jurisdiction: US

text: b' Office of Inspector General\n Corporation for National and\n Community Service\n\n\n\n\n OIG Evaluation of the 2010 Social Innovation\n Fund Grant Application Review Process (GARP)\n\n OIG REPORT 11-17\n\n\n\n\n 1201 New York Ave, NW\n Suite 830\n Washington, DC 20525\n\n (202) 606-9390\n\n\n\n\nThis report was issued to Corporation management on August 19, 2011. Under\nthe laws and regulations governing audit follow-up, the Corporation is to make\nfinal management decisions on the report\xe2\x80\x99s findings and recommendations no\nlater than February 20, 2012, and complete its corrective actions by August 20,\n2012. Consequently, the reported findings do not necessarily represent the final\nresolution of the issues presented.\n\x0c August 19, 2011\n\n\nTO: James Siegal\n Chief of Staff\n\nFROM: Stuart Axenfeld /s/\n Assistant Inspector General for Audit\n\nSUBJECT: OIG Report 11-17\n Evaluation of the 2010 Social Innovation Fund GARP\n\n\nAttached is the final report on the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation of the 2010 Social Innovation Fund Grant\nApplication Review Process. This evaluation was conducted by OIG staff in accordance with\nthe Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of Inspectors General\non Integrity and Efficiency.\n\nUnder the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s audit resolution policy, a final management decision on the findings and\nrecommendations in this evaluation report is due by February 20, 2012. Notice of final action is\ndue by August 20, 2012.\n\nIf you have questions pertaining to this report, please call me at (202) 606-9360, or Ronald\nHuritz, Audit Manager, at (202) 606-9355.\n\nAttachment\n\n\ncc: Robert Velasco II, Acting Chief Executive Officer\n Paul Carttar, Director, Social Innovation Fund\n Doug Hilton, Office of General Counsel\n Vielka Garibaldi, Office of Grants Policy and Operations\n Claire Moreno, Audit Liaison, Office of Grants Management\n Jack Goldberg, Audit Resolution Specialist\n Selected Members of Congress (under separate cover)\n\n\n\n\n 1201 New York Avenue, NW \xef\x82\xab Suite 830 \xef\x82\xab Washington, DC 20525\n 202-606-9390 \xef\x82\xab Hotline: 800-452-8210 \xef\x82\xab www.cncsoig.gov\n\n Senior Corps \xef\x82\xab AmeriCorps \xef\x82\xab Learn and Serve America\n\x0c CONTENTS\n\nSection Page\n\nExecutive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1\n\nBackground ........................................................................................................................ 2\n\nResults of Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 3\n\nObjectives, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................ 10\n\nExit Conference ................................................................................................................. 11\n\n\n\nAppendix\n\nA: Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Draft Report (to be included in final evaluation report)\n\n\n\n TABLE OF ACRONYMS\n\n CEO Chief Executive Officer\n COI Conflict of Interest\n Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service\n COO Chief Operating Officer\n GARP Grant Application Review Process\n NOFA Notice of Funding Availability\n NOFO Notice of Funding Opportunity\n OGC Office of General Counsel\n OGPO Office of Grants Policy and Operations\n SIF Social Innovation Fund\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nIn response to requests from Congress and the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Chief of Staff, we conducted an\nevaluation of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s 2010 Social Innovation Fund (SIF) Grant Application Review\nProcess (GARP).\n\nWe determined that the GARP policies and procedures applied to the new SIF program\ngenerally appeared to be fair and objective, particularly with respect to the first two stages of the\nreview process (the blended, or expert stage; and the evaluation stage). However, for the third\nlate stage review, in which final grant award funding decisions were made, the Corporation was\nunable to provide us with sufficiently detailed documentation to allow us to evaluate the fairness\nand objectivity of that particular stage. In some cases, the Corporation deviated from its existing\nprocess in ways that were not consistent with established procedures used for other grant\naward programs. These deviations were attributed by Corporation officials to the fact that SIF\nwas a new program which required an application review and award protocol that differed from\nthose used with the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s other long-established service programs.\n\nWe determined that media reports of Corporation staff instructing grant application reviewers to\nshred SIF-related documentation were unfounded, as the destruction of certain documents for\nsecurity and privacy purposes at the conclusion of GARP activities was standard practice for the\nCorporation. The Corporation directed reviewers to dispose of the applications at the completion\nof their reviews because of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s need to maintain confidentiality. The Corporation\ninformed reviewers that their participation in GARP gave them access to information not\ngenerally available to the public and placed the reviewers under special professional and ethical\nresponsibilities. Reviewers were given access to information about applicants for use only\nduring the evaluation process for the purpose of discussion with fellow panelists and\nCorporation personnel. Therefore, reviewers were instructed that they must not use that\ninformation for personal benefit or make it available for the benefit of any other individual or\norganization. The Corporation has made efforts in its 2011 SIF GARP to provide further\nclarification on a reviewer\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility in maintaining confidentiality of review documentation.\n\nThe Corporation developed a policy, effective January 1, 2011, to address issues raised by\nCongress regarding the transparency of GARP. This policy describes procedures, applicable to\nall Corporation programs, to increase transparency in the grant application review process. It\noutlines the roles and responsibilities of Corporation offices that are responsible for ensuring the\nintegrity of information relating to the GARP process. It also establishes a consistent list of\ndocuments related to the review process, and includes a timeline for making these documents\navailable to the public for every grant competition conducted by the Corporation. This policy\nwas not in effect during the 2010 SIF GARP.\n\nAreas of concern that emerged during our evaluation are as follows:\n\n 1. Corporation staff participated in reviewing two applications during the GARP expert\n review phase;\n 2. Need for enhancements to the Reviewer Recruitment Process;\n 3. Final decision to award 11 grants was not fully documented;\n 4. No formal policy exists for defining the roles and responsibilities of Corporation staff in\n reviewing conflicts of interest for participants in the review process;\n 5. No formal policy on Corporation staff contact with potential grantees during GARP; and\n 6. The existing Corporation GARP did not include procedures on issuing a Notice of\n Funding Availability (NOFA) to obtain public input.\n\n 1\n\x0c BACKGROUND\n\nThe Social Innovation Fund, enacted under the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009,\nis designed to provide a combination of Federal grants and private funds to create and expand\neffective solutions across three issue areas: economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth\ndevelopment and school support. Initiatives created by the SIF are to directly impact low-\nincome families and also serve as models of service that may be duplicated in communities\nacross the country. SIF grant recipients are required to provide matching funds amounting to $3\nfor every $1 in Federal grant funds.\n\nDuring its initial year in 2010, Congress appropriated $50 million for the SIF. After holding a\nnumber of planning meetings, which included input from staff and other stakeholders, the\nCorporation issued its NOFA on February 16, 2010. As of the deadline on April 8, 2010, the\nCorporation had received 69 applications, 54 of which were deemed compliant with the basic\nSIF requirements.\n\nThe Corporation then implemented a three-stage review over a three-month period, utilizing\nmore than 60 non-Corporation experts with extensive experience as social innovators, nonprofit\ndirectors and evaluators as external reviewers. During the blended (expert) and evaluation\nstages of review, the applications were assessed against the full set of criteria published in the\nNOFA, and were evaluated based on their program design, organizational capacity and budget.\nIn the final stage of the review, senior members of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s staff were joined by\nexternal reviewers to assess the qualities of the top rated applications.\n\nThe Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s SIF Director was recused from consideration of any application that included\nhis former clients or employers during the preceding two years, and was removed entirely from\nthe selection of the final SIF grantees. The Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s former Chief Executive Officer also\ndid not participate in the selection process. He was recused after the Corporation received a\nnotice of intent to apply for a SIF grant from an organization with which he had had a previous\nbusiness relationship.\nOf the 54 compliant applications considered, 16 advanced to the third phase of the review. The\nfinal 11 SIF grant awardees were notified on July 13, 2010, and were formally announced at\nCorporation Headquarters on July 22, 2010. The grantees were as follows:\n\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Jobs for the Future, Inc. ($7.7 million; 2-year grant)\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Local Initiatives Support Corporation ($4.2 million; 1-year grant)\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Mayor\xe2\x80\x99s Fund to Advance New York City ($5.7 million; 1-year grant)\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 REDF ($3 million; 2-year grant)\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky ($2 million; 2-year grant)\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Missouri Foundation for Health ($2 million; 2-year grant)\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 National AIDS Fund ($3.6 million; 1-year grant)\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c \xef\x82\xb7 New Profit, Inc. ($5 million; 1-year grant)\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation ($10 million; 1-year grant)\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Venture Philanthropy Partners ($4 million; 2-year grant)\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 United Way of Greater Cincinnati ($2 million; 2-year grant)\n\n\n\n\n RESULTS OF EVALUATION\n\nFinding 1. Participation of Corporation staff to review applications during the GARP\n expert review phase.\n\n The initial phase of review for the 54 compliant applications was known as the blended\n (expert) phase. The experts (in most cases, three per panel) worked on 16 panels to assess\n applications against the full set of vetting criteria in the NOFA. The 16 panels were divided\n into two groups of eight and organized by two factors: issue area and size distribution,\n allowing each of the 54 applications to be considered twice.\n\n However, during our evaluation, we found that two applications were reviewed differently\n than all others during this phase. The applications were reviewed by one expert panel and\n by Corporation staff. All other applications were reviewed by two expert panels.