UN CAPITAL MASTER PLAN: GAO DISCUSSES TIMEFRAME

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001612

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC KUNR UNGA
SUBJECT: UN CAPITAL MASTER PLAN: GAO DISCUSSES TIMEFRAME
AND FINANCING



1. SUMMARY: During the week of Aug. 7th, representatives
from the Government Accountability Office in Washington, D.C.
traveled to New York to meet with representatives of the
Capital Master Plan (CMP) Office regarding the CMP schedule
and draft graphic to be included in an upcoming report. CMP
representatives helped answer questions concerning whether
the representation of separate "tracks" for the project was
accurate; the extent to which the timing of different project
phases was flexible; the budget and financing of the project;
the nature of the scope options; and the plans for an
advisory board. They discussed the difficulty of representing
the many possible scenarios and choices regarding each phase
of the project in a single graphic, and also of the
challenges in reaching an overall financing agreement for the
project. The meeting served to clarify GAO understanding of
the graphic and the phases and choices it represents for the
CMP project. Additional details of the discussion, which was
attended by US Mission officers, are contained in the
following paragraphs.


2. The GAO representatives in attendance were Mr. John J.
Marzullo, Ms. Maria Edelstein, and Ms. Valerie Nowak. They
met with CMP representatives Mr. John Forster and Ms.
Katherine Grenier, with USUN representatives Ms. Henley
MacIntyre and Ms. Shannon Raj present as well.


3. With regard to the project "tracks," representatives
from the GAO noted that they understood there were at least 3
distinct projects or activities, which they represented in
the graphic. CMP representatives clarified that while the
tracks represent separate activities, none of the activities
are independent and all must be coordinated to fit together.
There was, however, a certain degree of slippage that could
occur at many stages without detriment to the progress of the
project as a whole. Generally, one phase of the project may
be able to afford a few months of slippage before it would
negatively affect another phase; the phases are, nonetheless,
significantly related.


4. A related timing issue was the CMP representatives,
emphasis that definitive schedules were near impossible to
set, given their project,s dependence on outstanding Fifth
Committee decisions. While general, year-to-year timeframes
are outlined, far too many potential shifts, slippages and
uncertainties existed to establish set monthly schedules.
Timeframe approximations, therefore, were built into the
sequence graphic.


5. Perhaps the most significant hindrance facing the
project to date is the lack of an overall budget or financing
agreement from the General Assembly. CMP representatives
elaborated on some of the main issues involved, such as
whether countries that paid their CMP contribution on time
would be willing to pay possible interest accumulating on
debt from countries that had not paid on time. They also
explained that it was unclear from the UN Charter whether the
UN could penalize a country that was in arrears. The lack of
a financing agreement will continue to present difficulties
for the planning of the project, as CMP representatives were
unwilling to pursue the signing of certain contracts without
specific authority and money to do so.


6. Further, CMP representatives explained that they now
needed authority for the full amount for the project. They
explained that while the total amount need not physically be
in the bank, there was a need for full authority to continue
the project.


7. GAO representatives also inquired about the nature of
the scope options, asking whether they are &niceties8 or
features essential to the project. CMP representatives
explained that all security essentials have been included in
the base project and are not represented as &options.8
However, they stressed that the CMP Office believes that the
scope options are the &right thing to do8 and would
advocate strongly for their inclusion, for the reason that
these features would be easier and cheaper to include now
rather than after CMP completion.


8. GAO representatives also were interested in plans for
an advisory board, something they noted had been discussed
earlier but had not yet materialized. Representatives of CMP
were wholly in favor of the idea, believing that it could
provide valuable general advice and be a useful &sounding
board,8 but did not further clarify why a board does not yet
exist.


9. CMP representatives noted that four decisions were
still needed from the GA: on the overall budget, overall
financing mechanism, scope options, and early action funding
to cover early construction requirements, notably the
technology center and destructive testing. (NOTE: This is the
first USUN has heard about the need for additional interim


funding.) GAO has included the critical decision-making
points -- both from the US delegation and the General
Assembly -- within the sequence represented in the graphic,
linking these decisions to different phases of action. With
respect to timing, the CMP representatives stressed the
importance of reaching certain decisions before the end of
the year in order to avoid further delays.
BOLTON