INRMPs are implemented most through a combination of DoD/state military staffing and support provided by others (see Chapter 5 “The Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan: Foundations and Key Topics” for a discussion of staffing). Fiscal and other considerations related to implementation using contracts vs. cooperative agreements are described below.
Contracts
Federal contracts are governed by a strict set of terms and conditions, including clauses from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and agency-specific FAR supplements. The FAR outlines the policies, requirements, exceptions, practices, and procedures to plan, form, and administer federal contracts.
Contracts are much less flexible than cooperative agreements, and poorly-written contracts and specifications/scopes of work can result in deliverables that are substandard or don’t meet the government’s needs. Modifying contracts can result in higher costs to the government and delays in delivery.
A firm fixed price type contract is the most common and preferred type of contract. This type of contract allows the cost for a given acquisition or deliverable to be determined up front—the contractor is then required to meet the contract requirements and deliverables. Fixed-price contracts place the onus on the contractor to deliver. Performance risk is lower for the agency under a firm fixed price contract, while cost-reimbursable contracts place a higher cost risk on the agency/installation. The inverse is true for contractors on these two broad contract types.
The contractor assumes some risk under a firm fixed-price contract, but also can walk away with more profit if they are able to deliver under their projected costs. Sometimes, the agency (i.e., buyer) and the contractor (i.e., seller) will negotiate aspects of fixed price and cost-reimbursement within the contract so that the risk is spread between the two parties.
Cooperative Agreements
A cooperative agreement (CA) refers to a legal instrument used to enter the same kind of relationship as a grant, except that substantial involvement is expected between DoD and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the CA. Cooperative agreements are generally governed by Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (aka Uniform Guidance – 2 CFR § 200). The primary authority for using cooperative agreements for natural resources support is the Sikes Act Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. § 670(c) (1). Under the Sikes Act, a project should provide for the maintenance and improvement of natural resources on base (and off-base if the project addresses restrictions related to military activities but requires a higher level of review). Support for projects can encompass all aspects of natural resources planning, implementation, management, and research, such as INRMP planning support, rangeland or watershed management, species or habitat management, wildlife management, forestry, and other activities. Using cooperative agreements with universities and other entities is discussed further in Chapter 6 “Partnerships to Achieve Conservation Goals and Sustain Training.”
One important avenue for cooperative agreements supporting DoD needs is the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) National Network. The CESU Network is a national consortium of federal agencies, tribes, academic institutions, state and local governments, nongovernmental conservation organizations, and other partners working together to support informed public trust resource stewardship. The Network includes more than 470 non-federal partners and 16 federal agencies across seventeen CESUs representing biogeographic regions encompassing all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. Seventeen CESU units provide research, technical assistance, and education to federal land management, environmental, and research agencies and their partners (Figure 7.2).
The CESU partners serve the biological, physical, social, cultural, and engineering disciplines needed to address natural and cultural resource management issues at multiple scales and in an ecosystem context. The multi-disciplinary structure of CESUs makes them well-suited to address federal agency needs for sustainability science. CESUs function as “virtual” organizations, linking federal agencies and institutions to increase access to expertise and facilities. Each CESU is composed of federal agencies, a host university, and partner institutions. DoD has at least one Military Service or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative in each of the 17 CESU regions. These representatives are DoD’s point(s) of contact in each region and serve as the “hub of communications” on CESU matters.
The CESU arrangement is also extremely cost effective for DoD. The current negotiated CESU overhead rate charged by cooperators is only 17.5%, well below the level of overhead that would be charged by the same universities (up to about 60%) or other cooperators (typically much more than 60%) for both non-research and research activities. This enables much more to be achieved for a fixed funding amount.
Next Page: Strategies for Funding Success
Author
David S. Jones, RA IV, Ecologist/Project Manager
Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands
Warner College of Natural Resources
Colorado State University