\n\n One of the two applications reviewed by Corporation staff initially was determined to be out\n of compliance because of a shortage of available matching funds. The grant applicant\n initially did not meet the program\xe2\x80\x99s match requirement because one of its match letters\n proposed to contribute an unspecified amount. This was later clarified during a compliance\n briefing with the applicant. The applicant verified that the \xe2\x80\x9cundetermined amount\xe2\x80\x9d the match\n sponsor was willing to provide was any remaining amount needed to meet the match\n requirement. Once the compliance decision was reversed, the grant application was\n assigned to a panel after the review was underway. However, because of the time\n restrictions that the panels were under, several reviewers from other potential panels voiced\n concern that they were unable to accept an additional application at that time. The\n Corporation was therefore unable to assign the application to a second panel because it did\n not want the applicant to potentially receive an unfair or inflammatory review by a\n disgruntled panel with insufficient time to perform its function.\n\n The other application, reviewed by Corporation staff, was initially assigned to two panels\n during panel assignments. However, an error was made when the panel assignments and\n applications were provided to the panel members. The application was erroneously omitted\n from the panel\xe2\x80\x99s review package. Near the conclusion of the review, OGPO staff identified\n the error, and arrangements were made for a panel comprised of Corporation staff to\n convene and perform the second review.\n\n Because the SIF-GARP project had a very stringent prior experience requirement for the\n external reviewers, and the level of conflicts of interest, time commitments and schedule\n conflicts required some recruited reviewers to drop out, it did not appear that the\n Corporation had sufficient time to recruit additional external reviewers to address these two\n applications.\n\n 3\n\x0c As the Corporation placed heavy emphasis on having an appropriate SIF and non-profit,\n philanthropic, and public sector background to become a reviewer, allowing Corporation\n staff to review these grant applications during one phase of the review could give the\n appearance that these two applications could potentially not be given the same quality of\n review as all other grant applications. To mitigate an appearance of unfairness, the\n Corporation used experienced staff that had been involved in other Corporation GARP\n reviews.\n\nRecommendation\n\n 1. The Corporation should secure alternate reviewers who would be available during the\n grants application review process. In addition, it should develop a policy to address use\n of Corporation staff to review applications when recruitment issues arise and alternate\n reviewers cannot be obtained.\n\nCorporation Response\n\nThe Corporation generally concurs with the recommendation. It stated that during its FY 2011\nSIF grant competition, it recruited alternate reviewers, which proved to be effective. The\nCorporation plans to revise its Grant Application Reviews: Procedures Manual (GARP\nProcedures Manual) to address how staff will be utilized when there are not enough external\nreviewers due to extenuating circumstances.\n\nOIG Comment\n\nThe Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s response satisfies the intent of our recommendation.\n\n\nFinding 2. Improvements needed in recruitment of SIF external reviewers.\n\nThe SIF Peer Review Recruitment process was a unique activity relative to the established\nGARP. The Corporation departed from its existing reviewer database to compile a completely\nexternal reviewer pool by seeking reviewers who had a specific background. Corporation staff,\nand at least one member of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Board of Directors, believed that the existing\nGARP procedures did not fully meet the needs of the new SIF program.\n\nDuring our interviews with a sample of 23 external SIF reviewers, 15 expressed concern that\nthey were not given adequate time to review the applications assigned to them. The quality of\nreviews could be adversely impacted by not allowing adequate time for reviewers to perform\ntheir duties.\n\nWe found that 11 out of 23 reviewers had Harvard University affiliations. Focusing on reviewers\nwith affiliations at one location could prevent the Corporation from obtaining a wider breadth of\nexpert knowledge of and insights into SIF programs.\n\nIn October 2010, the Corporation conducted a debriefing on the 2010 SIF GARP in which it\nidentified improvements needed in its recruitment of reviewers. Reforms for the 2011 SIF\nGARP included initiating reviewer recruitment and selection at least three months before\nreviews started. In addition, it planned to develop a database of qualified reviewers and post a\npublic call for reviewers.\n\n 4\n\x0cWe observed that requirements for reviewer recruitment were not always followed. Two out of\n23 sampled reviewers whom we interviewed did not have the requisite 10 years of nonprofit or\nsocial innovation experience. The Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s recruitment announcement outlined\nrequirements that a reviewer should have 10-plus years of relevant leadership experience in the\nnonprofit, philanthropic or public sectors.\n\nFurthermore, it did not appear that the Corporation verified information submitted by all\nreviewers in their profiles. In its recruiting instructions, the Corporation required reviewers to\nsubmit/update their Reviewer Profile contact information and experience in eGrants1.\n\nTwo reviewers did not complete their reviewer profiles in eGrants and there was no resume in\neGrants for one reviewer. OGPO staff stated that they made several requests that all review\nparticipants submit their profiles in eGrants. One reviewer did not receive payment for services,\nand OGPO staff stated that may have affected the reviewer\xe2\x80\x99s compliance. Regarding the\nreviewer who did not enter any information in eGrants, Corporation staff stated that this reviewer\nwas especially difficult to contact throughout the Late-Stage review, and did not physically come\nto the Corporation for the discussion (participated by phone), so their numerous efforts to collect\nrequired documents were unsuccessful.\n\nAbsent more stringent controls, inexperienced reviewers not meeting the minimum requirements\ncould be allowed to participate in the review process, thereby undermining the integrity of the\nprocess and the public\xe2\x80\x99s confidence in the fairness of the SIF grantee selections.\n\nRecommendations\n\n 2a. The Corporation should validate the experience of all reviewers, and should ensure that\n reviewers submit required documentation prior to participating on a review panel.\n\n 2b. The Corporation should update its existing GARP procedures by incorporating\n suggestions related to SIF reviewer recruitment outlined in its October 2010 debriefing,\n to include: recruiting reviewers in a timely manner; developing a database of qualified\n SIF reviewers; and recruiting reviewers by posting a public call via its website.\n\n\nCorporation Response\n\nThe Corporation generally concurs with the recommendation. It stated that it enhanced its\nrecruitment process during the FY 2011 SIF process by expanding its outreach to potential\nreviewers and issuing a public call for potential reviewers on its website. In addition, it required\nall potential reviewers to have a comprehensive resume reviewed by OGPO before being\ninvited to participate as a SIF expert reviewer. The Corporation will update its existing GARP\nProcedures Manual to fully describe its recruitment process.\n\nOIG Comment\n\nThe Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s response satisfies the intent of our recommendation.\n\n\n1\n OGPO staff stated that the eGrants database is the source that is utilized to ensure documentation of a reviewer\xe2\x80\x99s\nparticipation, and serves as the mechanism for initiating payments for reviewer services.\n\n 5\n\x0cFinding 3. Final decisions to award 11 SIF grants were not fully documented.\n\nThe Senior Advisor for the SIF Program had been delegated the authority as grantee selection\nofficial because the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s former CEO and the SIF Director had been recused to avoid\nthe appearance of a conflict of interest. The Senior Adviser used a series of meetings with\nsenior Corporation staff to determine which applicants would be funded after each review\nphase. The three phases were designated as the (a) blended (also referred to as expert)\nphase; (b) evaluation phase; and (c) late stage review phase. The blended review used experts\nto assess applications against the full set of criteria in the NOFA. The evaluation phase used\nreviewers to focus on the use of evidence, data and evaluation (a sub-set of the NOFA criteria).\nThe late stage review involved three external experts and senior Corporation staff. They\nexamined and provided input on each remaining applicant based on the portfolio criteria in the\nNOFA with an emphasis on four dimensions: (1) strength of relationships and collaborations, (2)\nopportunity for scale, (3) potential to impact public discussion, and (4) the rigor of sophistication\nof evidence and evaluation.\n\nAfter the blended (expert) review, a consensus meeting was held on May 14, 2010, at which it\nwas determined that 31 applications would advance to the evaluation phase from a group of 54\ncompliant applications. The meeting was conducted in two parts because of the SIF Director\xe2\x80\x99s\nand the SIF Strategic Advisor\xe2\x80\x99s recusal from discussion of the application for New Profit, Inc.\nThe SIF Director was an Executive Partner of New Profit Inc., while working as a salaried\nemployee of Monitor Group, a consulting firm. The SIF Director presented the results from the\nevaluation review excluding New Profit. The Senior Advisor presented the results from the\nreview of New Profit. These decisions were documented and justifications were provided\ndetermining whether an application would advance.\n\nAfter the evaluation review, the Corporation held another consensus meeting on June 3, 2010,\nin which it was determined that 16 applications would advance for further review in the late\nstage review phase. The meeting was also conducted in two parts because of the above-\nmentioned recusals. Again, the SIF Director presented the results from the evaluation review\nexcluding New Profit, and the Senior Advisor presented the results from the review of New\nProfit. These decisions were documented and justifications were provided about whether an\napplication would advance.\n\nDuring the late stage review conducted June 9, 2010, the Corporation included four expert\nreviewers to participate in discussions with Corporation staff focusing on the remaining 16\napplications. Each expert reviewer was assigned, along with Corporation staff, to participate on\none of four panels. The focus of the meeting was to develop the portfolio of grant applications\nto determine the final selection of applicants to be awarded the inaugural group of grants. No\nratings were assigned to the applications. Each panel provided different perspectives on their\nassigned applications.\n\nIn a PowerPoint presentation to Senior Managers, it was stated that the ideal SIF portfolio would\nleverage the individual strengths of applicants and create the most robust network and \xe2\x80\x9clearning\ncommunity\xe2\x80\x9d of grantees possible. The Corporation developed a Basic Portfolio Criteria chart\nwhich reflected what applications addressed each criterion, and that chart was used as a\nreference for discussions. The three major areas of focus were (a) geography; (b) the type of\nSIF program; and (c) the leveraging of additional resources and grant amount requested.\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cCorporation staff stated that each application that made it through this stage of the review\nprocess was fundable (i.e., each application had an equal chance of being awarded a SIF\ngrant). The identification of the selected applicants focused on their best/unique value to the\nSIF portfolio on the basis of the criteria considered and expected outcomes that were stated in\nthe NOFO. However, in our review of the meeting notes from the late stage review, the\nCorporation could not provide documentation to demonstrate how it determined its final decision\nto award the 11 grants that were ultimately funded. In addition, the Corporation performed an\nanalysis in which it assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the five non-funded SIF\napplicants. But this analysis made no mention of the strengths and weaknesses of the 11\nfunded applicants. No rationale was provided as to why the five non-funded applications did not\nfit into the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s final portfolio, despite the fact that four of the five unfunded applications\nhad received a rating of \xe2\x80\x9csatisfactory\xe2\x80\x9d during the evaluation phase.