United Nations Peacekeeping
Lines of Authority for Field Procurment Remain Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues Gao ID: GAO-08-1094 September 18, 2008The United States is the largest financial contributor to United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations--providing about $1.4 billion in 2008 (about 26 percent of the total UN peacekeeping assessed budget)--and has a strong interest in the efficient and effective management of these operations. The size and scope of UN peacekeeping has significantly increased over the past several years and the UN has pursued management reforms to strengthen its capacity to support operations. GAO was asked to examine (1) the status of the current restructuring and strengthening of peacekeeping management including procurement for the field, (2) the status of reforms to address previously identified problems with peacekeeping procurement, and (3) the UN Logistics Base's support of peacekeeping operations. GAO reviewed relevant UN documents; conducted structured interviews with chief procurement officers at 20 peacekeeping missions; and interviewed UN and U.S. officials. State agreed with the report and commented that it would draw upon some of the report findings in its discussion with the United Nations. The UN agreed with GAO's assessment of the status of reforms and provided technical comments, which are addressed in the report as appropriate.
The United Nations (UN) is in the process of restructuring and strengthening its organization for peacekeeping management, but has not resolved the issue of authority for field procurement, which is fundamental to the restructuring. Instead, the authority for field procurement remains divided between two departments, leaving the lines of accountability and responsibility for field procurement unclear. Member states are also concerned that the head of the new Department of Field Support reports to and takes direction from the head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations on matters related to peacekeeping missions. The UN has not yet appointed several key senior-level staff for both departments, at a critical time in the restructuring. The UN has made some progress in implementing procurement reforms to improve internal controls and processes. For example, the UN Secretariat has established financial disclosure requirements for all staff involved in the procurement process, expanded training for peacekeeping staff and updated its procurement manual. However, these efforts have not addressed some previously identified concerns, including difficulties in attracting and retaining field procurement staff and in applying procurement processes in the field. The UN Logistics Base (UNLB) in Brindisi, Italy, provides important communications and logistical support to peacekeeping operations and has expanded considerably since 2002. UNLB maintains the UN's worldwide information and technology network and provides peacekeeping missions with stocks that are essential during start-up. In response to peacekeeping mandates, UNLB has further expanded to take on tasks such as training and aviation support. However, its growth over the past 5 to 6 years has raised concerns of the General Assembly, which requested that it clarify its role and future development plans.
GAO-08-1094, United Nations Peacekeeping: Lines of Authority for Field Procurment Remain Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1094
entitled 'United Nations Peacekeeping: Lines of Authority for Field
Procurement Remain Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues'
which was released on September 18, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2008:
United Nations Peacekeeping:
Lines of Authority for Field Procurement Remain Unclear, but Reforms
Have Addressed Some Issues:
GAO-08-1094:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-1094, a report to the Committee on Foreign
Relations, United States Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The United States is the largest financial contributor to United
Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations”providing about $1.4 billion in
2008 (about 26 percent of the total UN peacekeeping assessed
budget)”and has a strong interest in the efficient and effective
management of these operations. The size and scope of UN peacekeeping
has significantly increased over the past several years and the UN has
pursued management reforms to strengthen its capacity to support
operations. GAO was asked to examine (1) the status of the current
restructuring and strengthening of peacekeeping management including
procurement for the field, (2) the status of reforms to address
previously identified problems with peacekeeping procurement, and (3)
the UN Logistics Base‘s support of peacekeeping operations. GAO
reviewed relevant UN documents; conducted structured interviews with
chief procurement officers at 20 peacekeeping missions; and interviewed
UN and U.S. officials.
State agreed with the report and commented that it would draw upon some
of the report findings in its discussion with the United Nations. The
UN agreed with GAO‘s assessment of the status of reforms and provided
technical comments, which are addressed in the report as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
The United Nations (UN) is in the process of restructuring and
strengthening its organization for peacekeeping management, but has not
resolved the issue of authority for field procurement, which is
fundamental to the restructuring. Instead, the authority for field
procurement remains divided between two departments, leaving the lines
of accountability and responsibility for field procurement unclear. See
figure. Member states are also concerned that the head of the new
Department of Field Support reports to and takes direction from the
head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations on matters related to
peacekeeping missions. The UN has not yet appointed several key senior-
level staff for both departments, at a critical time in the
restructuring.
UN Field Procurement Process (for procurements requiring HQ review;
$500,000 and above):
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the UN Field Procurement Process (for
procurements requiring HQ review; $500,000 and above), as follows:
Department of Field Support (Peacekeeping Mission):
* Identifies requirement for goods and services (Peacekeeping Mission);
* Requests local procurement authority (Peacekeeping Mission);
interacts with Department of Management (Procurement Division):
- Evaluates and accepts local procurement authority[A] (Procurement
Division);
* Conducts sourcing, solicitation, and receipt of bids (Peacekeeping
Mission);
* Conducts technical and commercial evaluations of bids (Peacekeeping
Mission);
* Local Committee reviews case and recommends it for approval
(Headquarters/Local Committee on Contracts); interacts with Department
of Management (Procurement Division):
- Reviews and prepares case for HCC, requests clarifications
(Procurement Division);
* Clarifies request; returns clarifications to interaction with
Department of Management (Procurement Division):
- Presents case to HCC;
- Headquarters Committee reviews case and recommend it for approval
(Headquarters/Local Committee on Contracts);
- Forwards approval to mission (Procurement Division);
* Awards or issues purchase order or contract (Peacekeeping Mission);
* Receives procured goods or service (Peacekeeping Mission).
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: This figure provides a high-level summary view and does not
include all steps of the field procurement process.
[A] The evaluation and acceptance of authority is completed in
conjunction with DFS.
[End of figure]
The UN has made some progress in implementing procurement reforms to
improve internal controls and processes. For example, the UN
Secretariat has established financial disclosure requirements for all
staff involved in the procurement process, expanded training for
peacekeeping staff and updated its procurement manual. However, these
efforts have not addressed some previously identified concerns,
including difficulties in attracting and retaining field procurement
staff and in applying procurement processes in the field.
The UN Logistics Base (UNLB) in Brindisi, Italy, provides important
communications and logistical support to peacekeeping operations and
has expanded considerably since 2002. UNLB maintains the UN‘s worldwide
information and technology network and provides peacekeeping missions
with stocks that are essential during start-up. In response to
peacekeeping mandates, UNLB has further expanded to take on tasks such
as training and aviation support. However, its growth over the past 5
to 6 years has raised concerns of the General Assembly, which requested
that it clarify its role and future development plans.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1094]. For more
information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or
melitot@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Restructuring of Peacekeeping Management under Way, but Ambiguity
Remains on Procurement Lines of Authority:
Peacekeeping Procurement Reforms Are Proceeding, but Have Not Addressed
Some Previously Identified Concerns:
UNLB Provides Important Communications and Logistical Support to
Peacekeeping Missions, but Its Rapid Growth Has Raised Concerns among
Member States:
Conclusion:
Agency Comments and our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO's Survey of Chief Procurement
Officers at UN Peacekeeping Missions:
Appendix III: Components of Strategic Deployment Stocks (SDS):
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix V: Comments from the United Nations:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: - Implementation Status of Procurement Reforms and Continuing
Concerns:
Table 2: UNLB's Appropriations, Staffing Levels, and SDS Shipments from
2002 to 2008:
Figures:
Figure 1: Map with location of UNLB and field missions:
Figure 2: UN Field Procurement Process (for procurements exceeding
mission authority and requiring HCC review--$500,000 and above):
Figure 3: Reorganization of DPKO and DFS:
Figure 4: UNLB's Communications and Data Facilities:
Abbreviations:
ACABQ: UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions:
CPO: Chief Procurement Officer:
DDR: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Section:
DFS: UN Department of Field Support:
DOD:United States Department of Defense:
DPKO: UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations:
ERM: Enterprise Risk Management:
GA: General Assembly:
GIS: Geographic Information Systems:
HCC: Headquarters Committee on Contracts:
IAPSO: Inter-Agency Procurement Services Organization:
IT: Information Technology:
LCC: Local Committee on Contracts:
MDTS: Mobile Deployable Telecommunications System:
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding:
MRP: Material Resource Plan:
OIOS: Office of Internal Oversight Services:
PD: UN Department of Management's Procurement Division:
SDS: Strategic Deployment Stocks:
SPC: Standing Police Capacity:
UN: United Nations:
UNHRD: United Nations Humanitarian Response Depot:
UNLB: United Nations Logistics Base:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 18, 2008:
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
The United States is the largest financial contributor to United
Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations--providing about $1.1 billion in
2008--and has a strong interest in the efficient and effective
management of these operations. Over the past several years, the size
and scope of UN peacekeeping has increased more than four-fold. In
January 2000, the UN deployed about 18,000 troops, police, and
observers to peacekeeping operations worldwide. As of August 2008, the
UN had over 88,000 peacekeeping troops, police, and observers
conducting 16 peacekeeping operations in 15 countries. The UN
operations support U.S. national interests by carrying out mandates to
help stabilize regions and promote international peace. Some mandates
for these operations include working to ensure that southern Lebanon is
not utilized for hostile activities; assisting with the restoration and
maintenance of the rule of law and public safety in Haiti; and
contributing to the protection of civilian populations and facilitating
humanitarian activities in Darfur.
To effectively carry out its increased peacekeeping responsibilities,
the UN has been pursuing the implementation of various management
reforms, including some contained in the Secretary-General's 2007
reform proposal to restructure peacekeeping management. The management
and organizational restructuring was intended to strengthen the UN's
capacity to direct and support operations by splitting the Department
of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) into two departments--DPKO and a
newly created Department of Field Support (DFS). Two core elements of
the proposed restructuring are the transfer authority for field
procurement from the Department of Management to DFS and the
strengthening of DPKO and DFS at senior managerial levels. Other
reforms include efforts to strengthen UN procurement processes and to
develop and expand the UN logistics base. UN procurement totals about
$2 billion annually and has been vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse,
according to UN oversight reports. UN and GAO reports in 2006 and 2007
identified weaknesses in procurement and made recommendations to
address them, such as clarifying lines of authority between
headquarters and the field.[Footnote 1] The U.S. government also has
expressed concerns that a number of procurement reforms have
experienced delays, including the establishment of an independent bid
protest system and the need to improve transparency and accountability
in UN procurement activities. The UN Logistics Base (UNLB) has been
operating in Brindisi, Italy, since 1994 to contribute to efficient and
effective peacekeeping operations. In 2002, UNLB's role was expanded to
focus on providing strategic deployment stocks[Footnote 2] (SDS) for
rapid start-up of new missions. With the growth of peacekeeping, UNLB
has taken on additional duties, such as providing the communications
network for all missions.
In this report, we examine (1) the status of restructuring and
strengthening peacekeeping management, including the authority for
field procurement; (2) the status of reforms to address previously
identified problems with peacekeeping procurement; and (3) UNLB's
support of peacekeeping operations and its recent expansion.
