VZCZCXYZ0012
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1612/01 2352026
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 232026Z AUG 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9953

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