\n\nOn June 17, 2010, a pre-decision meeting was held in which Corporation staff approved the\nfunding of 11 grants. Documents from that meeting make no mention of the five applicants that\nwere excluded from the final portfolio.\n\nThe Corporation does not have a policy on documenting its award decisions. Therefore, final\ndecisions on SIF awards were made without being fully documented. Without maintaining\ncomplete documentation at each stage of review, Corporation management will not have access\nto all historical data on SIF grant decisions which would assist in making future SIF decisions.\nMaintaining such documentation was especially critical for this inaugural group of grantees\nbecause the former CEO and SIF Director had been recused from the majority of the GARP\ndecision-making.\n\nRecommendation\n\n 3. The Corporation should develop policies to ensure that its decisions regarding grant\n awards are fully documented.\n\nCorporation Response\n\nThe Corporation agreed that the FY 2010 Late Stage review process did not have the same\nlevel of documentation as the other review stages. It did not believe there was a need, or\nadequate time, to develop documentation similar to the other reviews in the FY 2010 GARP\nbecause the initial meeting to develop the final portfolio of grantees occurred immediately after\nthe Late Stage review meeting. Both meetings included the same Corporation officials. The\nCorporation did not document each possible portfolio combination of grantees because it was\nimpractical to do so. Because the FY 2010 competition was creating the inaugural SIF portfolio,\nit was not feasible to develop this type of documentation.\n\nDuring the FY 2011 SIF grant competition, the Corporation fully documented its rationale for\nexcluding one application that advanced to the clarification stage (the last stage prior to\napproval for funding).\n\nRegarding the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s recommendation to develop policies to ensure that all decisions are fully\ndocumented, the Corporation believes that its internal policy, Funding Approval Policy (CPO-\n2009-01-2011-5) and the procedures specified in the GARP Procedures Manual adequately\naddresses the recommendation.\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cOIG Comment\n\nWe acknowledge that the Corporation has made efforts in its FY 2011 SIF competition to\ndocument its final award decisions. However, we do not believe that its existing policies fully\naddress Recommendation Number 3. We recommend that the Corporation document its\nprocedures for maintaining documentation for its decision process at every review phase. The\nCorporation\xe2\x80\x99s decision to award a SIF grant cannot be fully transparent unless it implements\nand follows policies and procedures requiring that all documentation be maintained for\nsuccessful and unsuccessful applicants. The Corporation stated that during the 2011 SIF\ncompetition, it maintained documentation for its grant decisions to an extent that should mitigate\nour concerns.\n\n\nFinding 4. No formal policy exists for defining the roles and responsibilities of\n Corporation staff in reviewing conflicts of interest for participants in the\n review process.\n\nThe Corporation requires reviewers (external and internal) to complete a Conflict of Interest\n(COI) statement. COIs are reviewed at various stages during GARP. During the SIF GARP,\nthe review of COIs was conducted by the program office and the OGPO. In the past, this\nfunction had been centrally located with OGPO. OGPO staff had not received official training on\nreviewing COIs, but when questions arose, they sought advice from the Office of General\nCounsel (OGC). There is no formal Corporation policy on reviewing COIs submitted by\nreviewers. In addition, there is no policy that identifies which Corporation office is responsible\nfor conducting the review of COIs.\n\nPrior to participating in the GARP review, all reviewers were provided COI instructions directing\nthem to examine their assigned applications to check for possible conflicts of interest, and to\nsign the COI form and return it within 12 business hours from the time of receipt. During the SIF\nGARP, OGPO asked reviewers during their orientation to send an e-mail notifying the\nCorporation immediately of any potential COIs. In addition, OGPO staff asked the reviewers to\ndocument on the COI forms any issues that they had previously raised and how those issues\nwere addressed. We found seven instances in which COIs were disclosed on the COI forms for\nreviewers, and one instance for a staff facilitator. Our review of the COI disclosures found that\nsome had been signed as being reviewed by Corporation staff after the SIF review process had\nbegun and, in some instances, after it had ended.\n\nSIF program staff maintained a spreadsheet of COIs; however, the spreadsheet did not identify\nat which phase of the SIF process reviewers\xe2\x80\x99 conflicts, if any, had been evaluated.\n\nDuring our interviews of a sample of 23 reviewers, we found that three had conflicts that were\nnot reflected in the spreadsheets or on the COI forms. In addition, we found instances in which\nexternal reviewers who had identified potential COIs had to be removed from a panel after the\napplication review process was underway, thus causing a disruption to the panel. It appears\nthat some reviewers did not follow instructions by disclosing conflicts on the COI forms that they\nhad previously identified by e-mail.\n\nRequiring reviewers to provide both an e-mail and a COI form appears to be duplicative.\nReviewers with COIs could be using only one method of identifying conflicts, and if those\nconflicts are reviewed by OGPO or program staff, COI information may not be reconciled in one\ncentral location and tracked properly.\n\n 8\n\x0cRecommendation\n\n 4. The Corporation should formalize its procedures for evaluating reviewer conflicts of\n interest. It should identify the responsible office for conducting reviews of conflicts of\n interest and detail the steps that will be performed by the individual reviewing the COI.\n Also, the Corporation should ensure that training is provided to staff members within the\n identified responsible office.\n\nCorporation Response\n\nThe Corporation generally concurs with the recommendation, and stated that its existing GARP\nProcedures Manual outlines its practices and procedures for reviewing conflicts of interest. In\naddition, OGPO is responsible for conducting reviews of the possible conflicts, with consultation\nwith OGC as needed. Since the 2010 SIF application process, the Corporation has drafted a\nmore detailed set of procedures entitled, Conflict of Interest Procedures for External Peer\nReview, which will be finalized soon.\n\nOIG Comment\n\nThe Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s response satisfies the intent of our recommendation.\n\n\nFinding 5. No formal policy on Corporation staff contact with potential grantees\nduring GARP.\n\nDuring the course of the 2010 SIF application review, the Corporation had no policies or\nprocedures to address Corporation staff contact with potential grantees. On February 18, 2011,\nthe former COO issued an e-mail providing guidance to Corporation staff on Communicating\nwith Grantees and Applicants during the Grant Application Review Process. Prior to this\nguidance, the Corporation had not considered the extent to which its staff might have contact\nwith potential grantees. Absent a formal policy and proper controls, Corporation staff could\ninadvertently provide non-public information regarding GARP activities to potential grantees that\ncould result in a competitive advantage for a particular applicant.\n\nRecommendation\n\n 5. The Corporation should formalize the guidelines identified in the former COO\xe2\x80\x99s e-mail,\n dated February 18, 2011, by issuing a standard Corporation policy.\n\nCorporation Response\n\nThe Corporation generally concurs with the recommendation. It has plans to expand existing\nprocedures and principles outlined by the Chief Operating Officer\xe2\x80\x99s guidance by developing a\npolicy to be adopted in time for the FY 2012 grant competitions.\n\nOIG Comment\n\nThe Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s response satisfies the intent of our recommendation.\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cFinding 6. Existing Corporation GARP did not include procedures on issuing a NOFA\n for public input.\n\nThe initial draft NOFA was sent out to solicit public input. This had not been done for any other\nNOFA, and the existing GARP did not include procedures on issuing the NOFA for public input.\nBecause the SIF program was new to the Corporation, its staff, and at least one member of the\nCorporation\xe2\x80\x99s Board of Directors, believed that the existing GARP procedures did not fully meet\nthe needs of the new program.\n\nWithout standard procedures on issuing the NOFA for public input, Corporation management\nmay not be aware of the roles and responsibilities of its staff in issuing, reviewing, and\nincorporating public input into the final NOFA.\n\nThe Corporation had a debriefing in October 2010 on the inaugural SIF GARP process in which\nit identified areas that needed improvement. During the debriefing, the Corporation made plans\nto continue distributing the NOFA to obtain public input.\n\nRecommendation\n\n 6. The Corporation should update its existing GARP procedures to define management\xe2\x80\x99s\n intent in using public input for the SIF GARP. These procedures should include, but not\n be limited to, which Corporation office will be responsible for tracking and reviewing the\n comments. In addition, the Corporation should outline which office will be responsible\n for initiating any changes to the NOFA as a result of the input received.\n\nCorporation Response\n\nThe Corporation concurs with the recommendation. It has plans to update its Policy CEO-100-\n2011-14, (Policies and Procedures for Working with the Office of the Executive Secretariat), and\nthe GARP Procedures Manual to reflect its processes for soliciting public input in future draft\nSIF Notices.\n\nOIG Comment\n\nThe Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s response satisfies the intent of our recommendation.\n\n\n OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nThe objective of this evaluation, communicated in the October 6, 2010, notification letter to\nCorporation management, was to determine whether the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s GARP policies and\nprocedures are fair and objective, and consistent with applicable laws and regulations. We\nspecifically examined GARP policies as they related to the 2010 SIF grant competition\n(designated by the Corporation as \xe2\x80\x9cSIF-1\xe2\x80\x9d). We conducted our review in accordance with the\nQuality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of Inspectors General on\nIntegrity and Efficiency.\n\nThe evaluation standards required us to plan and perform the evaluation, obtain an\nunderstanding of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s GARP process, and review its existing policies and\nprocedures. We interviewed SIF program staff, OGPO staff, and other Corporation staff\ninvolved in the review process. We judgmentally selected 28 external peer reviewers to\n\n 10\n\x0cinterview. Twenty-three of the external reviewers responded to our request. We interviewed\nthose reviewers to obtain an understanding of their involvement during the GARP process,\ndetermine if any conflicts of interest existed, and how they were resolved. We assessed the\nresults from the panel reviews of each SIF application.\nWe reviewed supporting documentation related to the decision making process for the final SIF\ngrant awards. We reviewed media reports concerning the inaugural group of SIF awards, and\nfollowed up with the Corporation on the disposition of any allegations or concerns expressed in\nthose reports. We corroborated those concerns during our interviews with the SIF reviewers.\nWe conducted our evaluation fieldwork between November 2010 and May 2011.\n\n EXIT CONFERENCE\n\nWe conducted an exit conference with Corporation representatives on May 31, 2011. The\nCorporation\xe2\x80\x99s response to the draft report is included in its entirety in Appendix A.