To address these objectives, we reviewed UN planning and budget
reports, General Assembly resolutions, performance reports and
evaluations, and other UN documents. We also reviewed UN staffing,
budget, and procurement data. In addition we reviewed previous GAO
reports on UN management and procurement reforms and used the internal
controls framework that is widely accepted in the international audit
community and has been adopted by leading accountability organizations.
[Footnote 3] At UN headquarters in New York, we met with officials from
DPKO, DFS, the Department of Management, and the Office of Internal
Oversight Services. We also met with officials at the U.S. Mission to
the United Nations and with representatives of other UN member states.
In addition, we conducted structured interviews with chief procurement
officers at 20 field missions, including all 17 peacekeeping
missions[Footnote 4] and the 3 special political missions directed by
DPKO. During these interviews, we discussed procurement reforms and
processes, followed up on previous GAO findings, and also discussed
issues related to peacekeeping management and UNLB. In Washington,
D.C., we met with State and DOD officials. We also traveled to Rome and
Brindisi, Italy, to meet with officials from UNLB and the UN
Humanitarian Response Depot, as well as representatives of the U.S.
Mission to the Rome-based UN organizations.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 to September 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides a more
detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
Results in Brief:
The United Nations is in the process of restructuring and strengthening
its organization for peacekeeping management, but has not resolved the
issue of authority for field procurement, which is fundamental to this
reform. As the Secretary-General and the General Assembly have not
decided whether to shift the authority and resources for field
procurement from the Department of Management to the Department of
Field Support (DFS), the process for peacekeeping procurement remains
divided between the two departments, leaving the lines of
accountability and responsibility for field procurement unclear. Most
of the field missions' chief procurement officers told us that this
situation has created challenges for field procurement. For example,
one field procurement officer told us that, if a procurement delay
impacts a mission's operations, it is possible that no one can be held
accountable for the delay. The physical reorganization of the
Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support is
substantially in place. However, some member states are concerned that
under the new organizational structure, the Under Secretary-General of
DFS reports to and take direction from the Under Secretary-General of
DPKO for matters related to DPKO-managed field missions. This is a
unique arrangement within the UN and is not to set a precedent,
according to member states. Although both departments are making
progress in hiring for additional staff positions established by the
restructuring, this effort is behind schedule, and several key senior-
level positions are filled on a temporary basis.
The United Nations has made some progress in implementing procurement
reforms to improve internal controls and processes, but has not
resolved several continuing procurement concerns. To strengthen
internal controls, the UN Secretariat has established financial
disclosure requirements for all staff involved in the procurement
process and has implemented a 1-year restriction on the employment of
former UN procurement staff by UN vendors, among other efforts. The UN
has also initiated measures to improve peacekeeping procurement,
including expanding training for peacekeeping staff and updating its
procurement manual. However, the UN has not fully implemented some
procurement concerns we previously identified in 2006. For example, the
UN has not made progress in addressing concerns that limited career
development opportunities have made it difficult to attract and retain
staff needed for field procurement. Most chief procurement officers
told us that the UN has not established a formal career path for
procurement staff. In addition, almost all of the chief procurement
officers reported difficulties in applying some vendor registration
requirements in the field, for example obtaining bank statements from
local vendors where no banking system exists.
UNLB provides important communications and logistical support to
peacekeeping operations and has expanded considerably since 2002.
However, member states have requested that the Secretariat justify this
expansion by clearly defining UNLB's role and future development plans.
UNLB maintains the UN's worldwide information and technology network,
which links UN headquarters with all peacekeeping operations and field
missions. UNLB also provides peacekeeping operations with strategic
deployment stocks (SDS) that are essential during mission startup. From
2002 to 2008, UNLB's budget grew from $14 million to over $45 million,
and its staff levels increased from 130 to 264. UNLB has further
expanded to take on tasks such as training field mission staff and
providing aviation support services for certain missions. Because of
UNLB's growth, the General Assembly endorsed the recommendation that
UNLB clarify and report on its role and future operations in light of
its expanded tasks. In response to these concerns, UNLB and DFS are
developing a proposed 5-year plan for supporting peacekeeping missions.
The Department of State and the UN provided written comments on a draft
of the report, which we have reprinted in appendixes IV and V. State
agreed with the main findings of the report and agreed that much work
remains in the UN's ongoing process to restructure and strengthen its
organization for peacekeeping management. State commented that it would
draw upon our findings in its continuing discussions with the UN. The
UN commented that the report was a generally accurate reflection of the
current situation. State and the UN also provided technical comments
which we addressed in the report as appropriate.
Background:
Restructuring Peacekeeping Management:
One of Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's first major initiatives, upon
beginning his tenure in 2007, was to submit to the General Assembly a
proposal to restructure the Department of Peacekeeping Operations
(DPKO) and establish the Department of Field Support (DFS). The
Secretary-General's proposal, built on previous reform efforts,
included requests to reorganize the offices within DPKO, provide
additional senior and professional staff for both departments, create
new capacities and integrated structures, and transfer resources and
authority for field procurement from the Department of Management to
DFS. The Secretary-General proposed adding 400 new posts funded under
the UN's support account for peacekeeping operations, including 162
posts in DPKO and 123 posts in DFS. In August 2007, the General
Assembly approved many but not all of the elements of the Secretary-
General's proposal, listed below:
* Creation of new structures, including establishment of DFS from
DPKO's former Office of Mission Support; within DPKO, consolidation of
former offices into an Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions
and a Policy, Evaluation and Training Division; and reconfiguration of
the Africa Division into two divisions;
* Creation of new capacities, such as a Public Affairs Unit within
DPKO's Office of the Under-Secretary-General; a security sector reform
capacity[Footnote 5] in the Office of Rule of Law and Security
Institutions, and evaluation and partnership capacities[Footnote 6] in
the Policy, Evaluation and Training Division;
* Increase in number of senior and working-level positions, including
the creation of new positions such as Under Secretary-General of DFS,
and Chief of Staff of DPKO (responsible for overseeing the
implementation of the DPKO/DFS restructuring, among other duties
[Footnote 7]); and upgrading the Military Advisor position to the
Assistant Secretary-General level.
Elements of the Secretary-General's restructuring proposal that were
not approved by the General Assembly included the following:
* Establishment of the Field Procurement Service within DFS, which
would have increased the delegation of authority for field procurement
in DFS;
* Creation of 17 of the 42 positions requested for Integrated
Operational Teams, located within DPKO; and:
* Creation of a risk management capacity within DFS.
The Secretariat set a target date of March 2008 to finish recruitment
of new staff and a target date of June 2008 to implement the
restructuring of DPKO and DFS.
UN Procurement Reforms:
UN spending on procurement has grown significantly over the past decade
as peacekeeping operations have expanded, as the Procurement Division
has reported increases in procurement spending from about $318 million
in 1998 to approximately $1.9 billion in 2007. According to DFS, over
85 percent of the UN's procurement spending is in support of
peacekeeping operations, with field missions accounting for almost 50
percent of total UN procurement.
Peacekeeping procurement is conducted both by field missions and the
headquarters Procurement Division, located within the Department of
Management. The Procurement Division develops policies and procedures
for headquarters and field procurement based on the UN Financial
Regulations and Rules. The Procurement Division also oversees training
for procurement staff and provides advice and support for field
purchases. In addition, the Procurement Division negotiates, prepares,
and administers contracts for goods and services for peacekeeping
missions. These involve multi-year systems contracts for goods and
services such as air transportation or vehicles.
Each field mission has a procurement section led by a chief procurement
officer who typically has a personal delegation of procurement
authority to award contracts up to $75,000.[Footnote 8] Contracts or
purchase orders above the authority delegated to chief procurement
officers must be approved by the mission's Director or Chief of Mission
Support, based on the advice of the mission's Local Committee on
Contracts (LCC), which reviews and recommends contract awards above
delegated authorities. Contracts worth more than $500,000 must first be
recommended by the Director or Chief of Mission Support based on the
advice of the LCC. The cases are then forwarded to the Headquarters
Committee on Contracts (HCC), located in New York for review. The HCC
reviews proposed awards and provides a recommendation to the Assistant
Secretary-General of the Office of Central Support Services (the
contracting approval authority), as to whether the contracts are in
accordance with the UN Financial Regulations and Rules and procurement
policies.
UN procurement reform is an important element of strengthening the
management of peacekeeping and weaknesses in UN procurement have raised
significant concerns. In 2006, we reported that weak internal controls
over UN peacekeeping procurement expose UN operations to risk of waste,
fraud, and abuse. We further reported that the UN's control environment
for procurement is weakened by the absence of (1) an effective
organizational structure, (2) a commitment to a professional workforce,
and (3) specific ethics guidance for procurement staff. To address
these concerns, we recommended that the Secretary of State and the
Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN work with other
member states to encourage the Secretary-General to take the following
eight actions:
* Establish clear and effective lines of authority and responsibility
between headquarters and the field for UN procurement,
* Enhance the professionalism of the UN procurement workforce by
establishing a comprehensive procurement training program and a formal
career path,
* Provide the Headquarters Committee on Contracts with an adequate
structure and manageable workload for contract review needs,
* Establish an independent bid protest process for UN vendors,
* Take action to keep the UN procurement manual complete and updated on
a timely basis and complete ethics guidance,
* Develop a consistent process for providing reasonable assurance that
the UN is conducting business with only qualified vendors,
* Develop a strategic risk assessment process that provides reasonable
assurance of systematic and comprehensive examination of headquarters
and field procurement, and:
* Standardize and strengthen monitoring of procurement activities by
procurement managers, including actions to ensure that oversight
agencies' recommendations are implemented and that officials are held
accountable for their actions.[Footnote 9]
In November 2007, as part of a broader review of UN management reforms,
we reported that the UN Secretariat had improved the UN procurement
process, but not in all the areas of vulnerability we had previously
identified. Internal UN oversight entities have also reported on UN
procurement activities and reforms. In a February 2007 report
summarizing its audits and investigations of peacekeeping operations,
the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) identified serious
deficiencies in procurement management, systems, and processes. In
October 2007, the UN's Procurement Task Force also raised concerns
about internal controls involving contracts that it reported to have a
value of approximately $610 million and identified fraud and corruption
schemes related to some of them. The Procurement Task Force further
reported that these cases involved a misappropriation of approximately
$25 million.
UN Logistics Base:
The UN Logistics Base (UNLB) in Brindisi, Italy, is a permanent
logistics base that supports UN peacekeeping operations and has been in
operation since 1994. The predecessor to UNLB, located in Pisa, Italy,
was used as a storage facility for assets received upon the closure of
DPKO missions, but with the increase in peacekeeping missions, the need
arose for a more strategically located facility in which to store and
maintain reserves for missions. Since 1994, UNLB has evolved to provide
additional services including logistics, communications, and other
support services to UN peacekeeping missions and has a budget of just
over $45 million for fiscal year 2008-2009. UNLB has a natural
deepwater harbor as well as air, road, and rail infrastructure, and is
within 5,000 kilometers, or a 6-hour flight, of most peacekeeping
operations (see fig. 1). Under a memorandum of understanding with the
Government of Italy, UNLB occupies the Brindisi premises rent free. The
World Food Program manages a UN Humanitarian Response Depot adjacent to
the UNLB facility.
