Consideration should also be given to the best use of program
funds; specifically, whether the program will achieve expressed objectives that align with WS
strategic goals and core functions. While an exhaustive list of considerations is not possible,
below are examples as to when cost-sharing may be beneficial:

(a) Where the work is initiated by a WS program because that work furthers an important
WS or APHIS strategic goal.

(b) Where the cooperator can leverage the contribution to build industry capacity to mitigate
the damage caused by wildlife.

(c) Where it is critical activity that will continue after WS participation ends, and the work
can be sustained with reduced funding, or without assistance from WS.

(d) Where the cooperator has a long-practiced history of engaging WS programs on a cost-
share basis.

(e) Where policy or statute limits the Federal or non-Federal entity’s liability for indirect
assessments. For example, some Federal agencies may be required by statute to limit the amount
they pay in overhead to a certain percentage of the project’s total costs, and the same may be true
for some State agencies.

4. Cost Share at Appropriate Rate:

The WS approach to cost-sharing includes pegging the level of cost-sharing to a calculated
percentage of the total project cost. However, program managers are responsible for
determining/negotiating the appropriate cost share for individual CSAs — subject to the
limitations set forth in this policy.

In general, if a cost is allowable and eligible for reimbursement, then it is allowable as a cost-
share. Conversely, if a cost is not allowable or eligible for reimbursement, then that cost is not

2


Wildlife Services 3.102 4

(1) Scenario 1 — Permissible: The project costs $13,000 and both WS and the
Department of Defense (DoD) are authorized to perform the work. WS and DoD enter into an
interagency agreement because WS has specific expertise that DoD lacks. The interagency
agreement must stipulate the entire cost of the work to be performed by WS (i.e., $13,000). WS
performs all the work and charges the DoD for reimbursement of actual costs.

(2) Scenario 2— Permissible: The project costs $13,000 and both WS and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are authorized to perform the work. WS and USFWS enter into
an agreement because the project fits within both agencies’ missions and WS has specific
expertise that USFWS lacks. The agreement must stipulate the entire cost of the work that WS
will be performing under the project will be reimbursed by USFWS (i.e., $10,000). The
agreement must also stipulate that USFWS will pay its own costs for its part of the project —
which is $3,000. This scenario is appropriate where two Federal entities jointly undertake a
project for which each agency’s performance is integral to its success and each agency performs
a discrete part of the project.

(3) Scenario 3— Not Permissible: The project costs $13,000 and both WS and DoD are
authorized to perform the work. WS performs all of the work (i.e., $13,000 worth), but only
charges DoD $10,000 in an effort to cost-share. In effect, WS would be “contributing” $3,000 to
DoD and that is considered augmentation of DoD’s appropriation.

b. CSA’s: WS programs are authorized to establish arrangements (i.e., cooperate) with
non-Federal entities to provide technical assistance, goods or services, on a cost-recovery basis.
CSAs may be established on a one-time, annual, or multi-year basis, and provide for cost-
recovery on a reimbursable or advance payment basis. Multi-year agreements may not exceed
five (5) years.

c. Costs and Payments: Cooperators’ share of costs may range from a pre-determined
percentage up to 100% of the sum of the direct and indirect costs of the services rendered. A
waiver of APHIS indirect or WS indirect costs shall be expressly approved by the APHIS
Administrator or WS Deputy Administrator, respectively, as provided in the WS Financial
Control Risk and Management Directive 2.215. Enclosure (2) provides a table that identifies
direct and indirect costs. ‘

(1) Reimbursement Basis: Program managers may provide goods and services on a
reimbursement basis to cooperators so long as the cooperator is legally and financially able to
absorb the costs incurred under the agreement. Program managers have an affirmative duty to
verify that potential cooperators are not debarred or suspended, and verification may be made by
using the System for Award Management, accessed at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.
Where a cooperator defaults, the WS program shall absorb the expenses associated with the
agreement pending collection of amounts due pursuant to established APHIS debt management
procedures.


Wildlife Services 3.102 3

g. Interagency Agreement: Agreement entered into by WS programs to establish
arrangements with a Federal entity to provide technical assistance, goods, or services on a cost-
recovery basis. In the Financial Management Modernization Initiative (FMMI) these are called
INTRAs.

h. Over the Counter Transaction: A transaction requiring that payment be made at the time
the service is provided. Typically, the transactions are collections under $7,500 and the
agreements have a period of performance of less than 12 months. No bill is submitted to the
cooperator.

i. Pooled Job Cost: Any item of expense that may not be directly identified with a
particular project or program and is distributed across all identifiable projects or programs to
which it pertains.

j. Reimbursable Order with Advance (ROWA): An agreement with a non-Federal

cooperator where the cooperator provides payment in advance of a WS program’s performance.

k. Reimbursable Order with Exception (ROWE): An agreement with a non-Federal

cooperator where the cooperator does not provide payment in advance of a WS program’s
performance.