\n\nThis evaluation report is intended solely for the information and use of the OIG, the Corporation,\nand the U. S. Congress, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than\nthese specified parties.\n\n\n /s/ Stuart Axenfeld (signature on original)\n___________________________________________\nAssistant Inspector General for Audit\nOffice of Inspector General\nCorporation for National and Community Service\nAugust 19, 2011\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c APPENDIX A\n_______________________________________________________________\n CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND\n COMMUNITY SERVICE\n\n RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT\n\x0cNATIONAL&!\nCOMMUNITY\nSERVICEttte\n\n\n TO: Stuart Axenfeld\n Assistant Inspector General for Audit\n\n\n\n FROM: Paul Carttar, Director, Social Innovation Fund\n\n DATE: August 8, 2011\n\n SUBJECT: Response to Draft Report: OIG Evaluation of the 2010 Social Innovation Fund\n Grant Application Review Process (GARP)\n\n Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Report: OIG Evaluation of the 2010 Social\n Innovation Fund Grant Application Review Process (GARP) ("Draft Report"). We agree with\n OIG\'s overall conclusion that the Corporation\'s FY 2010 Social Innovation Fund grant\n competition was fair and objective. In addition, we acknowledge the technical matters and\n opportunities for improvement included in OIG\'s findings. In many cases, OIG identified\n matters which we have already addressed in the FY 2011 Social Innovation Fund ("SIF")\n competition. In other cases, the matters raised by OIG were included in more general\n improvements to the Corporation\'s Grant Application Review policies, procedures and\n processes. We are responding to all recommendations at this time. Below are our responses to\n the specific findings in the Draft Report.\n\n Finding 1 - Participation of Corporation staff to review application during the GARP\n expert review phase.\n\n Corporation Response: As noted by the OIG, the need to use Corporation staff during the\n expert review phase was an unexpected complication of the FY 2010 SIF competition. The\n Corporation agrees that it should recruit alternate expert reviewers in future SIF grant\n competitions. For the FY 2011 SIF grant competition, the Corporation recruited qualified\n alternate reviewers and had those alternates complete the same orientation sessions conducted for\n all reviewers. This process proved to be effective during the FY 2011 SIF expert reviews, and\n the Corporation will revise its Grant Application Reviews: Procedures Manual ("GARP\n Procedures Manual") to include procedures on the recruitment and orientation of alternate expert\n reviewers.\n\n The Corporation uses various review models, some of which specifically contemplate staff\n participation. The GARP Procedures Manual will be updated to specifically address how staff\n can be utilized when staff participation was not originally called for, but there are not enough\n external reviewers due to extenuating circumstances.\n\n\n\n\n Senior Corps * AmeriCorps * Learn and Serve America\n 1201 New York Avenue, NW * Washington, DC 20525 * 202-606-5000 * www.nationalservice.gov\n\x0c Finding 2 - Improvements needed in recruitment of SIF external reviewers.\n\n Corporation Response: The Corporation agrees that the SIF expert reviewer recruitment\n process needs to ensure public confidence in the overall quality of the SIF GARP process. The\n FY 20 II SIF process included significant enhancements to the recruitment and selection of\n potential reviewers. Recruitment included expanded outreach to potential reviewers and a public\n call for potential reviewers on the Corporation s website. All potential reviewers had a\n comprehensive resume review by the Office of Grants Policy and Operations before being\n invited to be a SIF expert reviewer. In the FY 2011 SIP GARP process, reviewers were given\n more time to conduct the reviews, were given fewer applications to review, and their review\n process was streamlined. The Corporation will update the GARP Procedures Manual to fully\n describe the recruitment process.\n\n Finding 3 - Final decisions to award 11 SIF grants were not fully documented.\n\n Corporation Response: The Corporation agrees that the FY 201 0 Late Stage review process\n did not produce the same level of documentation as the other review stages. This occurred for\n several reasons specific to the circumstances surrounding the tY 2010 SIF GARP. First the\n Late Stage review process took place at a meeting of the external and internal reviewers, which\n was immediately followed by a separate meeting of the SIF staff and the sen ior Corporation\n officials who participated in the Late Stage review. This second meeting began within minutes\n of the Late Stage review meeting, with the same Corporation staff present (lhe Late Stage expert\n reviewers did not participate in the second meeting). During this second meeting-and through\n some additional discussions among SIP and senior Corporation staff- the recommendations for\n the final PY 2010 SIP portfolio were developed. Because the initial meeting to develop the\n recommended portfolio immediately followed and included the same Corporation officials as the\n Late Stage review meeting, there was no need or time to develop documentation similar to the\n other reviews in the PY 2010 SIP GARP process.\n\n Second, the Late Stage review was intended to inform and facilitate a discussion of how to\n establish an overall SIP portfolio of programs. Unlike the earlier reviews, it was not the basis\n upon which individual applications were advanced or eliminated from the competition. Third,\n the Late Stage review and the discussion which immediately followed were focused on the\n characteristics of an overall portfolio of programs, taking into account such factors as coverage\n of the priority issue areas, geographic distribution of programs, and the extent to which programs\n would serve urban or rural areas. As is true of all of the Corporation\'s grant competitions, these\n types of considerations are not "strengths or weaknesses" of a particular application; they are\n factors relevant to all applications and only have significance in regard to potential\n configurations of the overall program. Consistent with its general practices, the Corporation did\n not document each of the possible portfolio permutations as part of developing the final\n recommended portfolio, because it is clearly impractical to do so. This is particularly true of the\n PY 2010 SIP grant competition, because there was no pre-existing portfolio of SlF grantees.\n When there is an existing portfolio, a decision in regard to any particular application can have an\n identifiable impact on the characteristics of the overall portfoljo. This marginal effect is easier to\n document and examine. Because the PY 2010 competition was creating the inaugural overall\n SIP portfolio, it was not feasible to develop this type of documentation for each application.\n\n\n\n 2\n Senior Corps * AmeriCorps * Learn and Serve America\n1201 New York Avenue, NW * Washington, DC 20525 * 202-606-5000 * www.nationalservice.gov\n\x0c As pointed out in the OIG\'s finding, the Corporation considered each of the applications that\n went into the Late Stage review as fully appropriate for funding. In developing a recommended\n portfolio from that pool the Corporation exercised its discretion in how to balance the various\n (and sometimes competing) factors that needed to be considered. The particular circumstances\n of meetings to develop the recommendations made full documentation of the Late Stage review\n impractical and unnecessary. Thus, the Late Stage review was not documented on an\n application-by-application basis. Although not documented in the same manner, the Corporation\n carried out the Late Stage review and its final discretionary award selections with the same rigor\n and dedication as the earlier parts ofthe process, which the OIG has concluded were fairly and\n objectively carried out.\n\n In addition, the Corporation also believes that the changes made as part of the FY 2011 SIF grant\n competition sufficiently mitigates the OIG\'s concerns. In FY 2011, the Corporation engaged in\n separate reviews by external and internal reviewers, and documented review results for each\n application. A total of six applications were advanced to the applicant clarification stage. After\n applicant clarification, only one application was not recommended for funding, and the rationale\n for excluding this application was fully documented.\n\n Finally, regarding the recommendation to develop policies to ensure that decisions regarding\n grant awards are fully documented, the Corporation believes that the policies included in the\n Funding Approval Policy (CPO-2009-01-2011-5) and the procedures specified in the GARP\n Procedures Manual adequately address this recommendation.\n\n Finding 4 - No formal policy exists for defining the roles and responsibilities of\n Corporation staff in reviewing conflicts of interest for participants in the review process.\n\n Corporation Response: The Corporation\'s practices and procedures for reviewing conflicts of\n interest are described in the GARP Procedures Manual; the Office of Grants Policy and\n Operations is responsible for conducting reviews of possible conflicts of interest, and consults\n with the Office of General Counsel as needed. Since the FY 2010 SIF application process, the\n Corporation has drafted a more detailed set of procedures entitled Conflict of Interest Procedures\n for External Peer Review. These procedures will be finalized shortly.\n\n Finding 5 - No formal policy on Corporation staff contact with potential grantees during\n GARP.\n\n Corporation Response: The Corporation did have procedures in place which addressed staff\n contact with potential grantees. The GARP Procedures Manual states that the Corporation\n ensures the fairness of its grant competitions, in part, by ensuring that information for all\n applicants and potential applicants is publicly available. Thus all staff contact was through some\n public forum, or made on a public and transparent basis (such as recording technical assistance\n calls and making them available on the Corporation\'s website). The Corporation will expand\n upon these procedures, and the principles stated by the Chief Operating Officer\'s February 18,\n 2011 pronouncement, in a policy to be adopted in time for the FY 2012 grant competitions.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n Senior Corps * AmeriCorps * Learn and Serve America\n1201 New York Avenue, NW * Washington, DC 20525 * 202-606-5000 * www.nationalservice.gov\n\x0c Finding 6 - Existing Corporation GARP did not include procedures on issuing a NOFA for\n public input.\n\n Corporation Response: The Corporation has not historically published its draft NOFAs for\n public input and does not antkipate doing so for any programs other than the Social [nnovation\n Fund. Regardless, the Corporation will update Policy CEO-l00-2011-14 (Policies and\n Procedures for Working with the Office of the ~ xecutive Secretariat) and the GARP Procedures\n Manual to reflect its processes for soliciting public input on future draft SIF Notices.\n\n CC: William Anderson, Chief Financial Officer\n Rocco Gaudio, Deputy CFO for Grants and Field Financial Management\n Margaret Rosenberry, Office of Grants Management\n Valerie Green, General Counsel\n Idara Nickelson, Acting Chief of Program Operations\n Vielka Garibaldi, Director, Office of Grants Policy and Operations\n\n\n\n\n 4\n Senior Corps * AmeriCorps * Learn and Serve America\n1201 New York Avenue, NW * Washington, DC 20525 * 202-606-5000 * www.nationalservice.gov\n\x0c'


type: other

text:
Craiova rămâne teren interzis - BIHON
 Publi24 BIHON Bihon CSM Oradea Craiova rămâne teren interzis Craiova rămâne teren interzis De Gavril Nutiu la 10. noiembrie 2015 13:05 1Comentariu CSM CSU Oradea a pierdut meciul din deplasare cu SCM U Craiova, scor 68-73. Mult-aşteptata revenire de formă a baschetbaliştilor orădeni nu s-a produs din păcate în partida de la Craiova, unde CSM CSU a înregistrat al doilea eşec stagional. Craiova continuă să rămână un teren interzis pentru echipa noastră, care a fost învinsă acolo cu regularitate în ultimele trei ediţii (scoruri 95-98, 64-69, respectiv 78-86).
