Page 1



The Honorable John Sopko Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction 1550 Crystal Drive, 9th Floor Arlington, VA 22202

JUL 2 9 2014

Dear Mr. Sopko: Thank you for your letter of March 19, 2014 requesting a full accounting of all Department of Defense (DoD) contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements for Afghanistan reconstruction from 2002-March 2013 . I am responding on behalf of the Secretary. We will provide electronically no later than July 31, 2014, additional data relevant to your February 2013 request for information on reconstruction-related contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements . . For each of the following reconstruction funds, we determined which offices or components were responsible for maintaining the contracting data and worked with them to identify contract data tied to these specific funds: the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF); Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (AIF); Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP); Task Force for Business and Stability Operations (TFBSO); and DoD Counter Narcotics (DOD CN)), We then undertook extensive, in-depth reviews of records provided by these offices to determine their completeness, and of requirements for entering data into contracting database systems such as the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). This new submission yields: •

Essentially a full accounting for TFBSO, DOD CN, and AIF contract data for funds that have been obligated during the requested time period.

A largely complete data set for ASFF contracts executedfrom 2010-March 2013. Identifying all of the contract data for obligated ASFF is, however, hindered by an inability before July 2010 to connect information in contract data systems (specifically the FPDS) with accounting information that could connect contracts with the budget account that funded the contract. In July 2010, DoD began to require that contracting systems include this accounting information (se~ enclosure) resulting in the improvement in data since then. Most of the contract data that we are unable to provide is for contracts executed before this policy change.

Identification of contracting data for about 57 percent of CERP obligations for Afghanistan. Several factors hinder a complete reconciliation, primarily because CERP is an authority to spend funds within the Army's operation and maintenance appropriation and not a separate appropriation like ASFF. The Department of the Treasury does not create separate "accounting codes" for lower sub-divisions of accounts such as CERP that would be entered · into FPDS to tie contracts to a specific expenditure of CERP.


It is important to understand that obligations from each of these funds and the contracts through which these funds are executed are managed through separate processes, both of which involve extensive DoD, Congressional, and auditor-including SIGAR-oversight. The 2010 policy change requiring the inclusion of budget account information in contracting database systems helps to significantly improve DoD's ability to provide contract data that is linked to specific reconstruction funds.

We would be glad to meet with your staff to discuss this submission, explain the remaining gaps, and address any additional concerns.


~~ Principal Director Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia

Enclosure: As stated

Profile for Lisette Eileen Cheresson

DOD response  

Here is the Department of Defense's response to SIGAR's request for information. Obtained by WhoWhatWhy's Klaus Marre.

DOD response  

Here is the Department of Defense's response to SIGAR's request for information. Obtained by WhoWhatWhy's Klaus Marre.