Figure 1: Map with Location of UNLB and Field Missions:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map indicating the location of UNLB and field
missions. The following sites and information are depicted:
UNLB; from this site:
* 6 hours airlift to Nyala, Sudan (Darfur) and N'Djamena, Chad;
* 7 days sailing to Port Sudan;
* 20 days sailing to Douala, Cameroon.
The following sites locations are depicted:
UNLB;
UNMIK;
UNOMIG;
UNFICYP;
UNDOF;
UNIFIL;
UNTSO;
UNMIS;
UNAMID;
MINURSO;
UNIOSIL;
UNMIL;
UNOCI;
MONUC;
BUNUM;
Port Sudan;
MINURCAT, N'Djamena, Chad;
Douala, Cameroon.
Missions outside the region:
UNMOGPI, India and Pakistan;
MINUSTAH, Haiti;
UNMIT, Timor-Leste;
UNAMA, Afghanistan.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Map is not drawn to scale and is for illustrative purposes only.
A list of all DPKO missions is on the following page.
Peacekeeping Missions:
UNTSO - United Nations Truce Supervision Organization;
UNMOGIP - United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan;
UNFICYP - United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus;
UNDOF - United Nations Disengagement Observer Force;
UNIFIL - United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon;
MINURSO - United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara;
UNOMIG - United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia;
UNMIK - United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo;
MONUC - United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo;
UNMIL - United Nations Mission in Liberia;
UNOCI - United Nations Operation in Cote d'Ivoire;
MINUSTAH - United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti;
UNMIS - United Nations Mission in the Sudan;
UNMIT - United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste;
UNAMID - African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur;
MINURCAT - United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and
Chad.
Special Political Missions led by DPKO:
UNAMA - United Nations Mission in Afghanistan;
UNIOSIL - United Nations Integrated Office in Sierra Leone;
BINUB - United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi.
[End of figure]
In 2002, UNLB began managing strategic deployment stocks (SDS), which
include equipment used for the start-up of new missions. SDS is
designed to help enable the rapid deployment of new missions within 30
to 90 days. To ensure that it is always in a state of readiness to
support a newly established mission, UNLB maintains SDS as a revolving
inventory that is replenished after equipment is shipped to missions.
Restructuring of Peacekeeping Management under Way, but Ambiguity
Remains on Procurement Lines of Authority:
The United Nations is in the process of restructuring and strengthening
its organization for peacekeeping management, but the Secretary-General
and General Assembly have not decided whether the Department of
Management or the Department of Field Support (DFS) will have full
authority for field procurement. According to procurement officers in
the field, authority and responsibility for peacekeeping is divided and
remains unclear (A full discussion of the implementation of procurement
reforms is in the following section). Although the reorganization of
the Departments of Peacekeeping and Field Support is largely in place,
some member states are concerned that the Under Secretary-General of
DFS reports to and takes direction from the Under Secretary-General of
DPKO for matters related to DPKO-managed field operations, in an
arrangement that is both new and unique within the UN. Both departments
are proceeding to recruit the additional staff authorized, but the
recruitment is behind schedule and several key senior-level positions
have not been permanently filled, according to the UN.
Decision on Authority for Field Procurement Has Not Been Made and Lines
of Authority and Responsibility Remain Unclear:
The authority for field procurement remains divided between the
Department of Management and DFS. In his 2007 peacekeeping
restructuring proposal, the Secretary-General considered the delegation
of authority and resources for field procurement to DFS fundamental to
the rationale for realigning peacekeeping and establishing the new
department.[Footnote 10] The Secretary-General's plan further stated
that this transfer of authority would simplify the line of authority
and accountability for procurement and would result in more timely
delivery of goods and services to the field. In 2007, however, the
General Assembly deferred its decision on whether to approve the
transfer of authority for field procurement and approximately 50 staff
from the Department of Management to DFS, pending the submission of a
report by the Secretary-General. This report is to explain in detail
the proposed management structure for procurement, including
procurement procedures for peacekeeping operations. The General
Assembly originally requested that this report be issued in time for
its fall 2007 session, but the Secretary-General has not yet issued it.
In 2006, we reported that the division of authority over field
procurement between the Department of Management and DPKO had led to
diffused accountability over procurement functions. We reported that
because the UN had not established a single organizational entity or
mechanism capable of comprehensively managing procurement, it was
unclear which department was accountable for addressing problems in the
UN's field procurement process. To address these concerns, we
recommended that the Secretary of State and the Permanent
Representative of the United States to the UN work with other member
states to encourage the Secretary-General to establish clear and
effective lines of authority between headquarters and the field for UN
procurement, among other steps. The U.S. government's position is that
the UN must fix systemic problems in the UN procurement system
including the lack of accountability and an ineffective and inefficient
organizational structure.
Officials of both the Department of Management and DFS acknowledge that
the current divided authority for procurement is an area of
vulnerability. For example, Department of Management officials told us
that the dual control over procurement prevents the strategic
management of procurement. These officials stated that the Department
of Management's procurement division has overall responsibility for UN
procurement, but lacks authority or jurisdiction over peacekeeping
missions. DFS officials agreed that the continued divided management
structure for field procurement is problematic. These officials said
that each field procurement crosses between the Departments of
Management and Field Support multiple times, which is inefficient and
leaves open the question of which department is ultimately accountable
and responsible for the procurement. Figure 2 illustrates the divided
lines of authority in the procurement of goods and services that exceed
field mission authority, with approval and clarifications moving back
and forth between DFS and the Department of Management before the
procurement is completed.
Figure 2: UN Field Procurement Process (for procurements exceeding
mission authority and requiring HCC review--$500,000 and above):
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the UN Field Procurement Process (for
procurements requiring HQ review; $500,000 and above), as follows:
Department of Field Support (Peacekeeping Mission):
* Identifies requirement for goods and services (Peacekeeping Mission);
* Requests local procurement authority (Peacekeeping Mission);
interacts with Department of Management (Procurement Division):
- Evaluates and accepts local procurement authority[A] (Procurement
Division);
* Conducts sourcing, solicitation, and receipt of bids (Peacekeeping
Mission);
* Conducts technical and commercial evaluations of bids (Peacekeeping
Mission);
* Local Committee reviews case and recommends it for approval
(Headquarters/Local Committee on Contracts); interacts with Department
of Management (Procurement Division):
- Reviews and prepares case for HCC, requests clarifications
(Procurement Division);
* Clarifies request; returns clarifications to interaction with
Department of Management (Procurement Division):
- Presents case to HCC;
- Headquarters Committee reviews case and recommend it for approval
(Headquarters/Local Committee on Contracts);
- Forwards approval to mission (Procurement Division);
* Awards or issues purchase order or contract (Peacekeeping Mission);
* Receives procured goods or service (Peacekeeping Mission).
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: This figure provides a high-level summary view and does not
include all steps of the field procurement process.
[A] The evaluation and acceptance of authority is completed in
conjunction with DFS.
[End of figure]
In our structured interviews, chief procurement officers at
peacekeeping missions commented that the lack of clear authority and
accountability continues to adversely impact them. Eighteen of the 20
chief procurement officers we interviewed outlined challenges or
difficulties stemming from the division of responsibilities for field
procurement. For example, DFS does not have full operational control
and authority for field procurement because it does not approve
individual cases, according to one chief procurement officer. The
Department of Management's Procurement Division does review cases
before they are submitted to the Headquarters Committee on Contracts,
but is not operationally accountable for late procurements in the
field, according to another chief procurement officer. As a result, one
field procurement officer told us that, even when a procurement delay
impacts a mission's operation, it is possible that no one can be held
accountable because procurement staff followed the rules and procedures
of their departments. Eighteen of the 20 chief procurement officers we
interviewed also expressed confusion or uncertainties over the division
of responsibilities between the two departments as well as which
department they should seek guidance from. For example, several chief
procurement officers told us that the Procurement Division indicated
that they should not communicate with the division on procurement
questions, but should instead ask DFS. However, DFS has only a two-
person office to assist field missions with their procurement concerns,
and several of the chief procurement officers said that DFS lacks the
resources needed to sufficiently support field procurement. Several
chief procurement officers also said they feel like "orphans" and are
often left on their own to make procurement decisions in isolation.
Department of Management and DFS officials expressed opposing views on
how to resolve the issue of divided authority for field procurement.
Department of Management officials stated that transferring authority
and resources for procurement to DFS would weaken internal controls by
including the field requisitioning and procurement functions within the
same department. These officials also said that the procurement
division within the Department of Management should be given overall
responsibility for all UN procurement, including in the field. DFS
officials, however, stated that they should be provided the authority
and staff to conduct field procurement. These officials said that
procurement procedures need to be improved to reflect the realities of
conducting procurement in the field. They pointed out that expediting
field procurement was central to the Secretary-General's peacekeeping
reform, and the continuation of the status quo on field procurement
raises the question of why DFS was created. Some chief procurement
officers said a decision should be made as soon as possible but did not
express an opinion about which department should be given overall
responsibility for field procurement.
Restructuring of DPKO and DFS Is Largely in Place, but Member States
Have Raised Several Concerns:
As of August 2008, the reorganization of peacekeeping management is
largely in place, including the co-location of staff from the
Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support and new
offices for both departments. Co-location included moving offices and
staff of both departments to adjacent locations within the UN so that
they could work together on common issues. DPKO also established new
offices such as the Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions,
which consolidated the existing police, justice, corrections, mine
action, and disarmament and demobilization units. This new office is
intended to be more comprehensive in helping reform a country's police
and military and developing its courts and judiciary. One element of
the reorganization that is still in process is the development of the
Integrated Operational Teams within DPKO. These teams, which are
intended to improve coordination between UN departments in planning,
deploying, and supporting peacekeeping operations, were approved by the
General Assembly in 2007, but are not fully established. DPKO planned
to have seven teams--made up of political, military, police and support
specialists--operational by March 2008. As of June 2008, the team for
the joint United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur is the only
one that is fully operational. Figure 3 highlights the reorganization's
major changes to the organizational structures of DPKO and DFS.
Figure 3: Reorganization of DPKO and DFS:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the reorganization of DPKO and DFS,
as follows:
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (as of July 2007):
* Office of the Under-Secretary General;
- Executive Office;
- Situation Centre;
Second level, direct reporting to Office of the Under-Secretary
General:
* Office of Operations;
- Africa I;
- Africa II (new);
- Europe and Latin America;
- Asia and Middle East;
* Office of Military Affairs;
- Current Military Operations;
- Military Planning;
- Force Generation;
* Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions (new);
- Police;
- Criminal Law and Judicial Advisory;
- DDR;
- Mine Action;
* Policy Evaluation and Training Division (new);
- Peacekeeping Best Practices;
- Integrated Training;
The former Office of Mission Support within DPKO has become a new and
separate department - Department of Field Support. The former office
consisted of an Administrative Support Division and a Logistics Support
Division.
