• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Abstract
 Problem
 An alternative






Title: Procurement practices under Title XII: reaffirmation or reorientation?
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055424/00001
 Material Information
Title: Procurement practices under Title XII: reaffirmation or reorientation?
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Andrew, Chris O.
Affiliation: University of Florida -- Department of Food and Resource Economics -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Publisher: Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1988
 Subjects
Subject: Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
University of Florida.   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
General Note: "Presented at the 1988 Annual AUSUDIAP Meetings, Fayetteville, Arkansas, June 7-9, 1988. Comments by Peter Hildebrand, Ken McDermott, Carlton Davis, Kamal Dow, Steve Kearl, and Wendell Morse are greatly appreciated."
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055424
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida

Table of Contents
    Abstract
        Page 1
    Problem
        Page 2
        Page 3
    An alternative
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
Full Text





PROCUREMENT PRACTICES UNDER


TITLE XII: REAFFIRMATION OR REORIENTATION?1

by


Chris O. Andrew2


Abstract


This paper deals with U.S. technical assistance in agriculture for Third World countries.
Particularly, it is concerned with procurement of assistance through Title XII universities to
agricultural research, education, extension and policy making entities in developing countries.
Present USAID rules and management behavior too often result in wasted resources, talent,
goodwill and valuable time.

Currently the U.S. technical assistance program for agriculture is hampered by: lack of
coordination among major donor agencies; fragmentation in delivery of bilateral projects;
philosophical discontinuity among development assistance scientists and agencies; and excessive
USAID emphasis on the processes of selecting and evaluating bilateral contractors at the
expense of achieving potentially high quality and substantive long-term results. The
agricultural sector and the farm household are complex. This, itself, tests our ability to
deliver effective assistance in a variety of settings. Accepted bureaucratic impediments, make
the difficult impossible. To best use U.S. technical support capability, complete "rethinking"
followed by "refocus" from process to substance in long-term regional and country development
strategies is necessary.

Proposed herein is a regional strategy consistent with the intent of Title XII. It
suggests a procedure for technical assistance entities to become qualified for a region (several
countries) where they will be committed to work over a period of 15 to 25 years. It calls for
a strategy for determining where university subject matter and geographic capabilities lie. It
provides for development of institutional capacity and experience. Several entities would be
qualified for each region so shifts in responsibility over time could take place without
breaking program continuity and without severing established relationships between technical
assistance entities and recipients. The high cost and inequity of competitive project
procurement on a project basis would be reduced. Qualification on a regional program basis
would give equitable opportunity to bidders of any size. The result would be programs less
subjected to politics and personal whim and more directed to resolving long-term agricultural
production, resource use and welfare problems. The programs would be implemented through
"Collaborative Assistance Support Pools (CASPs)" an important complement to the existing
Collaborative Research Support Projects (CRSPs).



IPresented at the 1988 Annual AUSUDIAP Meetings, Fayetteville, Arkansas, June 7-9,
1988. Comments by Peter Hildebrand, Ken McDermott, Carlton Davis, Kamal Dow, Steve Kearl,
and Wendell Morse are greatly appreciated.

2Professor of Food and Resource Economics, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida.










Problem

Projects or Programs?

Successful agricultural assistance programs result from a holistic perspective of
agricultural production problems and policy issues. Yet, technical assistance donors and
agencies often impart divergent and incongruent objectives to Third-World countries through
uncoordinated project interventions. While regional coordination of technical assistance often
relates to U.S. based regional configurations, coordinated and shared assistance to Third-World
countries in a region is not common among donors and their bilateral purveyors of assistance.3
Further, within a single technical assistance agency, various projects may not be consistent
with each other nor compatible with the purposes of the recipient government. Finally, within
a single project, continuity may not prevail. It would appear that organization and
management of technical assistance most often is designed to favor suppliers and not
recipients. Also in this context, the supply of technical assistance may create its own
demand. Effective demand, determined by donor funding priorities, may or may not be
indicative of recipient country priority needs.

