How the administrative budget is built

← All Insights

1. What the review actually covers

The money that runs the program is not the money that buys the equipment. A separate annual review sets the first of those. "DSCA (OBO/CMP) conducts a Security Assistance Program and Budget Review (SAPBR) annually to align Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Contract Administration Services (CAS) resources to meet the SA mission" (SAMM C14.2.1).

Four things are inside it. The review covers the administrative funds for sales and for financing, the contract administration account, and the representational authorities held centrally (SAMM C14.2.2). One category is excluded by name. "Funding is not provided to organizations that formulate U.S. SC policy such as the Department of State (State), the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD(P)), or the Joint Staff (JS)" (SAMM C14.2.2). Policy offices are paid for elsewhere.

2. Two sets of guidance, two months apart

The cycle opens with direction rather than with numbers from the field. Around February the agency director issues planning guidance, which names the areas of financial focus for the year, sets out the schedule, and carries the initial budget targets for each part of the community (SAMM C14.2.3).

Detail follows a month later. "Approximately March of each year, DSCA (OBO/CMP) issues SAPBR Detailed Guidance providing the expectations of the SAPBR cycle, where and how to submit object class level details, inflation guidance, business rules, budget schedule, and other associated requirements" (SAMM C14.2.4). Addenda change from year to year and have covered staffing counts, information technology submissions, and briefing templates.

3. Submissions, and the request that goes above the target

Submissions are priced against the targets already issued, describe the proposed requirement in detail, and justify and rank everything in them. They arrive through a single online database rather than as documents (SAMM C14.2.5). One instruction governs the rest: "All requirements included in their submissions must align to the planning guidance issued by the DSCA Director" (SAMM C14.2.5).

Asking for more than the target is allowed, and has its own name. An above fiscal guidance request covers requirements beyond the target, has to be prioritized and justified alongside the main submission, and goes to the director for decision (SAMM C14.2.5.1).

4. Briefings that decide nothing

Two rounds of presentations follow, and the manual is blunt about their status. The military department agencies brief the comptroller staff, and the defense agencies and combatant commands brief the deputy comptroller. The stated aim is to review information and propose revisions before the agencies reach the director (SAMM C14.2.5.2). The manual then adds four words: "These briefings are non-decisional" (SAMM C14.2.5.2).

The second round goes to the director, and its purpose is described as informing him of the challenges faced by the agencies that carry most of the workforce and the mission (SAMM C14.2.5.3). The same non-decisional label is attached. Decisions are made later, on paper.

What happens in between is analysis rather than advocacy. Budget analysts review every submission, coordinate it across the agency, and "DSCA (OBO/CMP) prepares a budget for the DSCA Director’s decision" (SAMM C14.2.6), carrying recommendations on each request including the ones above target.

5. The decision, and three days to argue with it

The director’s decisions become resource management decisions, and those set the total budget authority the agency will request (SAMM C14.2.7). A draft comes out first, giving the top line for each agency and command and the answer on each above target request (SAMM C14.2.7.1).

The window to respond is short and conditional. A part of the community may challenge a decision only where new or updated information has appeared since the submission, and "The period to submit a reclama to DSCA is three business days from the receipt of the draft RMD" (SAMM C14.2.7.2). An analyst reviews what comes back and puts a final recommendation to the director.

The signed version does more than settle the request. "The final RMD includes the official baseline for use in developing annual execution and monthly obligation plans" (SAMM C14.2.7.3), and it is released in September. From that point the number is not a proposal but the measure everything is tracked against.

6. Outside the building

Two meetings follow in October. The agency meets the budget office to discuss prior, current and future year budgets for the sales administrative funds, and the answer comes back through a defined mechanism: "OMB communicates the approved FMS Administrative budget target via the OMB passback process" (SAMM C14.2.8). A separate meeting with the state department supports the financing administrative requirement, which that department requests rather than the defense side (SAMM C14.2.9).

The published calendar runs from planning guidance in mid February to those October meetings, with submissions due in late May and the draft decision in late August. It carries a caution of its own: "Timeframes listed above are estimates" (SAMM Table C14.T1).

7. What happens once the year starts

The decision then becomes a funding plan. Annual funding plan guidance issues each year and carries the decisions made in the review. The amount depends on whether Congress has acted. "Funding allocations identified in this guidance either total to the annual enacted appropriation or, if the FY begins under a Continuing Resolution (CR), the amount reflected in the President’s Budget (PB) for each respective funding type" (SAMM C14.3.1).

Halfway through comes a review of how the money is actually moving. "This guidance requires the Security Cooperation (SC) community to evaluate current and projected execution to ensure resources are being utilized in an efficient and effective manner" (SAMM C14.3.2), and it ends in a brief to the director. Requirements above the funding plan can be raised there as unfunded requirements, prioritized and justified, and "DSCA (OBO/CMP) presents all UFRs to DSCA Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and/or DSCA Director for decision" (SAMM C14.3.3).

The year closes the same way it ran. Close out guidance sets milestones and names what has to be watched, including unmatched disbursements and unliquidated obligations, and "The YEC culminates with a brief to the DSCA Director by the DSCA (OBO/CMP) staff" (SAMM C14.3.4).

Key terms

SAPBR	The annual review that sets the administrative funds running the program. SAMM C14.2.1.
Above fiscal guidance	A request for more than the target issued in planning guidance.
Resource management decision	The director’s decision document, draft then final, which sets the baseline.
Reclama	A challenge to a draft decision, allowed for three business days and only on new information.
Unfunded requirement	A requirement above the annual funding plan, raised at the mid year review.

Every statement above links to the document behind it. The full source list for this piece is on the sources page.

This page describes public United States government programs for general information. It is not legal, regulatory or procurement advice, and it does not address the facts of any particular case.

How Sentfore supports this

A budget decision taken in September is felt at a delivery site a year later. Sentfore works at the delivery end of defense programs in difficult environments, providing secure movement, protective security, facilities and life support around equipment and people once they arrive. Requirements can be sent through the contact page.