Department of Field Support (DFS) (new):
* Office of the Under-Secretary General;
- Conduct and Discipline;
- Senior Leadership Appointments Section;
Second level, direct reporting to Office of the Under-Secretary
General:
* Field Personnel Division;
- Field Personnel Operations Service;
- Field Personnel Specialist Support Service;
* Field Budget and Finance Division;
- Budget and Performance Reporting Service;
- MOU and Claims Management Section;
* Logistics Support Division;
- Operational Support Service;
- Specialist Support Service;
- Transportation and Movement Service;
* Communication and Information Technology Services;
- Operations Section;
- Information Systems Section.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Although UN officials have told us the restructuring of the Departments
of Peacekeeping and Field Support is mostly in place, some member
states are concerned that the newly established Under Secretary-General
of DFS reports to and takes direction from the Under Secretary-General
of DPKO for matters related to DPKO-managed field operations. The
Secretary-General intended this organizational structure to ensure
cooperation and integration between the two departments. However, the
General Assembly specified that this arrangement, with one Under
Secretary-General subordinate to another, was not to set a precedent.
The UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
(ACABQ), as well as several of the representatives from individual
member states that we spoke to, expressed concern over the feasibility
of this arrangement, given that it is both new and unique within the
UN.
The ACABQ has raised concerns about the Secretary-General's proposal to
strengthen DPKO's Office of Military Affairs. The Secretary-General
reported that the office lacked the rank, capacity, and specialist
capabilities to successfully fulfill the functions of a strategic
military headquarters for peacekeeping operations in routine and crisis
situations. In March 2008, the Secretary-General proposed to expand the
Office of Military Affairs by 92 positions, upgrade it with higher-
ranking military officers, and expand its functions. The ACABQ reviewed
the Secretary-General's proposal, and although it did support
additional strengthening of the office, it did not recommend approval.
The ACABQ reported that the Secretary-General had not substantiated the
challenges faced by the Office of Military Affairs with relevant data
and did not submit the proposal as part of a comprehensive budget for
peacekeeping support. The General Assembly subsequently approved 45 new
posts and requested the Secretariat to further report on the
strengthening and restructuring of the Office of Military Affairs.
Recruitment of Additional Staff Is Proceeding, but Senior-Level
Turnover Has Raised Concerns:
As of August 2008, a UN official informed us that 134 of the 152 new
staff positions authorized by the General Assembly for DPKO and DFS had
been selected. However, the departments had established a goal to fill
all of the newly-created positions by March 2008. A DPKO official
informed us that the hiring of staff has taken longer than expected
because of the UN's lengthy hiring process. Filling positions at the
senior level is a particular concern because the restructuring is being
completed while the UN is expanding peacekeeping missions. In addition,
new Under Secretaries General for both DPKO and DFS were just appointed
in June 2008 and March 2008, respectively. According to the UN, DPKO
has 26 senior staff positions with 7 of them not filled by permanent
appointees, and DFS has 15 senior staff positions with 5 not filled by
permanent appointees. Key positions that are vacant or are temporarily
filled include DPKO's Chief of Staff (who ensures coordination between
DPKO and DFS and oversees the implementation of the restructuring,
among other activities), the principal officers of both Africa
divisions, and DFS's Director of Logistics Support, according to a UN
official. In addition to these positions, DFS reported that the
Assistant Secretary-General for Field Support and the Chief of
Transport and Movement vacated their posts in late August 2008.
The UN Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
(ACABQ) has raised concerns that the vacancies and the many new
appointees are likely to have a major impact on the performance of the
two departments. According to the ACABQ, it is unclear how these vacant
positions, as well as the limited amount of time the newest senior
appointees have been in their positions, will affect the restructuring
implementation. DFS officials disagreed with the ACABQ's assessment
because, in their view, the mid-level staff are experienced and will
provide continuity despite senior management changes. Moreover, the
duties of many of the vacant senior level positions are being carried
out by experienced staff, who temporarily fill these positions,
according to UN officials.
Peacekeeping Procurement Reforms Are Proceeding, but Have Not Addressed
Some Previously Identified Concerns:
The United Nations has made some progress in implementing procurement
reforms, but has not resolved continuing concerns in areas such as
developing career paths for procurement officers in the field. Reforms
have included policies to strengthen internal controls--including the
expansion of financial disclosure requirements to cover all procurement
staff--and efforts to improve the procurement function, such as an
expansion of training for procurement staff. However, these reforms and
initiatives have not addressed some previously identified concerns,
such as difficulties in attracting and retaining field procurement
staff. Chief procurement officers at peacekeeping missions raised these
and other concerns as continuing challenges to conducting procurement
activities in the field. See table 1 for a summary of UN procurement
reform accomplishments and continuing concerns.
Table 1: Implementation Status of Procurement Reforms and Continuing
Concerns:
Procurement Reforms That Have Been Implemented:
Policies to Improve Internal Controls:
* Financial disclosure requirement;
* Post employment restrictions;
* Supplier code of conduct;
Actions to Improve Procurement Functions:
* Expanded training;
* Management of vendor database;
* Updates to procurement manual;
* Expanded delegations for local procurement;
Continuing Procurement Challenges:
* Limited career development and staffing in the field;
* Difficulties in attracting and retaining field procurement staff;
* Difficulties in applying procurement processes in the field;
Procurement Reforms That Have Yet to Be Approved or Implemented:
* Independent bid protest process;
* Ethics guidance for procurement staff;
* Lead agency concept;
* Risk assessment for field procurement.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Recent Reforms Have Included Policies to Strengthen Internal Controls
and Actions to Improve the Procurement Function:
The UN has made progress in implementing procurement reforms, in
particular through the issuance of several organizationwide policies to
improve internal controls. The UN also has taken steps to improve the
functioning of procurement in headquarters and the field through
expanded training and updates to its vendor management database and
procurement manual, among other initiatives. Following a World Summit
held in 2005, the UN outlined a series of procurement reform actions in
2006,[Footnote 11] and the Procurement Division established a
Procurement Reform Implementation Team to implement these reform
initiatives focused on internal controls, the procurement process, and
strategic management. In a November 2007 status update on these
reforms, the Secretariat reported that it had implemented 35 of 74
total reform actions, including 10 of the 27 main reform deliverables.
Procurement Division Has Implemented Policies to Improve Internal
Controls:
As part of the UN's procurement reform process, the Secretariat has
initiated or revised several procurement policies intended to improve
internal controls covering the overall UN procurement process.[Footnote
12] Initiatives that the Department of Management's Procurement
Division has implemented include the following:
* Financial disclosure requirement for procurement staff. In 2007, the
UN expanded its financial disclosure requirements, previously only
required for senior-level staff, to also cover all staff involved in
procurement activities regardless of their function or grade level.
These staff are required to file a disclosure or declaration of
interest on an annual basis.[Footnote 13]
* Post-employment restrictions. In 2007, the Secretary-General issued a
bulletin establishing a post-employment restriction for all UN staff
members participating in the procurement process. The policy prohibits
former UN staff members from accepting employment or compensation from
any UN contractor for 1 year following their UN employment.[Footnote
14]
* Supplier code of conduct. In 2006, the UN issued a supplier code of
conduct on its Web site to raise awareness of the ethical
responsibility of the vendor community. It included discussions of
issues such as the avoidance of conflict of interest. In 2007, the UN
revised the supplier code of conduct to reflect the latest provisions
on post-employment restrictions.
* Ban on gifts for Procurement Division staff. The Procurement Division
also has issued a guideline for its staff establishing zero tolerance
for gifts and hospitality from UN vendors. This guideline is more
stringent than the relevant provisions of the existing UN Staff Rules,
which are applicable to the staff at large and allow staff to receive
gifts of a nominal value, under certain conditions.
UN Has Expanded Procurement Training for Headquarters and Field Staff:
In 2006, we reported that the UN had not established training
requirements for its procurement staff, resulting in inconsistent
training levels across the procurement workforce.[Footnote 15] Other
studies had also found that UN procurement staff lacked sufficient
knowledge of procurement policies and procedures.[Footnote 16] The
Procurement Division, in coordination with the Office of Human
Resources Management and the Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office
(IAPSO[Footnote 17]), has since developed a series of training courses
for headquarters and field staff that were delivered in 2007 and 2008.
These training modules covered topics including the fundamentals of UN
procurement, contract and supplier relations, and ethics in
procurement. According to the Department of Management, a joint
procurement training program provided training to over 850 staff
responsible for procurement activities at various locations. Chief
procurement officers at 18 of the 20 field missions told us that their
mission had received procurement training recently.
However, while expressing appreciation for the training delivered in
the field, 13 of the 20 chief procurement officers we interviewed
stated that the UN had not established a comprehensive procurement
training program for procurement staff. For example, one chief
procurement officer observed that there are no benchmarks or minimum
requirements for training and that it is largely driven by the
availability of funds. Some chief procurement officers also emphasized
to us that because of the high turnover of field procurement staff,
training must continue to be offered to the field and must not be a one-
time event. Several procurement chiefs also discussed a need to expand
training for other mission staff involved in the procurement process--
particularly requisitioners.[Footnote 18] In May 2008, the UN approved
a Procurement Division training framework document that covers the
division's longer-term plans and objectives for procurement training.
The document outlines an objective of establishing a comprehensive
procurement training program that covers not only procurement staff,
but also requisitioning and contract management staff. However, the
document does not make clear how this training will be funded.
Procurement Reforms Have also Focused on Vendor Management and the
Procurement Manual, among Other Initiatives:
The Procurement Division also has implemented reforms in other areas,
including updating its vendor management database and its procurement
manual. In 2006, we reported that the UN has had persistent
difficulties in maintaining effective rosters of qualified vendors and
that it had not updated its procurement manual since 2004 to reflect
current UN procurement policy. The Procurement Division has taken
action on the following reform areas:
* Vendor Database Management. In August 2007, the Procurement Division
established a Vendor Registration and Management Team that has, among
its responsibilities, to manage and develop the UN's database of
vendors determined to be qualified to do business with the
organization.[Footnote 19] Procurement division officials stated that
the team has removed 5,000 companies with incomplete or out-of-date
information from the database. In addition, these officials stated that
a pilot project is under way at headquarters to streamline vendor
registration requirements.
* Procurement Manual. The Department of Field Support established a
working group composed of headquarters and field official that is
focused on reviewing and updating the procurement manual. A DFS
official stated that the working group's recommendations are forwarded
to the Procurement Division for consideration and revision of the
manual. The UN updated the manual in November 2007 and again in June
2008.[Footnote 20] According to the UN, the manual will continue to be
regularly amended to reflect best practices in public sector
procurement. UN officials reported that recent changes to the manual
included a more detailed discussion of the best value for money
principle, among other issues.