Even when a USAID mission has well defined country programs that address the whole
agricultural sector including farm and rural community needs, projects implemented by
different universities and technical assistance firms usually are not coordinated. A contractor
in attempting to implement procurement responsibilities, may also lack personnel commitment
due to instability in project procurement. USAID Washington often perpetuates contractor
uncertainty by confounding the linkage between mission needs and university capabilities.

The distance between the world research and education community and the Third-World
farmer is very great, both technically and institutionally, yet current assistance mechanisms
seem to mitigate against closing the gap. Voids in the research to farmer linkage result
from: disintegrated specialization along project and organization lines; various assumptions
about who should perform certain technology development, adaptation and transfer tasks; and
spotty investments in the research and extension system.

These fragmented project conditions cause the U.S. technical assistance effort to be
ineffective in use of human and institutional resources and its scientific knowledge base. It
seems that there is too much imposed donor management generally and especially in
procurement. As a result, we often do not tap the most appropriate human resource
capabilities. Many of our efforts to address the food problems of the world lack continuity,
consistency and compatibility. Ultimately, we often fail to address recipient needs.

Processes or Product?

While Title XII is one of the most innovative congressional foreign policy statements of
this century, it remains for us to make implementation of the legislation more effective.
While not entirely of its own making, USAID, the implementing agency for Title XII, is
confronted with institutional obsolescence. It seems that too often we legitimize the Agency
and it's projects on the basis of the process. The potential effectiveness of Title XII can be
enhanced by reduced emphasis on bureaucratic procedures and greater emphasis on product.



3CDA (Cooperation for Development in Africa) is one attempt to address this dilemma by
organizing donor support around ecological zones, although it does so informally.










Recently, U.S. assistance has become somewhat more decentralized. Regional country and
recipient administrators of USAID programs have more authority. This effort should be
applauded because it puts technical assistance resources closer to problems and decision
makers. The Title XII and AID mechanisms for contracting and procurement are competitive
and "fair", to be sure, and the BIFAD has invested heavily in the effort.

Competition, however, can dissuade long-term cooperation and contribute to diffused
rather than focused programs.4 A specific objective and time focus is lost to either
contractor "one-upsmanship" or "donor fadism". Although the Title XII mechanisms assure
competitiveness on a project basis, they also assure discontinuity with considerable delays in
initiating and continuing technical assistance program work. This situation is caused by
overemphasis on bureaucratic process; too little attention is given to the resulting program
and the recipient country's institutional processes. Even program evaluation and monitoring
efforts are tied up in short-term administrative details that prevent them from achieving their
intended purpose of contributing to sustainable performance over the long-term. While
program mechanisms become more complex there is a tendency toward ease of contracting
mechanisms that may sacrifice quality to achieve ease of process. In both cases process
driven mechanisms relegate programs and products to second priority.

The Title XII focus must be with those who receive our assistance (demand-side benefits)
as opposed to those who supply it (supply-side equity). Responsible technical assistance
programming should allow for ex-post (demand-side) evaluation as opposed to heavy emphasis
on ex-ante (supply-side) manipulation. Responsible university contractors individually and as a
group must insure their own quality and not burden donors with a task for which they are ill-
prepared. We must trim the sail and create a system that will sustain participation on a long-
term basis; be conducive to program continuity; and sustain education, research and extension
program development for our clientele. We now speak of sustainable agriculture; the question
is, can we provide sustainable support to Third-World agricultural institutions?

Opportunity or Problem?

More now than ever before, the Title XII universities are prepared for agricultural
development work in the Third-World and simultaneous contributions to the agricultural sector
of the U.S. If we elect to combine our experience in a collective and well coordinated
systems approach, greater success can be achieved. But if institutional drift toward project
fragmentation continues, specialization without integration will diminish the opportunity for
problem solving on a broad basis and slow, if any, progress will inevitably be the outcome.