 Formaţia orădeană a practicat acelaşi joc modest pe care l-a arătat în precedentele două partide, în special în faza ofensivă. Pentru a treia oară consecutiv, CSM CSU Oradea nu reuşeşte să treacă de bariera de 70 de puncte înscrise (67 cu U BT Cluj-Napoca, 62 cu BCM U Piteşti, 68 cu SCM U Craiova). Echipa este lipsită de imaginaţie în atac, unde ceva nu se leagă, chimia dintre jucători pare să nu fie cea ideală. Procentajul slab al aruncărilor de două puncte constituie o altă problemă în ultimele trei meciuri.
 Partida de la Craiova a fost echilibrată până în ultimele cinci minute. Cele două echipe s-au succedat la conducere, fără a se desprinde însă la diferenţe mai mari de câteva puncte.
 Ultimul sfert, nefast
 Deznodământul partidei s-a decis în sfertul patru. Oaspeţii s-au mai aflat o singură dată în avantaj, scor 49-50 (’32), după care gazdele s-au instalat definitiv la conducere. Orădenii au ratat mai multe atacuri, în timp ce craiovenilor au început să le intre aruncările de la distanţă. Echipa noastră a fost incapabilă să reacţioneze şi gazdele reuşesc să se impună, după un meci de factură tehnică foarte slabă, scor final 73-68.
 Antrenorul Cristian Achim este nemulţumit de randamentul unor jucători, printre care şi cei autohtoni. „Jucătorii români au marcat doar patru puncte în acest meci şi trei în cel cu Piteştiul. Accidentarea lui Ţibîrnă a dezechilibrat complet echipa, aceasta fiind una din explicaţiile scăderii de formă”, ne-a declarat tehnicianul CSM CSU Oradea.
 Sala Sporturilor din Craiova. Spectatori: 2.000
 SCM U Craiova – CSM CSU Oradea 73-68 (16-15, 20-20, 11-11, 26-22).
 SCM U Craiova: Durasovic 9, Bozovic 14 (1×3), Burlacu 11 (1), C. Stănescu, Micic 8 (1), B. Popescu 7, Covington 5 (1), Johnson 15 (3), Grubor 4. Nu a jucat Damian. Antrenor: Oliver Popovic.
 CSM CSU Oradea: Mandache 4 (1×3), Barnette 12, Markovic 11 (3), Paşca, D. Popescu, Lucic 17 (2), Barac 8 (1), Nuhanovic 9, Nicolescu, Franklin 7. Nu au jucat: Ionescu, Pop. Antrenor: Cristian Achim. Asistent: Milan Mitrovic.
 Arbitri: Alexandru Olaru, Bukaresti László, Şerban Raşoga. Comisar FR Baschet: Eugen Poenaru.
 Eliminări pentru 5 faulturi: Durasovic / -.
 Taguri: baschet, craiova, Cristian Achim, csm oradea 1Comentariu Filtreaza comentariile Arata toate comentariile Foarte bun (+10 sau mai mult) Bun (+5 sau mai mult) Mediu (0 sau mai mult) Rau (-5 sau mai rau) Foarte rau (-10 sau mai rau) Herzlichen Dank für Ihren Kommentar - dieser wird nach einer Prüfung von uns freigeschaltet. Beachten Sie, dass dies gerade an Wochenenden etwas länger dauern kann. Kommentare von registrierten Usern werden sofort freigeschaltet - hier registrieren! inca 1000


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
20.7.2017
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 189/56
 EEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMAS
 Nr. 36/2016
 2016 m. vasario 5 d.
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas EEE susitarimo XXI priedas (Statistika) [2017/1319]
 EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,
 atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau – EEE susitarimas), ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2015 m. liepos 13 d. Komisijos deleguotasis reglamentas (ES) 2015/1557, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 543/2009 dėl augalininkystės statistikos (1);
 (2)
 todėl EEE susitarimo XXI priedas turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeistas,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 EEE susitarimo XXI priedo 24 punktas (Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 543/2009) papildomas taip:
 „su pakeitimais, padarytais:
 —
 32015 R 1557: 2015 m. liepos 13 d. Komisijos deleguotuoju reglamentu (ES) 2015/1557 (OL L 244, 2015 9 19, p. 11).“
 2 straipsnis
 Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede skelbtinas Deleguotojo reglamento (ES) 2015/1557 tekstas islandų ir norvegų kalbomis yra autentiškas.
 3 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja 2016 m. vasario 6 d., jei buvo pateikti visi pranešimai pagal EEE susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį (*1).
 4 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE skyriuje ir EEE priede.
 Priimta Briuselyje 2016 m. vasario 5 d.
 EEE jungtinio komiteto vardu
 Pirmininkas
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) OL L 244, 2015 9 19, p. 11.
 (*1) Konstitucinių reikalavimų nenurodyta.


text:
 22.6.2017
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 161/25
 DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALGS AFGØRELSE
 Nr. 248/2015
 af 30. oktober 2015
 om ændring af bilag II (Tekniske forskrifter, standarder, prøvning og certificering) til EØS-aftalen [2017/1037]
 DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR —
 under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde (»EØS-aftalen«), særlig artikel 98, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/1102 af 8. juli 2015 om ændring af bilag I til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1334/2008 for så vidt angår fjernelse af visse aromastoffer fra EU-listen (1) skal indarbejdes i EØS-aftalen.
 (2)
 Denne afgørelse vedrører fødevarelovgivning. Lovgivning om fødevarer finder ikke anvendelse på Liechtenstein, så længe aftalen mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Det Schweiziske Forbund om handel med landbrugsprodukter også gælder for Liechtenstein, jf. indledningen til bilag II, kapitel XII, til EØS-aftalen. Denne afgørelse finder derfor ikke anvendelse på Liechtenstein.
 (3)
 Bilag II til EØS-aftalen bør derfor ændres —
 VEDTAGET DENNE AFGØRELSE:
 Artikel 1
 Følgende led indsættes i punkt 54zzzzs (Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1334/2008) i kapitel XII i bilag II til EØS-aftalen:
 »—
 32015 R 1102: Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/1102 af 8. juli 2015 (EUT L 181 af 9.7.2015, s. 54).«
 Artikel 2
 Den islandske og den norske udgave af forordning (EU) 2015/1102, der offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidendes EØS-tillæg, er begge autentiske.
 Artikel 3
 Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 1. november 2015, forudsat at alle meddelelser er indgivet, jf. EØS-aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1 (*1).
 Artikel 4
 Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidendes EØS-afsnit og EØS-tillæg.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 30. oktober 2015.
 På Det Blandede EØS-Udvalgs vegne
 Oda SLETNES
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 181 af 9.7.2015, s. 54.
 (*1) Ingen forfatningsmæssige krav angivet.