* Increase in HCC Threshold. In August 2008, the UN increased the
minimum threshold for procurement contracts required to be reviewed by
the Headquarters Committee on Contracts from $200,000 to $500,000. The
UN Office of Internal Oversight Services had recommended in 2003 that
this threshold be increased to $500,000 or $1 million in order to
reduce the committee's workload and improve efficiency. Fourteen of the
20 chief procurement officers we interviewed had told us that the
financial threshold for HCC's review of procurement cases should be
raised. Some of these officials referred to rising prices since the
$200,000 limit was established or the decline in the value of the U.S.
dollar vis-à-vis the Euro as reasons for increasing the limit.[Footnote
21]
* Procurement from Developing Countries. UN officials stated that the
organization has taken steps to increase procurement opportunities for
vendors from developing countries. In November 2007, the Secretariat
reported that procurement from developing country vendors increased
from 41 percent of total procurement in 2004 to 55 percent in 2006. To
increase procurement opportunities, the UN has conducted business
education seminars in various countries to increase awareness of
potential vendors about the UN procurement process.[Footnote 22]
* Expanded Delegation of Authority for Local Procurement. To address
challenges to field procurement at mission start-up, the Procurement
Division has expanded a list of items for which missions have increased
procurement authority. These items are core requirements such as food,
water, and cleaning services, which could more easily be procured
locally. For these items, missions have a delegated procurement
authority of $1 million, rather than their typical $200,000 limit for
other goods and services.
UN Has Not Resolved Several Continuing Concerns over Peacekeeping
Procurement:
Although the UN has made progress in implementing procurement reforms
from its 2006 agenda, it has not fully addressed several concerns
previously raised by GAO and others. These include the need to improve
career development options and conditions of service in the field in
order to attract and retain qualified procurement staff, and adapt
headquarters-based procurement processes to the field environment. In
addition, the UN has not implemented other reforms, such as
establishing an independent bid protest mechanism.
Limited Career Development Opportunities Contribute to Difficulties in
Attracting and Retaining Qualified Field Procurement Staff:
The United Nations has not made progress in addressing previously
raised concerns over career development opportunities in order to
attract and retain staff needed for field procurement. In 2006 we
reported that the UN had not established a career path for professional
advancement for headquarters and peacekeeping procurement staff and
that the peacekeeping procurement workforce is adversely affected by
considerable staff turnover, especially in peacekeeping missions where
UN staff must operate in demanding, unpredictable, and dangerous
conditions.[Footnote 23] GAO's Framework for Assessing the Acquisition
Function at Federal Agencies[Footnote 24] also states that critical
success factors for acquiring, developing and retaining talent are
targeted investments in people and utilizing human capital approaches
targeted to meet organizational needs.
As discussed earlier, the Procurement Division has recently issued a
training framework document that includes an objective to support the
professional development of staff members in areas including staff
mobility and career advancement.[Footnote 25] However, 14 of the 20
chief procurement officers we interviewed stated that the UN has not
established a formal career path for procurement staff. One chief
procurement officer, for example, told us that there is no clarity in
this area and little prospect for promotion and development, which has
an impact on staff performance. Another field official said that
opportunities for career development for field staff are "totally
forgotten" by the UN and that when a mission closes, the staff are left
wondering what will happen to them.[Footnote 26] The UN commented that
several proposals to reform human resources management are currently
before the General Assembly, including proposals on harmonizing
conditions of service, streamlining contractual arrangements, and
establishing career peacekeepers.
Overall, the UN continues to have difficulties in retaining high-
quality procurement staff for sustained periods in peacekeeping
missions. We previously reported that about 23 percent of procurement
staff positions in peacekeeping missions were vacant in 2005, and DFS
reported that the vacancy rate for field procurement missions has
remained at over 20 percent from 2006 to 2008.[Footnote 27] UN
officials also told us that turnover among field procurement staff has
continued to hurt the continuity of their operations and that
peacekeeping missions continue to faces challenges in deploying
qualified, experienced procurement staff, especially during the
critical start-up phase. In addition, 19 of 20 chief procurement
officers expressed concerns to us about vacancies or understaffing
among field procurement staff. One chief procurement officer at a large
mission told us that when his mission started up there were only two
temporary duty staff assigned to the procurement function and that it
took 2 years for the section to reach 75 percent of its allocated
staffing level. In discussing the significance of field procurement
vacancies, another chief procurement officer told us that staff are
pushed harder and burn out faster, and there is a heightened risk that
errors will be made.
Chief Procurement Officers Continue to Cite Difficulties in Applying UN
Procurement Processes and Procedures in the Field:
In our 2006 report, we noted that field procurement staff operate under
regulations that do not always reflect differences inherent to
operating in field locations and that UN procurement rules and
processes are difficult to apply in peacekeeping missions, according to
UN officials, in particular during start-up. Despite the UN's efforts
to improve field procurement, chief procurement officers continue to
note challenges in implementing UN procurement policies and processes
in the field environment. For example, 17 of the 20 chief procurement
officers we interviewed identified difficulties in applying the UN's
vendor registration requirements in the countries where the missions
are operating. One official told us that the requirement for potential
vendors to provide bank statements is impossible to meet in areas where
there are no functioning banks.[Footnote 28] Another procurement
official stated that the UN vendor registration system does not take
into account these circumstances on the ground, and if the missions
strictly followed the rules and the paperwork requirements, they would
not be able to do business. As an example, this official told us that
to purchase water the mission has to find an individual with a
borehole. The UN official stated that this person may have a gun and a
donkey, but the only paper he handles for his business is cash.
[Footnote 29] Officials in the Department of Management's Procurement
Division stated that they are working to streamline vendor registration
requirements, including reducing paperwork requirements for low-value
contracts. The Department of Management commented that the Procurement
Division is piloting a revised vendor registration process at UN
headquarters that requires less formal documentation and is intended to
expedite vendor registration.
Although the Procurement Division has revised and updated the
procurement manual in both of the last 2 years, 15 of the 20 chief
procurement officers we interviewed told us that the procurement manual
should be further revised to better reflect the field procurement
environment. Several chief procurement officers, for example, stated
that the manual should be shortened and simplified to more clearly
distinguish between policy and guidelines and that separate guidance
for field procurement should be established. Another official stated
that when the manual was written the operational requirements in field
were not taken into account. This official added that during a war, it
is not always possible to go through a long bidding process for fuel or
food and that sometimes time frames need to be condensed to meet local
conditions. Procurement division officials told us that a future
revision and update of the manual will include a more extensive
revision to reflect field concerns.
Additional Procurement Reforms Have Yet to Be Implemented:
In addition to the concerns raised above, several other elements of the
UN's procurement reform agenda continue to be discussed within the
organization but have not yet been implemented. These include:
* Independent Bid Protest. We previously reported that the UN had not
established an independent bid protest process, a widely endorsed
control mechanism that permits vendors to file complaints with an
office or official who is independent of the procurement
process.[Footnote 30] Procurement division officials stated that a
procedure for bid protests has been agreed to in principle but still
needs to be formalized. In addition, these officials stated that a
pilot project for a bid protest system in UN headquarters is planned to
begin in September 2008.
* Ethics Guidance. A 2006 UN report on procurement reform discussed
plans to issue specific guidance on ethics responsibilities for
procurement staff in 2006. However, according to Procurement Division
officials, these guidelines have not yet been finalized and issued.
[Footnote 31] In March 2008, the ACABQ expressed its concern over the
delay in issuing the ethics guidelines for procurement staff and
reiterated that every effort should be made to resolve outstanding
issues and issue the guidance without further delay. UN officials told
us that an issue still to be resolved is whether the formal adoption of
the Procurement Division's guidance on zero tolerance for gifts for
procurement staff will require a change to the UN staff regulations.
* Lead Agency Concept. The UN also has made little progress in
establishing a lead agency concept, which is intended to achieve
savings and reduce duplication of work for commonly procured products,
such as office supplies, information technology, and communications
equipment. Under the concept a UN organization with an established
contract with favorable terms and conditions would make purchases under
the contract on behalf of other organizations in the UN system. In its
2006 procurement reform plan, the UN projected that implementation of
the lead agency concept would take 6 to 12 months. However, UN
officials stated the General Assembly has yet to approve a proposal to
implement the concept. According to the Department of Management, the
lead agency concept may be of limited application, given that a
significant proportion of the UN Secretariat's procurement activities
are in support of peacekeeping activities and which may not be required
by other UN agencies.
* Risk Assessments of Field Procurement. In 2006, we reported that the
UN lacks a comprehensive risk assessment framework for procurement
activities.[Footnote 32] A UN official acknowledged that there has been
little progress to report on the establishment of a risk management
system. Fifteen of the 20 chief procurement officers we interviewed
also told us that they had not received guidance or requirements from
UN headquarters for conducting risk assessments of procurement
activities. [Footnote 33] One official, for example, stated that
although there has been discussion within UN headquarters about risk
management, no formal guidance has been issued. At the organizational
level, the UN continues to develop and plan for the roll-out of an
overall risk assessment framework, known as the Enterprise Risk
Management (ERM) concept. The UN is planning to implement the ERM by
2010.[Footnote 34]
UNLB Provides Important Communications and Logistical Support to
Peacekeeping Missions, but Its Growth Has Raised Concerns among Member
States:
UNLB provides several important services to peacekeeping missions,
including the management of the UN's worldwide communications and
information network and the rapid deployment of Strategic Deployment
Stocks (SDS). In response to peacekeeping mandates, UNLB's
responsibilities have increased to incorporate other services, such as
training and aviation support. However, its growth over the past 5 to 6
years has raised concerns among UN member states about its expansion
and future roles in peacekeeping support.
UNLB Provides Important Communications and Logistical Support for
Peacekeeping Operations and Administers Training and Other Services to
Missions:
UNLB supports peacekeeping missions through the provision of several
important services including the management of the UN's global
communications network and the management and rapid deployment of
strategic equipment to the missions when they start. In addition to
these core functions, UNLB provides administrative support to six
"tenant units" hosted at the base that provide services such as
training and aviation support.[Footnote 35] Services that UNLB provides
to peacekeeping operations include the following:
* UNLB manages the UN worldwide communications hub that links
operations between UN headquarters, UN agencies, peacekeeping missions,
and a number of other field offices through e-mail, telephone, and
videoconferencing. UNLB's Communications and Information Technology
Service serves more than 90,000 UN staff at headquarters and at field
operations.[Footnote 36] On a yearly basis, UNLB establishes 4,000
videoconferences, processes 24 million inter-mission telephone calls,
and routes 120 million e-mail messages involving headquarters and UN
field missions. UNLB also maintains the UN satellite communication
network and the mobile communication vehicles used in the field (as
shown in fig. 4).