Times have changed. Agriculture is more complex and agricultural policies and
agricultural research systems that fail to address the whole system must themselves fail.
Methodologies and approaches are being developed that allow us to better understand the
whole system by taking from it specific problems, resolving them in a manner that will make
the results remain compatible with the system and, when reintroduced to the system, provide a
basis for rational evolution in that system. The question before us now is whether donors and
implementors of technical assistance can become more consistent and unified in support of
national governments and farmers who must deal with developing agriculture as a system.


4Inspired by Richard A: Baldwin. International Fund for Agricultural Research (IFAR) in
a paper entitled "Focused Cooperative Agricultural Research" presented at a seminar arranged
by USAID entitled "Strengthening Collaboration in Biotechnology: International Agricultural
Research and the Private Sector", 17-21 April, 1988.










Specialties or Systems?

Organization of technical assistance needs to focus on accessing the special skills of
participating governments, donors, agencies, universities and individuals. Not all problems of a
given setting can be solved by a single assistance project or agency. Skills are developed and
experience gained under different settings from which national governments may want to
choose. But the context for managing technical assistance must consider a hierarchy of
potential agricultural research and policy interventions. This hierarchy extends from
agricultural systems through farming systems, cropping systems, to commodity and component
research. The universities and International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) along with
the USAID/Collaborative Research Support Projects (CRSPs), are building structural entities
through which this targeted and responsive programming can occur.

An expertise based support system for agricultural development will rely upon the success
of regional efforts in prioritizing common problems and opportunities. A deliberately designed
support network is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the overall technical
assistance endeavor. Such a network has been partially defined and developed for Africa but
the policy linkages often are not clear for exchange between research, extension and farmers.
The balance between adaptive and fundamental research, between disciplinary and
multidisciplinary approaches, between production and marketing and among varied client needs
(women and men farmers, for example) should be clarified. At present, coordination seems to
be a missing link.


An Alternative

An approach that utilizes the AID suoport project concept is proposed for technical
assistance directed toward regional and country programming. It would provide for Collaborate
Assistance Support Pools (CASPs) to complement the CRSPs and would be composed, on a
regional basis, of a prequalified group of entities. It would focus on consistent and
sustainable long-term support.5 And it speaks to a more collaborative mode of assistance; that
is, collaboration between the eventual suppliers (universities) and users (Third-World education,
research, extension and policy making organizations).

Even before a new strategy unfolds, I already hear contracting authorities saying, "What
you propose can not be done contractually". My response, however, is simply, "It must be
commodated if we are to become more effective and efficient in our developmental
programming." Our ultimate mission, and that of contractual authorities, is to serve limited
resource rural people.

Procurement for Regional Programs:
Serving a Different Master

A regional program focus (Western Sahel, Caribbean Basin, etc.) designed to addressmulti-
country similarities, as well as needs of specific countries should be developed within the U.S.
agricultural technical assistance program, (African area studies, agricultural and research
faculties). The elements in a technical assistance package would include: 1) the capable
institutions for regionally focused and country specific research, education and extension; 2)


5We are reminded of early and successful technical assistance adventures in countries
such as Brazil and India where long-term participation made a significant difference.










institutions capable of providing for capital assistance; 3) programming for component,
cropping, farming and agricultural systems research and development; and 4) cooperative work
toward a major and consistent mission within a region.6 The initiative for establishing this
effort would be with the Board for International Food and Agricultural
Development (BIFAD) and would require continued U.S. institutional commitment to the long-
term principles of Title XII.

A regional strategy could include a CASP Board of Directors chosen from support entities
and recipient countries.7 The Board would represent an institutional base that would be
qualified for service in ways similar to those required presently when a university or firm
responds to an RFP. The institutions to qualify for a given region, would constitute the
group responsible for assistance to countries of that region for an extended period of time.
Review at periodic intervals would accommodate continuous institutional strengthening for
support to the region. Accountability and evaluation would emphasize ex-post procedures
based on carefully developed short-term and long-term plans. The CASP would participate in
elaboration of the USAID country strategy statements as well as regional strategies.