text: b' U.S. Department of Energy\n Office of Inspector General\n Office of Audit Services\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report\nNational Nuclear Security Administration\'s\nPlanning, Programming, Budgeting, and\nEvaluation Process\n\n\n\n\nDOE/IG-0614 August 2003\n\x0c Department of Energy\n Washington, DC 20585\n\n August 5 , 2003\n\n\n\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY\n\nFROM: Gregor . Friedman\n Inspector General\n\nSUBJECT: INFORMATION: Audit Report on the "National Nuclear\n Security Administration\'s Planning, Programming, Budgeting,\n and Evaluation Process"\n\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nThe National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was established in March 2000 as\na semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. At NNSA\'s inception,\nmanagement committed to implementing a Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and\nEvaluation (PPBE) process, modeled on the system used by the Department of Defense.\nA PPBE process uses short-term and long-term planning to define program requirements\nand matches requirements with budgetary resources. NNSA\'s Administrator established\nan overall objective that the PPBE process become the core management protocol for\nNNSA.\n\nConsistent with Congressional appropriations report language (Senate Report 107-220\nand House Report 107-681), the Office of Inspector General conducted an independent\nassessment of NNSA\'s PPBE process and structure to determine if improvements could\nbe made to further enhance NNSA\'s planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation.\nWe also addressed specific questions regarding: (1) how the NNSA\'s PPBE process\ncompared to the process used by the Department of Defense; (2) whether the PPBE\nprocess was capable of being used as a central decision-making process for resource\nallocation decisions; and, (3) to what extent PPBE had been incorporated by NNSA\'s\nmanagement and operating contractors.\n\nRESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nIn response to the Congress\' specific questions, we found that NNSA\'s PPBE process:\n\n Was consistent with the Department of Defense process, although the two\n processes differ with regard to the way budget execution and evaluation are\n handled;\n\n\n\n @ Printed with soy ink on recycled paper\n\x0c 2\n\n\n\n 0 Provided a mechanism for making centralized resource allocation decisions; and,\n\n 0 Had not yet resulted in changes for existing financial and budgeting systems at the\n NNSA management and operating contractors visited because the field role had\n not been fully developed for the Fiscal Year 2004 process. In response to this\n point, NNSA noted that while PPBE does not mandate changes to integrated\n contractor budget or accounting systems, a process for "cascading" performance\n metrics is needed and is under development.\n\nWhile NNSA had made significant progress towards the implementation of its PPBE\nprocess, several areas need to be addressed before it is fully operational. For example,\nwe found that NNSA managers were not always clear on their roles and responsibilities;\ncontractor estimates that form the basis for budget estimates were not validated; and, an\nindependent analysis group to support the resource allocation decision process had not\nbeen established. These issues arose because NNSA determined that PPBE development\nwould occur concurrently with implementation.\n\nGiven the fact that NNSA\'s annual budget is over $7 billion, including a diverse portfolio\nof activities, the importance of having a fully functioning PPBE system cannot be\noverstated. Clearly, NNSA management has made good progress on the implementation\nof such a system. However, as noted in this report, there are some unresolved details\nwhich need to be addressed. Accordingly, we recommended a series of specific actions\nintended to help NNSA improve the implementation and effectiveness of its PPBE\nprocess.\n\nMANAGEMENT REACTION\n\nNNSA\'s Associate Administrator for Management and Administration generally agreed\nwith the report, the conclusions reached, and the recommendations presented. NNSA\nalso indicated that significant progress towards resolving one of the recommendations --\nconcerning better communication -- had already been made. Further, NNSA proposed\nseveral alternative methods for achieving the objectives of our recommendations. We\nfound these to be consistent with the underlying purpose of the recommendations.\n\n\nAttachment\n\ncc: Deputy Secretary\n Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration\n Director, Policy and Internal Controls Management\n\x0cNATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURlTY ADMl NISTRATION\'S PLANNING,\nPROGRAMMING, BUDGETING, AND EVALUATION PROCESS\n\nTABLE OF\nCONTENTS\n\n\n\n Assessment of National Nuclear Security\n Administ ration\'s PIanninq, Proqramming,\n Budgetinq, and Evaluation Process\n\n Details of Finding ....................................................................... 1\n Recommendations and Comments ...........................................\n 6\n\n Appendices\n 1 .....................................\n . Objective, Scope, and Methodology 7\n 2. Prior Audit Reports ............................................................... 9\n 3. Management Comments .................................................... 10\n\x0cASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\'S\nPLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING, AND EVALUATION PROCESS\n\nBackground The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) began\n developing the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation\n (PPBE) process in October 2000 after the Administrator set a goal of\n using it to develop the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 budget. However, after\n evaluating its progress, NNSA delayed implementation of the PPBE\n process because of concerns about the complexity of development. In\n September 2001, NNSA\'s Administrator announced the implementation\n of PPBE beginning with the FY 2004 budget cycle. He stated that\n PPBE was designed to "redress the lack of discipline and inconsistency\n in current processes" and to facilitate management decision-making.\n\n Since beginning implementation of PPBE, NNSA has reached several\n milestones. First, NNSA issued its first multi-year budget and program\n plan, called the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), as\n required under Title 32. Second, NNSA used its PPBE process to\n develop its FY 2004 budget proposal. Third, NNSA issued guidance to\n make the process for executing the budget more consistent across the\n organization and began implementing that portion of the process in the\n fall of 2002. Lastly, the evaluation phase of the process was defined in\n April 2003, and will be fully implemented next fiscal year. The\n Department\'s Chief Financial Officer found NNSA\'s budget process\n much improved over previous years. Similarly, the Office of\n Management and Budget (OMB) noted that NNSA had made "early\n progress" in improving its budget submission.\n\nPPBE Capability to Meet NNSA has made significant progress toward establishing a planning,\nCongressional Concerns programming, budgeting, and evaluation process that meets the basic\n criteria set by Congress in Title 32. NNSA\'s goal is for the PPBE\n process to become its core management process, replacing fragmented\n and inconsistent processes that NNSA\'s constituent programs brought\n into the new Administration when NNSA was created. The following\n paragraphs address the specific questions posed in committee reports\n accompanying the most recent Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.\n\n Comparability of PPBE with the Department of Defense Process\n\n NNSA\'s process is fUnctionally consistent with the Department of\n Defense (DoD) process, although the two processes are different with\n regard to the budget execution and evaluation processes. For example,\n each process begins with a planning phase during which long-range,\n mid-range, and short-range plans are compiled based on strategic,\n program, and fiscal guidance issued by the NNSA Administrator or the\n Secretary of Defense. Next, during the programming phase, each\n organization determines how the plans developed in the first phase of\n the process will be carried out by matching prioritized requirements to\nPage 1 Details of Finding\n\x0c available fiscal resources. Each process provides a mechanism for\n programs to request and justify additional resources. Final\n programming decisions are documented in a program decision\n memorandum, which becomes the basis for budget development. After\n the budgeting phase, DoD\'s process does not directly address the budget\n execution and evaluation portions of the cycle, leaving it to each\n military service to define the budget execution and evaluation processes\n it will use. In contrast, NNSA defines specific processes and\n requirements for those phases of its PPBE process, which provide\n feedback to the next planning cycle.\n\n Mechanism for Central Resource Allocation Decisions\n\n NNSA\'s PPBE process provides a mechanism for making centralized\n resource allocation decisions. In NNSA, the same managers who make\n resource allocation decisions within their own program offices also\n make resource allocation decisions between programs. After making\n allocation decisions within their program offices, NNSA\'s senior\n managers meet in a Programming Decision Council (Council) that hears\n program proposals from each office, including a programk justification\n for additional resources to meet requirements it is unable to fund within\n its target allocation. The Council can either decide to shift funding\n between programs to meet such requirements or determine whether the\n issue should be presented to the Administrator for resolution. The\n Administrator reviews the Council\'s decisions, resolves issues identified\n by the council, and makes final resource allocation decisions. While\n NNSA\'s Council reallocated only a small amount of funding in the FY\n 2004 process, senior managers were pleased with the results of the first\n programming cycle and expect more reallocations among programs to\n occur in the future.\n\n Incorporation of PPBE by M&O Contractors\n\n Finally, we determined that, at the two sites visited, the decision to\n make changes to the financial and budgeting systems of NNSA\'s M&O\n contractors could not yet be made for two reasons. First, NNSA had\n not clearly defined how the roles of the contractor field staff would\n change under PPBE. The lack of a clearly defined field role created\n concern because the contractors were not asked to prepare budget data\n for NNSA until several months after they prepared data for the\n Department. Second, the contractors\' existing systems must continue to\n meet both the Department\'s and NNSA\'s requirements for budget and\n financial information, since the M&O contractors also receive funding\n from other Department programs in addition to the funding from\n NNSA. For the FY 2005 budget process, NNSA has issued further\n guidance to clarify when and how the field should provide budget\n information to both the Department and NNSA.\nPage 2 Details of Finding\n\x0cChallenges for Effective Although, as stated above, NNSA had made progress toward\nImplementation of PPBE implementation of PPBE, significant challenges remained in order to\n meet the Administrator\'s objective of establishing PPBE as the core\n management process for NNSA. For example, NNSA managers were\n not always clear on their roles and responsibilities. In discussions with\n NNSA managers, we determined that the purpose of PPBE, individual\'s\n roles, and the specific requirements necessary for PPBE implementation\n were not clearly communicated to those responsible.\n\n In addition, contractor estimates, which form the basis for budget\n estimates and resource allocation decisions, had not been validated in\n several years. According to the Department\'s guidance issued with the\n field budget call for FY 2004, operations offices were tasked with\n validating 20 percent of each program\'s budget estimates. However,\n officials at the Y-12 Site Office and the Albuquerque Service Center\n told us they had not performed any validation activities for the FY 2004\n budget. Similarly, NNSA headquarters officials also acknowledged\n that they had not conducted budget validation activities. While the\n majority of managers felt reasonably confident that the cost and budget\n estimates they used as a basis for decisions in the FY 2004 process were\n reliable, many of them expressed concern that budget validation did not\n occur.