Figure 4: UNLB's Communications and Data Facilities:
[See PDF for image]
Photographs of UNLB Data Center and Satellite Farm and Mobile
Communication Vehicle.
Source: Photographs taken by GAO during a site visit to Brindisi,
Italy.
[End of figure]
* UNLB provides logistical support to peacekeeping missions that are
starting up by receiving, inspecting, maintaining, and issuing
equipment and supplies from SDS.[Footnote 37] SDS is composed of
equipment considered vital to missions at start-up, such as computers,
generators, portable offices, and vehicles. (See app. III for a list of
the various components of SDS managed by UNLB.) UNLB also receives
goods and equipment that have been procured directly from a
manufacturer on behalf of peacekeeping missions, inspects the goods,
and refits the equipment for the missions' needs, then ships them to
missions. Finally, UNLB refurbishes used equipment, such as vehicles
and generators, for inclusion in the UN Reserve stock for re-issuance
to peacekeeping missions.
* UNLB provides administrative support services to six "tenant units"
hosted at the base that provide various services and support. For
example, UNLB administers training courses, seminars, and pre-
deployment briefings at its on-site training facility. As part of the
training function, UNLB provides the civilian pre-deployment training
that new or returning UN staff enroll in before deploying to a
mission.[Footnote 38] According to UN officials, UNLB provided training
to 2,000 staff in 2007, of which 400 were preparing to deploy to
peacekeeping missions. UNLB also provides oversight of aviation safety
for UNMIK, UNOMIG, and itself and develops geospacial information for
missions. UNLB's Air Operations Centre provides ground support to
aircraft movements and also coordinates with the UN's World Food
Program to provide aviation support for humanitarian flights from
Brindisi. The Geographic Information Services (GIS) Center provides
mapping and support services to peacekeeping operations, in Darfur and
Lebanon, for example.
UNLB Has Expanded Since 2002:
UNLB has grown since 2002 in response to the growing number of
peacekeeping mandates and the Secretary-General's decisions to place
additional services at UNLB. Since 2002, the UN Security Council has
mandated the deployment or expansion of eight peacekeeping operations
and authorized a four-fold increase in the number of UN peacekeepers.
From fiscal year 2002/2003 to fiscal year 200/2009,[Footnote 39] UNLB's
budget increased from $14 million to over $45 million, and its staff
levels increased from 130 to 264 (see table 2). As shown in table 2,
UNLB has also been actively shipping SDS stocks to missions. Since
2002, when the General Assembly approved the SDS, UNLB has supported 40
operations with SDS shipments amounting to over $300 million. This
includes shipments to all new missions since 2004, the supply of
operational and security materials to existing missions, and ad hoc
support to operations, including the rotation of SDS.
Table 2: UNLB's Apportionments, Staffing Levels, and SDS Shipments from
2002 to 2008 (U.S. Dollars in millions):
Fiscal year: 2002/2003;
Apportionments: $14.3;
Staff: 130;
SDS Shipments: $2.4.
Fiscal year: 2003/2004;
Apportionments: $22.2;
Staff: 136;
SDS Shipments: $76.3.
Fiscal year: 2004/2005;
Apportionments: $28.4;
Staff: 136;
SDS Shipments: $76.9.
Fiscal year: 2005/2006;
Apportionments: $31.5;
Staff: 202;
SDS Shipments: $30.1.
Fiscal year: 2006/2007;
Apportionments: $35.5;
Staff: 216;
SDS Shipments: $59.1.
Fiscal year: 2007/2008;
Apportionments: $40.4;
Staff: 242;
SDS Shipments: $56.9.
Fiscal year: 2008/2009;
Apportionments: $45.8[A];
Staff: 264;
SDS Shipments: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of UNLB data.
[A] 2008/2009 reflects approved budget rather than apportionment.
[End of table]
UNLB's expansion since 2002 includes the administration and management
of offices that support peacekeeping. In fiscal year 2006/2007, UNLB
initiated its training center and Regional Aviation Safety Office, and
the base's fiscal year 2007/2008 budget initiated administrative
support for the Strategic Air Operations Center, GIS Center, and the
Engineering Design Unit. In 2008, UNLB will manage facilities for
DPKO's Standing Police Unit.
In July 2008, the General Assembly approved UNLB's 2008/2009 budget,
which includes an increase in staff. UNLB's annual budget documents
include performance measures and indicators of achievement relating to
the management of SDS and other equipment. UNLB is meeting most of its
performance indicators, which include a near 100 percent availability
of its IT communications services to UN staff and a reduction in
equipment receipt and inspection times, but faces some challenges in
shipping this equipment to the missions. For example, UNLB has not met
its goal of processing shipments of equipment within a 17-day target
period, due in part to the time it takes to procure shipping contracts.
While noting these challenges, the ACABQ also has recognized UNLB's
achievements in several areas, particularly its recent certifications
in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) process for
excellence in supply inventory and information security management (ISO
27001).
General Assembly Requested UNLB to Clarify Its Role in Supporting
Peacekeeping, in Light of Its Expansion:
While the General Assembly approved UNLB's 2008-2009 budget, it
endorsed the ACABQ's previous recommendation that the Secretary-General
report on the role and future development of the base. In 2007 and
2008, the General Assembly and the ACABQ reported that a longer-term
perspective was needed to clarify the concept and functions of UNLB,
and the basis for placing certain functions at the base. The General
Assembly endorsed the recommendation that the Secretary-General report
in the 2009-2010 budget proposal on UNLB's roles and future
development.
The ACABQ also raised several specific issues about UNLB's new
services. In 2007, and subsequently in 2008, the ACABQ requested
analyses of the function of the GIS Center and the Engineering
Standardization and Design Center, stressing the need for the GIS
Center to clarify its goals, resources and roles. For the Engineering
Center, the ACABQ saw a need for determining what efficiency and
productivity gains would be achieved by establishing the unit at UNLB.
In 2008, the ACABQ also emphasized that a forthcoming report on
training strategy should provide an analysis of the optimum venues and
conditions for training, including training that may be more effective
if provided regionally. The ACABQ also recommended that the Secretary-
General clarify reporting lines between the "tenant units," UNLB, and
UN headquarters.
In response to the ACABQ's concerns, endorsed by the General Assembly,
the Secretary-General stated that support for establishing logistics
functions at UNLB would be based on analysis of projected costs and
overhead weighed against potential benefits, including savings and
productivity gains. To clarify UNLB's future strategy, the Department
of Field Support and UNLB are developing a 5-year plan that is to be
incorporated into UNLB's 2009-2010 budget. According to UNLB officials,
the plan is expected to show UNLB expansion possibilities as well as
refurbishment of infrastructure requirements for the next 5 years. They
said one factor that could change UNLB's role is a decision by the
General Assembly to shift field procurement authority and
responsibility to DFS. According to the head of DFS's Logistics
Division, if DFS were given more responsibility for field procurement,
UNLB could play a greater role in procuring for, managing, and
monitoring the UN's worldwide contracts for goods and services.
Conclusion:
Management reforms needed to cope with the dramatic growth of
peacekeeping are incomplete. Reforms to restructure peacekeeping
management and strengthen procurement are still being discussed by the
Secretariat and member states, but have not been resolved. In addition,
the UN is in the process of clarifying long-term plans for the UN
logistics base. Central to resolving these issues is a decision about
which UN department--the Department of Management or the Department of
Field Support--has authority and responsibility for peacekeeping
procurement. The UN Secretariat has been unable to reach agreement on
the management authority over field procurement, and as this decision
continues to be delayed, the divided authority between two departments
remains. UN officials and member states agree that this dual control
over procurement is inefficient and ineffective and continues to expose
the organization to risks.
In a 2006 report, we identified the UN's divided organizational
structure for managing procurement as a vulnerability that leaves
unclear which department is accountable for problems in the UN's field
procurement process. In that report, we recommended that the United
States work with other member states to encourage the Secretary-General
to take steps such as establishing clear and effective lines of
authority between headquarters and the field for UN procurement. In
2007, we further reported that due to the time and attention given to
the Secretary-General's peacekeeping restructuring proposal, the
General Assembly had not considered several procurement reform issues,
including establishing lines of accountability, delegation of
authority, and the responsibilities of the Department of Management and
the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. A decision on this issue
will provide direction to complete the restructuring and resourcing of
the Department of Field Support, clarify lines of authority and
responsibility for peacekeeping procurement, and help clarify a longer-
term strategy for the logistics base. However, the UN has yet to
resolve this issue.
Further progress in other procurement reform areas also is needed.
While the UN has taken steps to expand procurement training and update
its procurement manual, it has not made progress in establishing an
independent bid protest process and continues to face difficulties in
attracting and retaining field procurement staff. Continued pressure by
the United States and other member states to move these and other
procurement reforms forward is needed to fully address concerns that we
raised in our 2006 and 2007 reports covering UN procurement.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Department of State and the UN provided written comments on a draft
of the report, which we have reprinted in appendixes IV and V. State
agreed with the main findings of the report and agreed that much work
remains in the UN's ongoing process to restructure and strengthen its
organization for peacekeeping management. State commented that it would
draw upon our findings in its continuing discussions with the UN. The
UN commented that the report was a generally accurate reflection of the
current situation. State and the UN also provided technical comments,
which we addressed in the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretaries of State and Defense; and the United
Nations. We will also provide copies to others on request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in app. VI.
Signed by:
Thomas Melito:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our review focused on three objectives related to the management of
peacekeeping operations: (1) the status of restructuring and
strengthening peacekeeping management, including the authority for
field procurement; (2) the status of reforms to address previously
identified problems with peacekeeping procurement; and (3) UN Logistics
Base's (UNLB) support of peacekeeping operations and its recent
expansion.
To assess the status of restructuring and strengthening peacekeeping
management, we reviewed UN documents, including the Secretary-General's
peacekeeping restructuring proposal, restructuring status reports,
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Department of Field
Support (DFS) documents, General Assembly (GA) resolutions, Advisory
Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) reports,
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) reports, and other UN
documents. We also reviewed previous GAO reports. We also used a
framework that is widely accepted in the international audit community
and has been adopted by leading accountability organizations, including
the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions, the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget, and GAO.[Footnote 40] This framework
includes the following elements of internal control: (1) the control
environment, (2) risk assessment, (3) control activities, (4)
information and communications, and (5) monitoring. In addition, we
conducted interviews at UN headquarters in New York, with officials
from the Office of the Secretary-General, DPKO, DFS, OIOS, and the
Procurement Division (PD). We also met with officials at the U.S.
Mission to the United Nations and with representatives of the ACABQ and
with individual UN member states, including leading contributors to the
UN and developing countries. In addition, we conducted structured
interviews with chief procurement officers at 20 field missions to
discuss management authority for field procurement and other issues
related to the DPKO/DFS restructuring. For more information on these
structured interviews, see the detailed description below. In
Washington, D.C., we also met with State and Department of Defense
(DOD) officials.