Collaborating Institutions:
The Regional Assistance Community

Universities involved in regionally targeted programs could prepare for long-term
assistance with faculty and induce faculty to work on the basis of a secure career plan.
Technical assistance firms could fit into the strategy just as universities depending on the
specific expertise. The capability of participating support universities to develop long-term
inter-institutional ties would be strengthened significantly, as would their ability to respond to
needs within the region. Participating Third-World institutions would not only develop a
stronger capability to provide support to agriculture but would also gain from experience
within the region to further strengthen indigenous technical assistance capability. The
universities would become centers for regional studies and more fully utilize the Title XII and
area studies (Title VI) potentials of the universities. Where work is related to commodity
based problems, sharing across country lines would benefit the region, specific recipient
countries and the U.S.

The regional approach would provide a comprehensive plan to allow for secure long-term
involvement. It would not necessarily assure that each participating institution or each
qualified faculty member would be heavily involved. This would depend upon capability,
sustained commitment and quality of work, but most importantly, demand from the region.
Nevertheless, the base would provide the potential opportunity for qualified individuals at less
experienced and smaller institutions to participate along with groups of individuals from more
experienced and larger institutions.




60ur technical assistance efforts deserve and demand the same tenacity and coordinated
consistency as was evident in fulfilling John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1961 that we would
place a man on the moon before the close of the decade.

71 am aware that some in USAID dislike boards and advisors because they represent
"unnecessary added expense with little benefit". I am sure the record does not uniformly
support this assertion. Good models do exist and I would agree with the need for keeping the
oversight structure simple. The Board, however, would have more than oversight responsibility.










A strategy is needed to determine initially and periodically how individuals and
institutions would develop specializations and qualify to contribute to the regional focus of a
CASP. How can we come to an understanding among ourselves as to who will be responsible
for subject matter and geographic expertise, in various parts of the Third-World, in such a
way that the supply of services not only meets needs but does so with long-term equity,
quality and continuity? Should capital assistance activities be mixed, as far as implementing
institutions are concerned, with the technical assistance role? Technical assistance and capital
assistance must be closely coordinated. While these activities should integrate and be managed
at the regional level, those most competent to give capital assistance generally are not those
most competent to give technical assistance and vice versa. Universities and international
research centers generally fall within the area of technical assistance services; capital related
assistance services generally operate through the private sector.

Comparative advantage in human resource development by subject matter and country
orientation involves major long-term investments. In several instances people have been
trained through Title XII investment for career participation in regional programs and
country-specific assistance. However, long-term institution-to-institution assistance on a
regional basis requires a critical mass of faculty. These people must embody complementary
regional and subject matter interests if the full backstop potential of a university or group of
universities is to be achieved. Thus, the overall technical assistance authority, evolving
through interaction among 1890 and 1862 universities, must establish a strategy that
operationalizes the concepts of comparative advantage, critical mass, self-determination and
long-term security/integrity. From this base we might redefine the overall procurement
strategy of U.S. technical assistance.

Planning and Procurement for the Long-Term:
Mature Intra Community Support

The "bidding" process for specific projects would not necessarily come into play. Some
other outside selection process could be developed and implemented by BIFAD. Possibly a
modified indefinite quantity contract would provide for program-specific long-term inputs and
provide distribution of the work load based on input capabilities. The regional CASP Board of
Directors would oversee this activity with an eye toward efficiency and effective program
implementation. The continuous bidding and proposal preparation process, entailing numerous
universities competing for the same activity, would no longer consume so many resources.
Again, as was first intended in the landmark Humphrey-Finley legislation, the quality and
destiny of U.S. technical assistance to the Third-World would be determined to a considerable
extent by the nature and potentialities of the university system upon which it rests.

The recipient (demand) oriented regional focus would be regionally targeted in terms of
coordination, collaboration and training from the program support base in the U.S. to
coordinated delivery in the recipient region or country. This support base would provide
coordination for preparedness and follow-through by the participating institutions designated
to implement activities in a country or region. The CASP would also provide the program
support base for coordinated activities on the ground. Long-term development of capability to
support such activities and study the results would provide for continuity in the support
capability and it's information base. The rebidding process that often shifts one assistance
entity in one country to another (where it may have less experience) while another entity
follows behind it as in "musical chairs", is disruptive to programs and wasteful of valuable
time and resources. The regional pool of technical assistance resources (entities and people)
from which the CASP Board could help direct rational change would provide greater security










to recipient countries and sustained program continuity. This continuity, while beneficial to
recipients, translates to maintaining enthusiastic expertise in support entities.