\n\n Finally, unlike DoD, NNSA had not established an independent group\n tasked with reviewing program proposals, validating program cost\n estimates, and analyzing alternatives. Most NNSA senior managers we\n interviewed thought such an analytical group could be of value.\n NNSA\'s Acting Associate Administrator for Management and\n Administration supports the formation of an analysis group to provide\n objective analyses and to support the Administrator, especially when\n decisions to move resources between programs have to be made. OMB\n also believes that an independent analytical group could improve the\n PPBE process by providing an objective look at program proposals. In\n addition, NNSA managers identified specific types of analyses that\n would be useful to them or to the Administrator, such as: long-range\n strategic analyses, realistic budget estimates, and comparisons of actual\n program execution to plans. Several senior managers reported that\n resource allocation decisions among program offices are likely to\n become more frequent in future years and, for such occasions, NNSA\'s\n need for independent analytical services is likely to grow.\n\n\n\n\nPage 3 Details of Finding\n\x0cNNSA\'s Strategy for The challenges noted came about because implementation of PPBE\nImplementation Created preceded the full development of key elements necessary for the most\n effective use and efficient operation of the process. NNSA determined\n that, due to concerns raised by Congress about the speed of PPBE\n execution, development would occur concurrently with implementation.\n While implementation was in progress, development of guidance and\n training for managers had not been completed; field-restructuring\n activities affecting contractor oversight were underway; and the\n establishment of an independent analysis unit had been delayed.\n\n Poor communication of the purpose and requirements for implementing\n PPBE occurred because the development of the appropriate guidance\n and training had not yet been completed. For example, of the 19\n Federal managers that provided comments to us on the PPBE guidance\n and training available during the FY 2004 process, 15 identified\n additional types of guidance that would have been useful to them, such\n as more specific strategic policy guidance and better communication to\n all managers about how to meet PPBE requirements. In addition, 14 of\n the managers identified specific training needs. These needs ranged\n from improving communication regarding the purpose of PPBE to\n specific concerns such as how the FYNSP relates to PPBE. Even the\n individuals designated to serve as PPBE coordinators in each program\n office and to assist other managers with PPBE identified additional\n training needs. The most frequently cited needs were for better\n guidance and training on an individual\'s role in the process and on\n preparing PPBE materials to meet requirements.\n\n For the FY 2004 PPBE process, the PPBE Office had developed\n informal guidance and training appropriate for each phase of the PPBE\n just in time for each phase of the process to be implemented. In\n addition, NNSA issued two policy letters in June and July 2002 and the\n PPBE Office staff briefed senior managers and others on the FY 2004\n PPBE process. However, several managers told us that the guidance\n and briefings would have been difficult to understand without detailed\n knowledge of the DoD process or that they were still unsure of their\n roles in the process after attending the briefings.\n\n Cost and budget estimates provided by the NNSA contractors were not\n validated because the role of the field offices was undergoing\n significant change during the FY 2004 PPBE process. NNSA\'s field\n restructuring, which eliminated one layer of management in the field,\n was implemented in December 2002. The PPBE Office decided to wait\n until the restructuring was implemented before defining the field role in\n the PPBE process to ensure that roles and responsibilities would be\n consistent once the new field structure was established.\n\nPage 4 Details of Finding\n\x0c The implementation of an independent analysis unit in the PPBE Office\n was delayed in order to give senior managers experience in using the\n process before providing additional analytical tools. In addition, the\n PPBE Office was not fully staffed and activities other than independent\n analyses were determined to be higher priority during the initial\n implementation of the PPBE process.\n\nPPBE Can Provide Without fill implementation, NNSA will not reap the full benefits of its\nDiscipline and Promote new PPBE system. Managers cannot effectively monitor and track\nEfficiency program performance if they do not have enough information to\n understand how performance is used in the PPBE process. In addition,\n although PPBE is a new process that needs flexibility to adjust as\n NNSA gains experience using it, PPBE will not meet the\n Administrator\'s objective of becoming the core management process for\n NNSA until everyone in NNSA has a clear understanding of the\n purpose of the process, the expected benefits of using a PPBE, and how\n to effectively participate in the process.\n\n As a result of not having a formal validation process, inaccurate cost\n and budget estimates could undermine the quality of the decisions\n reached during PPBE\'s central resource allocation process. If costs are\n understated, activities or projects may be started without sufficient\n resources to complete them in an efficient manner. Conversely, if costs\n are overstated, resources that could be made available to meet unfunded\n program requirements would appear to be unavailable, which could\n result in mission requirements not being met in a timely manner.\n\n Finally, the lack of an independent analysis group could preclude\n NNSA from making the best decisions about what programs and\n activities to start and whether programs are affordable, not only in the\n current budget year, but throughout the time it takes to complete them.\n NNSA may find decisions involving reallocation of resources from one\n program to another especially difficult without objective analysis to\n support prioritization of the activities that support its competing\n missions.\n\n\n\n\nPage 5 Details of Finding\n\x0cRECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Associate Administrator for Management and\n Administration take the following steps to improve the implementation\n and effectiveness of the PPBE process:\n\n 1. Improve communication to all Federal and contractor employees\n concerning the purpose of PPBE, the uses of and requirements for\n PPBE documents, and employees\' roles in the process through\n additional guidance and training;\n\n 2. Establish a formal process for validating contractor budget\n estimates, such as that outlined in the Department\'s Budget Field\n Manual; and,\n\n 3. Assess management\'s need for independent analytical support for\n the PPBE process and determine how to staff an analytical group\n that possesses sufficient analytical skills to be effective, either by\n permanent or rotational assignments.\n\n\nMANAGEMENT REACTION NNSA\'s Associate Administrator for Management and Administration\n agreed with the report, the conclusions reached, and the\n recommendations presented. NNSA reported that it had made\n significant progress on actions related to Recommendation 1 since the\n conclusion of the audit, including the launching of an interactive\n Intranet site and the development of a PPBE task force. Related to\n Recommendation 2, NNSA supports the budget validation requirements\n contained in the Department\'s budget handbook and expects that the\n NNSA Service Center will perform this validation process. Lastly, to\n address Recommendation 3, NNSA plans to create a small advisory\n capability; however, it will not likely be as robust as DoD\'s independent\n analytical group. We have included management\'s comments in their\n entirety as Appendix 3.\n\n\nAUDITOR COMMENTS NNSA\'s proposed actions are responsive to the audit recommendations.\n However, an action plan detailing specific milestones with planned\n completion dates is needed.\n\n\n\n\nPage 6 Recommendations and Comments\n\x0cAppendix 1\n\nOBJECTIVE We initiated the audit in response to a Congressional request for an\n independent review of NNSA\'s PPBE system. The objectives were to\n assess NNSA\'s implementation of the PPBE process to determine if\n improvements could be made to further enhance NNSA\'s planning,\n programming, budgeting, and evaluation. We also answered the\n Congress\' specific questions: (1) how NNSA\'s PPBE compared to the\n process used by DoD; (2) whether the PPBE process was capable of\n being used as a central decision-making process for resource allocation\n decisions; and (3) to what extent PPBE had been incorporated by\n NNSA\'s management and operating contractors.\n\n\nSCOPE The audit was performed from September 2002 to March 2003 at\n NNSA Headquarters, Washington, DC; Sandia National Laboratories,\n Albuquerque, NM; Y - 12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN;\n and NNSA\'s Service Center and the Sandia Site Office, Albuquerque,\n NM.\n\n\nMETHODOLOGY To accomplish the audit objective, we:\n\n 0 Interviewed NNSA Federal staff at NNSA Headquarters, the\n Y-12 Site Office, the Service Center, and Sandia Site Office;\n\n 0 Interviewed M&O contractor staff at the Y-12 Plant and Sandia\n National Laboratories;\n\n 0 Reviewed documentation on the DoD PPBS process;\n\n 0 Evaluated policies, procedures, and other documentation related\n to NNSA\'s PPBE;\n\n 0 Compared the DoD process to the NNSA process;\n\n 0 Evaluated NNSA\'s implementation of PPBE;\n\n 0 Determined the strengths and weaknesses of the PPBE system;\n and,\n\n 0 Reviewed prior audit reports and other reports related to the\n audit objective.\n\n\n\n\nPage 7 Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\x0cI .\n\n\n\n\n Appendix 1 (continued)\n\n With regard to our interviews, we judgmentally selected interviewees to\n ensure that we talked with people at all NNSA program offices and at\n various levels in the organization. In addition, we interviewed a variety\n of contractor staff, including those working for Defense Programs and\n Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, as well as financial staff. In\n addition, we interviewed officials directly involved in developing and\n implementing the PPBE process.\n\n The audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted\n Government auditing standards for performance audits and included\n tests of internal controls and compliance with laws and regulations to\n the extent necessary to satisfy the audit objective. Accordingly, the\n audit included reviews of NNSA\'s PPBE management activities.\n Because our review was limited, it would not necessarily have disclosed\n all internal control deficiencies that may have existed at the time of our\n audit. As part of our review, we also evaluated the Department\'s\n implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of\n 1993. The Department\'s Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2003\n did not contain specific performance data addressing PPBE. However,\n there were objectives and goals related to PPBE. We did not rely on\n computer-processed data to achieve our audit objective.\n\n The exit conference was waived at NNSA\'s request.\n\n\n\n\n Page 8 Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\x0c PRIOR AUDIT REPORTS\n\n\n Office of Inspector General Reports\n\n Management Challenges at the Department of Energy (DOE/IG-0538, December 2001). The\n report found that the Department has had problems managing its projects and that projects have had\n cost overruns, schedule delays, and undesirable scope reductions. Additionally, the Department\n needs to ensure it has appropriate metrics in place and uses them to manage its programs and\n activities effectively.\n\n The Department of Energy\'s Tritium Extraction Facility (DOE/IG-0560, June 2002). The report\n found that the Tritium Extraction Facility project had not made full use of project management\n controls. For example, design of the facility was not completed before beginning construction. As\n a result, the facility may not meet its baseline cost, schedule, and scope and could affect NNSA\'s\n ability to meet Stockpile Stewardship goals.\n\n Management of the Nuclear Weapons Production Infrastructure (DOE/IG-0484, September 2000).\n The audit disclosed the Department has not fully implemented a process to link workload,\n production capacity, and budget information with facility requirements.\n\n Other Reports\n\n NNSA Progress in Implementing Title 32 (GAO-02-93R, December 2001). The report found that\n NNSA did not have a clear definition of roles and responsibilities either at headquarters or in the\n field. Additionally, NNSA will have difficulty hlly implementing its new planning, programming,\n budgeting, and evaluation process by the Fiscal Year 2004 budget cycle.\n\n Establishing the National Nuclear Security Administration: A Year of Obstacles and Opportunities\n (Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization, Committee on Armed Services,\n U.S. House of Representatives, October 2000). The Panel found that NNSA is moving in the right\n direction by having its own Administrator. But the Panel feels that NNSA needs to make\n improvements including developing an integrated set of policies and practices, defining roles and\n responsibilities, and creating a plan that will integrate the security management program.\n\n Changing the Pentagon\'s Planning, Programming and Budgeting System: Phase 2 Report\n (Business Executives for National Security (BENS), 2000). This report is a follow-up to its\n Framing the Problem of PPBS (January 2000) and analyzed areas of the strategic planning process\n of the DoD PPBS that need changes. While the DoD and the private sector management systems\n do have some commonality, the report showed areas where changes in the DoD process could\n greatly enhance the PPBS. The BENS reports categorized the changes into three categories of\n structural, procedural and technical recommendations.\n\n\n\n\nPage 9 Prior Audit Reports\n\x0cAppendix 3\n\n\n\n Department of Energy\n National Nuciear Security Administration\n Washington, UC 20585\n\n\n\n\n MEMOKANDUM FOR Frederick D. Doggett\n Deputy Assistant Inspector General\n\n\n FROM :\n for Audit Services\n\n Michael C . Kane #\n Associate Administrato\n fl&\n for Management and Administration\n n\n\n\n\n\n S Ul3JECT: Comments to Draft Report on PPBF\n\n\n The Inspector General (IG), in response to congressional direction, conducted an\n independent assessment of N N S A \'s Planning, Programming, Budgeting and\n Evaluation (PPBE) process and structure to determine if improvements could be\n made to further enhance NNSA\'s planning, programming, budgeting, and\n evaluation. The IG also answered the Congress\' specific questions as to how\n hTSA\'s proccss compares to the process used by DOD: whether the process is\n capable of being used as a central decision-making process for resource allocation\n decisions; and, to what extent the process has been incorporated by management\n and operating contractors.\n\n NNSA appreciates the opportunity to have reviewed the draft report. We agree\n with the report, the conclusions reached, and the recommendations presented. We\n would like to specifically comment on the congressional question regarding the\n question about the extent to which PPBE has been incorporated by the\n management and operating contractors. The PPBE does not mandate changes to\n integrated contractor budget or accounting systems. For the contractors, the PPBE\n process is a management concept that will affect them through the ways that the\n Headquarters programs manage the programs that are executed by the contractors.\n One key concept of the PPBE process is the cascading of performance metrics that\n is linked to both the budget and contractor evaluations. This cascade is integral to\n the Planning. Budgeting and Evaluation phases of the process. NXSA\'s program\n elements and organizations are working with the contractors to develop a formal\n linked cascade of (various levels of) milestones and deliverables for program\n management and performance assessment. A key indicator as to whether the\n PPBE methodology has been incorporated into the contractor\'s proccsses would\n be the extent to which program plans and contractor performances are fully\n integrated into this cascade, and whether contractor management and performance\n systems are linked to support measures established by Headquarters.\n\n\n\n\nPage 10 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n 2\n\n NNSA concurs with the recornmendatioils i n the draft report. Since the audit was\n concluded, we have made significant progress with actions related to the\n recommendation to improving communications. On April 3,2003, the PPBE\n Intranet site was activated. This sitc is available to all IWSA Federal employecs\n and NNSA\xe2\x80\x99s contractor personnel in the resource areas. The menu for the site is\n attached. information contained on the site includes overarching policy gpidance\n in the five published Business Operating Policy Letters; specific implementation\n guidance for each phase of the process, including requirements and formats for\n deliverables; statistical and status data; a calendar of events; legislative data;\n history; and other usefbl links.\n\n As to etnployees\xe2\x80\x99 roles in the process, guidance is contained in the five Business\n Operating Policy Lctters for PPBE, as stated. Implementing the Policy Letters for\n each phase except Budget was completed and posted to the Intranet as of May\n 2003. However, it must be noted that in recognition of the strong and diverse line\n program components within NNSA, the corporate process sets firm corporate\n requirements and schedules, but allows each line program flexibility in choosiiig\n the means to meet the requirements. We do not seek to standardize internal\n aspects unless necessary to address problettls or attain major efficiencies.\n\n Training has been provided by the PPBE staff. Training on the Programming\n process and dcliverablcs was offcrcd this year to each Headquarters program\n office prior to and during the FY 2005-2009 Programming phase. Three one-hour\n training sessions on the PPBE Evaluation process, performance measurement and\n the OMB PART assessment have been delivered to most NXSA employees\n directly involved in these efforts. Of necessity, due to ongoing personnel and\n funding limitations, training efforts have been in-house and limited to what the\n responsible Eleadquarters element (NA-62) Federal employees can develop and\n provide. The PPBE office is participating in a task force to develop roles,\n responsibilities and training for program managers, and the office will assure that\n appropriate PPBE training is included as this effort rolls out to field elements.\n\n h 3 S A believes that the second recommendation to establish a forrnal process for\n validating contractor budget estimates, such as that outlined in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\n Field Budget Manual, may not be needed. NNSA has not eliminated the recurring\n budget validation rcquircmcnts contained in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s budget handbook as\n evidenced by the April 4,2003, NNSA Cover to the DOE Unieall. NNSA\n supports the Chief Financial Officer\xe2\x80\x99s requirement to validate about 20 percent of\n the budget annually, and we suggested that this 20 percent include the programs\n being reviewed by the OMB PART each year. We expect that budget validation\n will be performed by the NNSA Service Center and the non-aligned Site Offices;\n information will be available prior to submission of the budget request to OMB,\n which i s consistent with SNSA\xe2\x80\x99s needs.\n\n\n\n\nPage 11 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n 3\n\n Also, in the past six months, the Service Center undertook a special \xe2\x80\x9cFor Cause\xe2\x80\x9d\n analysis of selected Safeguards and Security program activities which included\n validation of cacli site\xe2\x80\x99s charging of these activitics to the direct versus allocable\n accounts at the contractors. We will continue to develop these capabilities for\n independent validation of contractor financial and budgeting activities as the\n reengineered organization matures and is fully staffed o w r the next few years.\n Howeser, budget validation remains a fbndamental DOE responsibility, and they\n will continue to provide validations for non-hSS-4 activities.\n\n While NXSA agrees with the necd for indcpcndent analytical support as part of a\n robust PPRE process as mentioned in the third rcconimendation, the issue is how\n to create this new capability in the ncar tertn while the PPBE organization is\n functioning under the same resource restrictionsilimitations that is currently facing\n all of NNSA. For the FY 2005 Progrzamming process, the first small step in\n independent analysis of the program proposals was achicved by having\n experienced sertior budget and program analysts ask written \xe2\x80\x9cclarifqing questions\xe2\x80\x9d\n related to the line program proposals. This first small step is significant, but we\n do not believe that it meets the spirit of this recommendation. Over time, we w l l\n create a small advisory capability, but we do not iritend to create a DoD-like\n PA&E. Due to hiring constraints, this will not likcly be realized before the end of\n calendar 2005 when all downsizing and rcengineeting are expected to be\n complete. In the meantime. thcre are several options that we will explore to\n obtain studies and analyses to be used beginning with the FY 2006-2010 Planning\n and Programming processes: (1) utilize in-house, cross-functional NNSA teams;\n (2) request studies from DOE staff orsanizations, and (3) lcveragc analyses done\n by DoD/PA&E.\n\n Should you have my questions, please contact Richard Speiclel, Director, Policy\n and Internal Controls Management. fle may be reached at 202-585-5009.\n\n Attachment\n\n\n\n\nPage 12 Management Comments\n\x0c IG Report No.: DOE/IG-0614\n\n CUSTOMER RESPONSE FORM\n\n\nThe Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of its products. We\nwish to make our reports as responsive as possible to our customers\' requirements, and, therefore, ask that\nyou consider sharing your thoughts with us. On the back of this form, you may suggest improvements to\nenhance the effectiveness of future reports. Please include answers to the following questions if they are\napplicable to you:\n\n1. What additional background information about the selection, scheduling, scope, or procedures of the\n audit would have been helpful to the reader in understanding this report?\n\n2. What additional information related to findings and recommendations could have been included in this\n report to assist management in implementing corrective actions?\n\n3. What format, stylistic, or organizational changes might have made this report\'s overall message more\n clear to the reader?\n\n4. What additional actions could the Office of Inspector General have taken on the issues discussed in this\n report which would have been helpful?\n\nPlease include your name and telephone number so that we may contact you should we have any questions\nabout your comments.\n\nName Date\n\nTelephone Organization\n\nWhen you have completed this form, you may telefax it to the Office of Inspector General at (202) 586-\n0948, or you may mail it to:\n\n Office of Inspector General (IG-1)\n Department of Energy\n Washington, DC 20585\n\n ATTN: Customer Relations\n\nIf you wish to discuss this report or your comments with a staff member of the Office of Inspector General,\nplease contact Wilma Slaughter at (202) 586-1924.\n\x0cThe Office of Inspector General wants to make the distribution of its reports as customer friendly and cost\n effective as possible. Therefore, this report will be available electronically through the Internet at the\n following address:\n\n\n U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Home Page\n http:llwww.ig.doe.gov\n\n Your comments would be appreciated and can be provided on the\n Customer Response Form attached to the report.\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

text:
 1.9.2014
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 292/49
 2014 m. birželio 17 d. pareikštas ieškinys byloje Warimex/VRDT (STONE)
 (Byla T-454/14)
 2014/C 292/60
 Proceso kalba: vokiečių
 Šalys
 Ieškovė: Warimex Waren- Import Export Handels-GmbH (Noirydas, Vokietija), atstovaujama advokatų E. Keller ir J. Voogd
 Atsakovė: Vidaus rinkos derinimo tarnyba (prekių ženklams ir pramoniniam dizainui)
 Reikalavimai
 Ieškovė Bendrojo Teismo prašo:
 —
 panaikinti 2014 m. kovo 27 d. Vidaus rinkos derinimo tarnybos (prekių ženklams ir pramoniniam dizainui) pirmosios apeliacinės tarybos sprendimą byloje R 1599/2013-1,
 —
 priteisti iš atsakovės bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 Ieškinio pagrindai ir pagrindiniai argumentai
 Bendrijos prekių ženklas, su kuriuo susijęs ieškinys: vaizdinis prekių ženklas, turintis žodinį elementą STONE, skirtas 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 21, 24 ir 25 klasių prekėms ir paslaugoms – Bendrijos prekių ženklo paraiška Nr. 1 1 4 64 005.
 Eksperto sprendimas: atmesti paraišką.
 Apeliacinės tarybos sprendimas: atmesti apeliaciją.
 Ieškinio pagrindai:
 —
 Reglamento Nr. 207/2009 75 ir 76 straipsnių pažeidimas.
 —
 Reglamento Nr. 207/2009 7 straipsnio 1 dalies c punkto pažeidimas.
 —
 Reglamento Nr. 207/2009 7 straipsnio 1 dalies b punkto pažeidimas.