To assess the status of peacekeeping procurement reforms, we reviewed
UN documents, including UN Secretariat reports on the status of
procurement reforms, PD and DFS documents, ACABQ reports, OIOS reports,
and other documents. We also collected data on UN field procurement and
on procurement staff vacancies. In addition, we reviewed previous
reports and the internationally accepted internal control framework
referred to above.
In addition, we conducted structured telephone interviews with chief
procurement officers[Footnote 41] at 20 current peacekeeping and
special political missions. For these structured interviews, we
selected the population of 17 current peacekeeping missions, as well as
the 3 special political missions that are led by DPKO. Besides being
led by DPKO, these special political missions are also similar to the
peacekeeping missions in that they have their own delegated procurement
authority from UN headquarters. We did not include within our scope
other special political missions that are not led by DPKO or that do
not have delegated procurement authority. We selected the following 17
peacekeeping missions and 3 special political missions for our
interviews:
Peacekeeping Missions:
UNTSO - United Nations Truce Supervision Organization;
UNMOGIP - United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan;
UNFICYP - United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus;
UNDOF - United Nations Disengagement Observer Force;
UNIFIL - United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon;
MINURSO - United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara;
UNOMIG - United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia;
UNMIK - United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo;
MONUC - United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo;
UNMEE - United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea[Footnote 42];
UNMIL - United Nations Mission in Liberia;
UNOCI - United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire;
MINUSTAH - United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti;
UNMIS - United Nations Mission in the Sudan;
UNMIT - United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste;
UNAMID - African Union-United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur;
MINURCAT - United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and
Chad.
Special Political Missions led by DPKO:
UNAMA - United Nations Mission in Afghanistan;
UNIOSIL - United Nations Integrated Office in Sierra Leone;
BINUB - United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi.
Our structured interview included questions on procurement reforms and
processes, previous GAO findings, and issues relating to peacekeeping
management and UNLB. Structured interview development involved multiple
iterations in which questions were assessed methodologically for
coherence, completeness, and balance. Two methodologists provided
detailed input on the questions during the entire period of
development. In the final phase of interview development, we pre-tested
our questions with three of our initial respondents and refined our
questions based on their input.
To analyze the open-ended responses to our structured interview
questions, we first developed a set of summary statements to be used
for reporting purposes. These summary statements were based on an
inductive exercise involving an in-depth reading and comparison of
responses to questions under each of the eight recommendation
categories and on other issues. Second, we tested these statements on
an initial set of three interviews. This test involved two analysts
separately coding all of the summary statements for each of the three
interviews. Most statements were coded in one of three ways: (1)
positive response - the interview data corresponded to the statement;
(2) negative response - the interview data contradicted the statement;
(3) non-response - no reference to the statement was contained in the
interview data. The two analysts met and reconciled their responses;
this effort also resulted in modifications to the summary statements.
Third, the two analysts used the revised statements to separately code
each of the remaining 17 interviews and then met to reconcile any
differences in coding. The level of correspondence between the two
analysts' coding of the summary statements was very high, 89 percent.
The final tallies of the analysis were obtained by counting, for each
statement, the number of positive, negative, and non-responses. Summary
results of this analysis across all eight recommendation areas are
provided in Appendix II.
To assess the status of procurement reforms, we also met with UN
officials in New York, including officials with the Office of the
Secretary-General, the Procurement Division, DFS, DPKO, and OIOS. In
addition, we met with representatives of the U.S. mission to the United
Nations and with representatives from the ACABQ and individual member
states. In Washington, we also met with State and DOD officials.
To identify and examine the support UNLB provides to peacekeeping
missions, we reviewed UN documents and reports, including budget
documents, UNLB data and documents, DPKO Material Resource Plans (MRP),
ACABQ reports, OIOS reports, and General Assembly resolutions. We
determined that data from the UN's inventory management system are
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report, which is to
support findings concerning UNLB's support for peacekeeping operations
and its expansion. We traveled to Rome and Brindisi, Italy, to meet
with officials from UNLB, the UN Humanitarian Response Depot (UNHRD),
and representatives of the U.S. Mission to the Rome-based UN
organizations. We met with UNLB officials to gain information on UNLB's
operations, responsibilities related to the management of strategic
deployment stocks (SDS), and challenges with supporting peacekeeping
operations. We met with UNHRD and U.S. Mission officials to discuss
other UN organizations' logistics operations to support humanitarian
missions. We also met with officials with the U.S. Permanent Mission to
the UN in New York, as well as State officials and DOD officials in
Washington, D.C. It was beyond the scope of this review to conduct an
analysis of the cost-effectiveness of UNLB's location in comparison to
other locations.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 to September 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO's Survey of Chief Procurement
Officers at UN Peacekeeping Missions:
The following table provides of statements derived from our structured
telephone interviews with chief procurement officers (CPO) at 20 UN
field missions. The statements are organized by categories that
correspond to recommendations from our 2006 report on UN
procurement.[Footnote 43] For each statement, we list the number of
respondents that provided answers corresponding to the statement (Yes),
the number of respondents providing answers indicating the opposite
view (No), and the number of respondents who did not provide an answer
or provided an answer that was unclear. For a detailed description of
our scope and methodology for these structured interviews, see appendix
I.
Category/statement: CPOs at peacekeeping missions identified challenges
to conducting procurement activities in the field;
Yes: 20;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 0.
Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs expressed confusion
or uncertainties over the division of responsibilities between DFS and
PD;
Yes: 18;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 2.
Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs told us that lines
of authority and responsibility for procurement between headquarters
and the field are clear;
Yes: 1;
No: 17;
No answer or unclear: 2.
Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs expressed
challenges or difficulties stemming from the division of
responsibilities between DFS and PD;
Yes: 18;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 2.
Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs stated that overall
responsibility for field procurement should be clarified between DFS
and PD;
Yes: 19;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 1.
Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs stated that DFS
lacks the resources needed to sufficiently support field procurement;
Yes: 9;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 11.
Category/statement: Lines of authority and responsibility between
headquarters and the field for UN procurement: CPOs stated that they
feel like "orphans" or that they are often left on their own to make
procurement decisions in isolation;
Yes: 9;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 11.
Category/statement: Procurement training program and establishment of a
formal career path for procurement officers: CPOs told us that their
mission had received procurement training recently;
Yes: 18;
No: 1;
No answer or unclear: 1.
Category/statement: Procurement training program and establishment of a
formal career path for procurement officers: CPOs stated that the UN
has not established a comprehensive procurement training program for
procurement staff;
Yes: 13;
No: 1;
No answer or unclear: 6.
Category/statement: Procurement training program and establishment of a
formal career path for procurement officers: CPOs told us that the UN
has not established a formal career path for procurement staff;
Yes: 14;
No: 1;
No answer or unclear: 5.
Category/statement: Procurement training program and establishment of a
formal career path for procurement officers: CPOs told us that their
missions were not in a position to implement the Best Value for Money
principle;
Yes: 16;
No: 3;
No answer or unclear: 1.
Category/statement: Functions and workload of the Headquarters
Committee on Contracts (HCC): CPOs discussed one or more challenges
associated with the HCC's review of procurement cases;
Yes: 17;
No: 2;
No answer or unclear: 1.
Category/statement: Functions and workload of the Headquarters
Committee on Contracts (HCC): CPOs told us that the financial threshold
for the HCC's review of procurement cases should be raised;
Yes: 14;
No: 2;
No answer or unclear: 4.
Category/statement: Establishment of an independent bid protest process
for UN vendors: CPOs discussed concerns to take into account if a
formal independent bid protest were to be established for field
missions;
Yes: 16;
No: 1;
No answer or unclear: 3.
Category/statement: Establishment of an independent bid protest process
for UN vendors: CPOs told us that their missions have received few, if
any, complaints from companies about the outcomes of the bidding
process;
Yes: 14;
No: 2;
No answer or unclear: 4.
Category/statement: UN procurement manual and ethics guidance: CPOs
stated that their staff refer to the UN Procurement Manual as a
reference tool;
Yes: 14;
No: 2;
No answer or unclear: 4.
Category/statement: UN procurement manual and ethics guidance: CPOs
stated that the Procurement Manual should be revised to better reflect
the field procurement environment;
Yes: 15;
No: 3;
No answer or unclear: 2.
Category/statement: UN procurement manual and ethics guidance: CPOs
stated that UN headquarters sought their input on revisions to the
Procurement Manual;
Yes: 19;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 1.
Category/statement: Process for assuring that the UN is conducting
business with only qualified vendors: CPOs identified difficulties in
applying the UN's vendor registration requirements in the countries
where the missions are operating;
Yes: 17;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 3.
Category/statement: Process for assuring that the UN is conducting
business with only qualified vendors: CPOs told us that the UN's vendor
registration process was unclear or that it needed to be revised;
Yes: 14;
No: 1;
No answer or unclear: 5.
Category/statement: Process for assuring that the UN is conducting
business with only qualified vendors: CPOs told us that UNHQ provides
them with information on suspended or suspect vendors;
Yes: 20;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 0.
Category/statement: Risk assessment process providing reasonable
assurance of systematic and comprehensive of headquarters and field
procurement: CPOs stated that they have not received guidance or
requirements from UN headquarters for conducting risk assessments of
procurement activities;
Yes: 15;
No: 3;
No answer or unclear: 2.
Category/statement: Monitoring of procurement activities by procurement
managers: CPOs described monitoring and oversight of field procurement
(by UN headquarters) as limited;
Yes: 11;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 9.
Category/statement: Other: CPOs expressed concerns to us about
vacancies or understaffing among field procurement staff;
Yes: 19;
No: 0;
No answer or unclear: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of structured interviews with UN chief procurement
officers.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Components of Strategic Deployment Stocks (SDS):
SDS[Footnote 44] includes vehicles, communications equipment, and
accommodation, among other items. This equipment is stored and
maintained at UNLB as a reserve to be used for rapid deployment to
newly starting missions. The following table lists the categories of
SDS managed and stored by UNLB.[Footnote 45] The equipment is grouped
into six sections: Engineering, Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
Medical, Supply, Communication and Information Technology Services
(CITS), and Transport.
Engineering:
Maintenance Supplies;
Prefabricated Facilities;
Bridges;
Field Supply Supplies;
Spare Parts and Supplies;
Generators;
Water Purification;
Septic Tanks;
Geographic Information Systems (GIS):
IT Equipment;
Software Packages;
Spare Parts and Supplies;
Medical[Footnote 46]:
Clinic and Hospital Equipment;
Medical Supplies.
Communication and Information Technology Services (CITS):
Public information equipment;
Communication equipment;
IT Equipment.
Supply:
Office Furniture;
Office Equipment;
Accommodation Equipment;
Fire Fighting Equipment;
Refrigeration Equipment;
Fuel Tanks and Pumps;
Security and Safety Equipment;
Stationary and Office Supplies;
Sanitary and Cleaning Materials;
Binoculars and Observation Equipment;
Spare Parts and Supplies;
Uniforms, Flags, and Decals;
Personal protection gear;
Rations.
