Following a congressional request and legal requirement, GAO examined how several North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries have implemented their Defence Procurement Memorandums of Understanding (MOAs) with the United States, focusing on the following: (1) how the United States and its allies have considered and implemented the Memorandum of Understanding; (2) whether the Memorandum of Understanding provides U.S. companies with the opportunity to compete freely and fairly with Allied defense markets; (3) the extent to which the pricing practices of Allied governments influenced contract selection; (4) appeal procedures for the award of contracts; and (5) the efforts of the Department of Defense (DOD) to monitor the Memorandum of Understanding. Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should urge the signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding to promote better reciprocal access to the defense market by appointing mediators to assist U.S. contractors. These mediators should provide services similar to those of the doD Ombudsman. Medical and Public Health Law Site DoD Directives TITLE: DoD Instruction 6015.23, “Delivery of Healthcare at Military Treatment Facilities: Foreign Service Care; collection by third parties; Beneficiary Counseling and Assistance Coordinators (BCACs), 30.10.2002 SUMMARY: This instruction: 1. Reissue of DoD 6015.23 of 9 December 1996 on the implementation of directives, the assignment of responsibilities and the prescription of health care procedures in military care centres (TFCs) in the military health system. 2. If the policy is implemented, it has responsibilities and imposes procedures: through international military health agreements; in accordance with Directive doD 5136.1; and on the responsibilities of the Coordinator of Advice and Assistance to Beneficiaries in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1095e. 3. Authorized DoD 6015.1-M, “Classification Nomenclature and Definitions Relating to Fixed and Non-fixed MTFs” and DoD 6010.15-M, “Military Treatment Facility Uniform Business Office (UBO)”, according to DoD files 5025.1-M: Choose an SGML format (39 KB) PDF (62 KB) ASCII (26 KB) OPR: ASD (HA), 703-697-2112 TITLE: DoD Instruction 6015.23, “Delivery of Healthcare at Military Treatment Facilities: Foreign Service Care; collection by third parties; Les coordinators beneficiaires counseling and assistance coordinators (BCACs)”, 30.10.2002.
Remarks: 14 MOU countries have appointed ombudsmen. Five countries have not yet received responses. One country refused to appoint an ombudsman. Notes: The DOD receives documented information on procurement rules and procedures from the five countries that have signed procurement procedures: France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway. DoD has so far completed the documentation on France and Norway. The DOD received information on the procurement rules and procedures of France and Norway. However, it does not intend to obtain information on Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, given that the Ministry of Commerce is making similar efforts around the world. The DOD`s Office of Foreign Contracting believes that it is implementing the spirit of the recommendations in its regular meetings with MOU countries and in continuing defense exchanges between these countries and the United States. Nevertheless, these and trade efforts do not appear to clearly address the intent of the recommendations, as they do not include an assessment of the rules and procedures and measures taken by countries for defence government procurement, to ensure that they implement all the provisions of the Annex.
GAO noted that: (1) signatories to the MoU are required to evaluate bids without regard to national laws and regulations on wage costs and to try to eliminate national procurement laws and tariffs related to defense procurement; (2) The DOD method of fulfilling soft obligations by waiving the Buy American Act has allowed European companies to compete with American companies for expensive defence contracts; (3) Although the DOD estimated that in FY1990 it had opened up at least 44% of its supply market to foreign competition, European governments stated that the United States had limited its access to the United States. . . .