1. Reimbursable Order with No Advance (RONA): An interagency agreement with a non-
U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal entity where that agency does not provide payment in

advance of a WS program’s performance.

m. Reimbursement Basis: A cost recovery method whereby a WS program performs a
service or provides goods, and recoups its costs from a cooperator pursuant to an agreement.

n. Trust Fund Account: An account established for the receipt and expenditure of funds by
the Government for carrying out specific purposes and programs, in accordance with the terms of
a statute that designates the fund as a trust fund. WS uses ROWA instead of Trust Funds.

o. Trust Order with Advance (TOWA): An agreement whereby the cooperator is required
to deposit, in advance, an amount equal to the estimated cost of services to be provided. (The
advance payment must be in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs to be incurred by the
program to perform the service or complete the project.) WS uses ROWA instead of TOWAs.

7, IMPLEMENTATION

a. Interagency Agreements: WS programs are able to cooperate and cost share with
other Federal agencies through interagency agreements as authorized or directed by Congress.
As such, WS shall be reimbursed by that agency for the actual costs of the project. The
following examples provide clarity regarding cooperating with other Federal agencies:


Wildlife Services 3.102 2

under a particular agreement; and, whether efficiency of the service is substantially furthered by
cost-sharing.

5. BACKGROUND

a. Generally, a Federal agency may not augment its appropriations by receiving additional
resources from other sources without specific statutory authority. Consequently, when Congress
establishes a program, it provides the required funding and establishes a maximum authorized
program level — in other words, an agency cannot, absent statutory authorization, operate beyond
the level that can be paid for by its appropriations.

b. WS has a long-established and Congressionally-approved practice of cost-sharing with
non-Federal cooperators in the performance of work to protect agricultural and other resources.
The Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988, as
amended, specifically permits and contemplates that the Secretary of Agriculture will
“...conduct activities and enter into agreements ... and deposit any money collected under any
such agreement into the appropriation accounts that incur the costs to be available immediately
and to remain available until expended for Animal Damage Control activities.”

6. DEFINITIONS

a. Actual Cost: Expenses established by WS programs that are based upon the cost of
rendering the service and that does not appear to be excessive; the sum of WS-established direct
and indirect costs.

b. Augmentation of Appropriation: Transactions or reimbursements that charge too much
(augments the performing agency’s appropriation) or transactions that charge too little (augments
the ordering agency’s appropriations) for the work being performed.

c. Cooperator: An individual, organization, agency, unit of Government, or entity with
which WS programs enters into an agreement.

d. Cost Share: Contribution of WS appropriated funding toward the actual cost of a
particular project.

e. Direct Cost: Any item of expense which can be computed and identified directly with a
product, service, activity, or project.

f. Indirect Cost (Overhead): Any item of expense incurred for a common objective that is
not readily identifiable with a particular program or project, but is necessary to the general
operation and conduct of program activities; costs distributed among multiple benefitting projects
or activities.


costs related to project work but not tied to any specific project (example, NEPA training,
document preparation), costs charged to State/NWRC’s indirect account (costs can be split with
an appropriated account if costs are also tied to appropriated work).

Supplies: As direct cost—project supplies used directly and exclusively on the project, at the
field level (example, bait for only project conducted for the State on the species), costs charged
to direct account; As pooled job cost— project supplies used on more than one project, at the
field level (example, trapping supplies), costs charged to pooled job cost account.

Telecommunication costs: As indirect cost—general telecommunication costs related to project
work but not tied to any specific project (example, cell phone charges), costs charged to
state/NWRC’s indirect account (costs can be split with an appropriated account if costs are also
tied to appropriated work).

Travel: As direct cost—staff travelling directly and exclusively for the project, at the field level
(example, wildlife technician stays at hotel during wildlife assessment), costs charged to direct
account.

Utilities: As indirect cost—general utility costs related to project work but not tied to any
specific project (example, electric bill), costs charged to State/(NWRC’s indirect account (costs
can be split with an appropriated account if costs are also tied to appropriated work).

Vehicle usage (gas and maintenance): As direct cost—vehicle used directly and exclusively on
the project, at the field level (example, wildlife technician), costs charged to direct account; As
pooled job cost—staff working directly on more than one project, at the field level (example,
district supervisor), costs charged to pooled job cost account.

Volunteer Salary/benefits: Not allowed to pay salary and/or wage benefits to volunteer (direct
costs must come from other categories listed here).

Volunteer Travel: As direct cost—volunteer travelling directly and exclusively for the project,
at the field level (example volunteer stays at hotel during wildlife assessment), costs charged to
direct account.