Transport:
Ambulances;
Buses;
Forklifts and Cargo Handles;
Passenger, 4WD, pickups;
Vehicle workshop equipment;
Other vehicles;
IT equipment.
Source; United Nations.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
September 4, 2008:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "United
Nations Peacekeeping: Lines of Authority for Field Procurement Remain
Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues," GAO Job Code 320520.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Tammy Pomerleau, Management Analyst, Bureau of International
Organization Affairs at (202) 736-7937.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Sid Kaplan (Acting):
cc: GAO - Tet Miyabara;
IO - James Warlick (Acting);
State/OIG - Mark Duda.
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
United Nations Peacekeeping: Lines of Authority for Field Procurement
Remain Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues (GAO-08-1094;
GAO Code 320520):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
United Nations Peacekeeping: Lines of Authority for Field Procurement
Remain Unclear, but Reforms Have Addressed Some Issues. The Department
of State appreciates the main findings of the GAO report that recognize
that much work remains in the United Nations' ongoing process to
restructure and strengthen its organization for peacekeeping
management.
The GAO notes that the United Nations has not established a clear line
of authority for field procurement, which is fundamental to the
successful conduct of peacekeeping operations. The lines of
accountability and responsibility for field procurement are unclear and
overlapping between the Department of Management and the newly created
Department of Field Support. Furthermore, the GAO noted that progress
in other procurement reform areas is needed such as addressing the
difficulties in attracting and retaining field procurement staff and in
applying procurement processes in the field.
While the GAO made no formal recommendations, the Department of State
concurs with many of the findings in the report. The Department has
been actively engaged with UN senior management and the various
concerned Departments of the UN Secretariat throughout the recent
restructuring of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. We will
draw on your findings in our continuing discussions with the UN on
these issues.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the United Nations:
United Nations:
Nations Unies:
Postal Address: United Nations, NY 10017:
Cable Address: UNations NewYork:
Reference:
September 2008:
Mr. Melito:
International Affairs and Trade:
Director:
US Government Accountability Office:
Dear Mr. Melito:
In response to your letter of 18 August 2008 to Ms. Kane and myself, I
would like to thank you for providing us with the opportunity to
respond with comments to the draft GAO report "United Nations
Peacekeeping: Lines of authority for field procurement remain unclear,
but reforms have addressed some issues.
On behalf of the Departments of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and
Field Support (DFS), I am pleased to advise you that the substance of
the draft report, in our view, is a generally accurate reflection of
the current situation. I would, however, like to take this opportunity
to offer comments and propose a number of suggested revisions,
including to address a few factual inaccuracies, related to the status
of restructuring and strengthening peacekeeping management; the status
o procurement reforms; and UNLB's support of peacekeeping operations.
These comments are detailed in a separate document.
I trust that these comments will be helpful. Should you wish to discuss
them further, please do not hesitate to contact me or my office. DPKO
and DFS look forward to receiving the finalized version in due course.
Your sincerely.
Signed by:
Susana Malcorra:
Under-Secretary-General:
Department of Field Support:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Thomas Melito (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Tet Miyabara, Assistant
Director, Jeremy Latimer, Sona Kalapura, Michelle Richman Su, Debbie
Chung, and David Dornisch made key contributions to this report. In
addition, Ashley Alley, Avrum Ashery, Jenny Chanley, Beth Hoffman Leon,
Colleen Miller, and Justin Monroe provided technical assistance.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, United Nations: Procurement Internal Controls Are Weak,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-577] (Washington,
D.C.: April 2006). GAO, United Nations: Progress on Management Reform
Efforts Has Varied, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
08-84] (Washington, D.C.: November 2007). United Nations, Report of the
Office of Internal Oversight Services on the Activities of the
Procurement Task Force for the 18-month period ended 30 June 2007,
A/62/272 (October 2007).
[2] Strategic deployment stocks include vehicles, communications
equipment, and accommodation, among other items. This equipment is
stored and maintained at UNLB as a reserve to be used for rapid
deployment to newly starting missions.
[3] Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission,
Internal Control--Integrated Framework (September 1992).
[4] One mission, UNMEE, closed after our structured interviews were
conducted.
[5] Prior to the addition of a security sector reform capacity within
DPKO, no strategic mechanism existed on a UN-wide scale to develop or
implement policies or guidelines for peacekeeping missions. Rather,
each peacekeeping mission defined, engaged, and reported on security
sector reform in different ways.
[6] A partnerships capacity within DPKO was developed to bring a more
coordinated and strategic approach to peacekeeping and post-conflict
engagement with other UN and non-UN partners.
[7] Some of the other responsibilities of the Chief of Staff include
monitoring the day-to-day internal operations of DPKO, ensuring
effective coordination and integrated functioning with DFS, and leading
and coordinating DPKO's engagement with intergovernmental bodies.
[8] The delegation of procurement authority comes from the Department
of Management to the Under Secretary-General of DFS. The head of DFS,
in turn, delegates procurement authority to the Directors or Chiefs of
Mission Support, who delegate authority to chief procurement officer
and other procurement staff as appropriate.
[9] We also recommended that the Secretary of State report to Congress
annually regarding UN progress in reforming its procurement process,
with particular attention to the status of UN progress in addressing
the above recommendations.
[10] Currently, the UN financial rules state that the Department of
Management has authority over procurement and over the designation of
officials responsible for procurement. The UN procurement manual gives
DFS some authority over local procurement, but the manual is
subordinate to the UN's financial rules and regulations.
[11] UN General Assembly, 60TH Session. Investing in the United
Nations: for a Stronger Organization Worldwide: Detailed Report;
Addendum: Procurement Reform, A/60/846/Add.5 (June 2006).
[12] The Procurement Division established a Planning, Compliance and
Monitoring Section to coordinate acquisition planning, monitor
compliance with procurement policies, and develop ethics programs,
among other responsibilities.
[13] The Procurement Division has reported 100 percent staff compliance
with the financial disclosure requirements for 2006 and 2007.
[14] The measure also prohibits former UN staff from acting on behalf
of others in procurement-related matters for a period of 2 years
following their UN employment.
[15] In our 2006 report, we recommended that the United States work
with other member states to encourage the Secretary-General to
establish a comprehensive procurement training program.
[16] For example, Deloitte, Assessment of Internal Controls in the
United Nations Secretariat Procurement Operations (Nov. 20, 2005).
[17] IAPSO assists UN agencies and development projects in purchasing
goods and services and has developed various procurement training
courses.
[18] Requisitioners are staff in other mission sections, such as
engineering or information technology and communications, who initiate
requirements for goods and services to be acquired.
[19] Prospective vendors must register on the UN Web site and meet
certain criteria to become registered on the UN's vendor database--the
United Nations Global Marketplace.
[20] In our 2006 report, we recommended that the United States work
with other member states to encourage the Secretary-General to take
action to keep the UN procurement manual completed and updated on a
timely basis.
[21] UN budgets are based on U.S. dollars, but chief procurement
officers told us that in some cases they purchase goods that are priced
in Euros.
[22] The ACABQ recently noted this progress but encouraged the
Secretariat to continue to seek additional opportunities to promote
procurement from developing countries.
[23] We recommended in 2006 that the United States work with other
member states to encourage the Secretary-General to establish a formal
career path for procurement staff.
[24] GAO, Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function at Federal
Agencies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-218G]
(Washington, D.C.: September 2005).
[25] The UN has previously discussed plans to support procurement staff
in obtaining professional certification in procurement functions, but
these plans have not moved forward. The new training framework states
that certification is envisaged as a voluntary program, that it is the
staff member's own responsibility to obtain accreditation and
qualifications, and that further investigation is needed to determine
financial support for certification programs.
[26] The Department of Management acknowledged the concern of chief
procurement officers that the UN has not established a formal career
path for procurement and noted that the career path is governed by
policies promulgated by the UN's Office of Human Resources Management.
[27] DFS reported to us that the vacancy rate for field procurement
staff was 21 percent in September 2006, 29 percent in November 2007,
and 20 percent in March 2008.
[28] This official stated that in these situations, the mission places
more weight on a company's previous work in assessing its
qualifications to conduct business with the UN.
[29] The official further stated that the missions deal with these
types of constraints by following overall principles, such as assessing
whether companies are ethical and capable of supplying the UN.
[30] Chief procurement officers at field missions discussed with us
issues to take into account if a formal independent process is
established that covers field missions. For example, some officials
raised questions over how a formalized protest process could impact the
acquisition of goods and services critical to the functioning of
peacekeeping missions.
[31] In 2006, we recommended that the United States work with other
member states to encourage the Secretary-General to complete this
ethics guidance.
[32] We recommended that the United States work with other member
states to encourage the Secretary-General to develop a strategic risk
assessment process for headquarters and field procurement.
[33] One CPO did cite a pilot risk assessment activity that is underway
at the mission. This official stated that OIOS has created a management
framework for the mission that lists the risks to achieving goals of
key business processes, as well as strategic, political risks,
operational, and financial risks. The official further stated that this
risk framework is not exclusive to procurement, but deals with all
services at the mission.
[34] The Department of Management also commented that a risk assessment
of the department, including the Procurement Division, was conducted in
2008.
[35] These offices are located at UNLB but are operationally under the
direction of DPKO, UNLB is also providing support for a pilot project
known as the Reference Check Unit. According to UNLB officials,
preparations are underway for UNLB to provide office space and
administrative support to a 25-person unit called the Standing Police
Capacity (SPC) while it is awaiting deployment to the field.
[36] For example, Communication and Information Technology Services
staff provide support to the Mobile Deployable Telecommunications
System (MDTS). MDTS is a vehicle fitted with equipment that allows
field mission staff to communicate with UNLB and the UN's global
infrastructure.
[37] UNLB maintains several categories of SDS. Approximately, $1.8
million are medical stocks that are stored at the vendor, not at UNLB.
The Engineering Section tests and fixes generators, water purification
systems, pre-fabricated units (e.g,. kitchens and warehouses), and
field defense (e.g., barbed wire fences). Equipment from the
engineering section makes up 60 percent (approximately $40 million) of
the SDS volume.
[38] The civilian pre-deployment training provides a uniform briefing
to all staff to prepare them for deployment to the field.
[39] The UN's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30 of the following
year.
[40] Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission,
Internal Control--Integrated Framework (September 1992).
[41] At 2 of the 20 missions, a chief procurement officer was not in
place during the time of our interview, and the mission's procurement
section was headed by an officer-in-charge. Throughout this report we
refer to the 20 officials we interviewed, collectively, as chief
procurement officers.
[42] UNMEE's mission has since terminated.
[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-577].
[44] The SDS information was used in one particular peacekeeping
mission (UNMIT), but is typical of what can be found in SDS for other
missions.
[45] Each category of equipment can include numerous individual items.
For example, the Personal Protection Gear category, under the Supply
section, includes goggles, helmets, vests, and gloves, among other
items.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
