This subpart applies to grants, cooperative agreements, and technology investment agreements, which are legal instruments used to reflect assistance relationships between the United States Government and recipients.

This subpart describes the sources and flow of authority to make or administer assistance awards, and assigns the broad responsibilities associated with DoD Components' use of those instruments.

Yes, the use of an assistance instrument to carry out a program requires authorizing legislation. That is unlike the use of a procurement contract, for which Federal agencies have inherent, Constitutional authority.

No, the statutory authority described in § 21.410 need not specifically say that the purpose of the program is assistance or mention the use of any type of assistance instrument. However, the intent of the statute must support a judgment that the use of an assistance instrument is appropriate. For example, a DoD Component may judge that the principal purpose of a program for which it has authorizing legislation is assistance, rather than acquisition. The DoD Component would properly use an assistance instrument to carry out that program, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. chapter 63.

DoD Components may use assistance instruments under a number of statutory authorities that fall into three categories:

(a) Authorities that statutes provide to the Secretary of Defense. These authorities generally are delegated by the Secretary of Defense to Heads of DoD Components, usually through DoD directives, instructions, or policy memoranda that are not part of the Defense Grant and Agreement Regulatory System. Examples of statutory authorities in this category are:

(1) Authority under 10 U.S.C. 2391 to award grants or cooperative agreements to help State and local governments alleviate serious economic impacts of defense program changes (e.g., base openings and closings, contract changes, and personnel reductions and increases).

(2) Authority under 10 U.S.C. 2413 to enter into cooperative agreements with entities that furnish procurement technical assistance to businesses.

(b) Authorities that statutes may provide directly to Heads of DoD Components. When a statute authorizes the Head of a DoD Component to use a funding instrument to carry out a program with a principal purpose of assistance, use of that authority requires no delegation by the Secretary of Defense. For example, 10 U.S.C. 2358 authorizes the Secretaries of the Military Departments, in addition to the Secretary of Defense, to perform research and development projects through grants and cooperative agreements. Similarly, 10 U.S.C. 2371 provides authority for the Secretaries of the Military Departments and Secretary of Defense to carry out basic, applied, or advanced research projects using assistance instruments other than grants and cooperative agreements. A Military Department's use of the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2358 or 10 U.S.C. 2371 therefore requires no delegation by the Secretary of Defense.

(c) Authorities that arise indirectly as the result of statute. For example, authority to use an assistance instrument may result from:

(1) A federal statute authorizing a program that is consistent with an assistance relationship (i.e., the support or stimulation of a public purpose, rather than the acquisition of a good or service for the direct benefit of the Department of Defense). In accordance with 31 U.S.C. chapter 63, such a program would appropriately be carried out through the use of grants or cooperative agreements. Depending upon the nature of the program (e.g., research) and whether the program statute includes authority for any specific types of instruments, there also may be authority to use other assistance instruments.

(2) Exemptions requested by the Department of Defense and granted by the Office of Management and Budget under 31 U.S.C. 6307,as.220.

The Head of a DoD Component, or his or her designee, may delegate to the heads of contracting activities (HCAs) within the Component, that Component's authority to make and administer awards, to appoint grants officers and agreements officers (see §§ 21.435 through 21.450), and to broadly manage the DoD Component's functions related to assistance instruments. The HCA is the same official (or officials) designated as the head of the contracting activity for procurement contracts, as defined at 48 CFR 2.101. The intent is that overall management responsibilities for a DoD Component's functions related to nonprocurement instruments be assigned only to officials that have similar responsibilities for procurement contracts.

When designated by the Head of the DoD Component or his or her designee (see 32 CFR 21.425), the head of the awarding or administering activity (i.e., the HCA) is responsible for the awards made by or assigned to that activity. He or she must supervise and establish internal policies and procedures for that activity's awards.

Yes, each DoD Component that awards grants or enters into cooperative agreements must have a formal process (see § 21.425) for selecting and appointing grants officers and for terminating their appointments. Similarly, each DoD Component that awards or administers technology investment agreements must have a process for selecting and appointing agreements officers and for terminating their appointments.

In selecting grants officers and agreements officers, DoD Components must use the following minimum standards:

(a) In selecting a grants officer, the appointing official must judge whether the candidate has the necessary experience, training, education, business acumen, judgment, and knowledge of assistance instruments and contracts to function effectively as a grants officer. The appointing official also must take those attributes of the candidate into account when deciding the complexity and dollar value of the grants and cooperative agreements to be assigned.

(b) In selecting an agreements officer, the appointing official must consider all of the same factors as in paragraph (a) of this section. In addition, the appointing official must consider the candidate's ability to function in the less structured environment of technology investment agreements, where the rules provide more latitude and the individual must have a greater capacity for exercising judgment. Agreements officers therefore should be individuals who have demonstrated expertise in executing complex assistance and acquisition instruments.

A statement of a grants officer's or agreements officer's appointment:

(a) Must be in writing.

(b) Must clearly state the limits of the individual's authority, other than limits contained in applicable laws or regulations. Information on those limits of a grants officer's or agreements officer's authority must be readily available to the public and agency personnel.

(c) May, if the individual is a contracting officer, be incorporated into his or her statement of appointment as a contracting officer (i.e., there does not need to be a separate written statement of appointment for assistance instruments).

A termination of a grants officer's or agreements officer's authority:

(a) Must be in writing, unless the written statement of appointment provides for automatic termination.

(b) May not be retroactive.

(c) May be integrated into a written termination of the individual's appointment as a contracting officer, as appropriate.

Only grants officers are authorized to sign, administer, or terminate grants or cooperative agreements (other than technology investment agreements) on behalf of the Department of Defense. Similarly, only agreements officers may sign, administer, or terminate technology investment agreements.

Grants officers and agreements officers may bind the Government only to the extent of the authority delegated to them in their written statements of appointment (see § 21.445).

Grants officers and agreements officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise judgment in performing their responsibilities, which are to ensure that:

(a) Individual awards are used effectively in the execution of DoD programs, and are made and administered in accordance with applicable laws, Executive orders, regulations, and DoD policies.

(b) Sufficient funds are available for obligation.

(c) Recipients of awards receive impartial, fair, and equitable treatment.