CASP universities could group together to strengthen regional capability with workshops
and training sessions for U.S. faculty in preparation for service to the region. At the same
time the Board would coordinate assistance efforts in the region with national program leaders
as mutual needs would dictate. Curricula, targeting the needs of regional students, could be
developed and shared. Faculty exchanges and short-term training would give impetus to
developing or further strengthening areas of expertise as in the arid lands or humid tropics.
USAID participants studying in the U.S. would fit into the U.S. networking activity as well as
into the networking activity in the region when they return home. Broader based peer groups
would be established among these individuals to further support the overall long-term effort.
The human resource base could then truly provide the linkage for involvement in the technical
assistance process and the emergence of a sister institution concept not unlike the sister city
program. This would be the basis for developing long-term (15 to 25 years or more) technical
assistance and scientific networks.8

Procurement for Near-Term Implementation:
Service From a Family of Institutions

A regional orientation for technical assistance, based on a qualification mechanism of
long-term commitments by a family of institutions, would not need to deal with many of the
issues currently stimulated by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The procedures and
mechanisms now imposed on both institutional subcontracts and personal service contracts
often make timely assistance impossible for qualified human and institutional resources. The
FAR fails to distinguish between procedures for procuring Defense Department hardware and
State Department human services. With long-term qualification of a regional assistance
community, the near-term human resource contribution will receive scrutiny both through field
contact and through career oriented peer evaluation. Long-term programs and career
commitments can then create both depth and breadth in the assistance base.

Procurement would work in two stages. The first would be a continuous effort that
qualifies and requalifies people and institutions for the regional pool. The second would draw
from the institutional pool for major bilateral contracts or from the human resource pool for
specific personal service contracts.

Procurement of "hardware" as opposed to people may well follow current guidelines but
the regional focus may also lead to those entities that are best suited to providing this
support to a given region. Service to several bilateral contracts at once may then achieve
scale economies while reducing delivery time and improving service.







8Carl Eicher suggests, for example, a 20 year time frame to achieve an expanded
research program in food and livestock. He observes that it took the U.S. 40 years to
develop a productive system of federal and state research. See Eicher, Carl K. "Facing Up
to Africa's Food Crisis" in Carl K. Eicher and Jon M. Staaz, Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore and London, 1984, p. 470.










Procurement for Commodity and Subject Matter
Programs: Family Ties Among Regional Assistance
Communities

A commodity focus could utilize the USAID organization now operating through the
CRSPs and other support projects that address specific subject matter, disciplinary or
methodological concerns. The Farming Systems Support Project was an example of effective
multi-institutional (21 universities and 4 private firms) collaboration to address a major subject
matter area. Collaboration between support projects, the IARCs and universities is essential.
Again, using program lines such as in the CRSPs, a Board of Directors could lead the activity.
Centralized Bureau leadership would not be necessary but some sort of management support
would be essential for the Board of Directors. A coordinating body for such activity could be
BIFAD and Regional USAID agricultural officers.

Various component and system oriented subcommittees or subcouncils could be reworked
to provide a scientific input directly into regional programs. The CRSP and CASP efforts
would deliberately interact, some from the same resource base, for service to the regions.
The councils and committees should be made up not only of U.S. personnel, but also
Third-World nationals qualified to serve. A goal would be to further strengthen
communication between the scientific community and the training base. Emerging networks
would have roots in a sustainable service base.

The overall concept of support systems is sound and is based on the experience of
USAID/Science and Technology projects. The experience should continue to evolve through
broader based and longer term planning than now prevails in the year-to-year budget process.
A support system can and should provide services to a regional program base, where problems
and opportunities are well articulated, and solutions are adapted to regional, country and local
needs.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs