Building Partner Capacity · 1 of 3
Building Partner Capacity is not a single program. The manual defines it as a class: these "are USG security cooperation (SC) projects, programs, activities, and engagements, funded by USG appropriations for the purpose of building partner security force capability" (SAMM C15.1.1).
The authorities sit in a different part of the law from the sales programs. They originate in Title 10 of the United States Code or in annual defense authorization legislation, and are funded under annual appropriations (SAMM C15.1.1). Foreign Military Sales and Foreign Military Financing, by contrast, sit under Title 22.
Delivery runs through one of two instruments. "There are two different methods to execute a BPC effort: a BPC case and a BPC training grant", and a single program may need several of each, executed by several implementing agencies (SAMM C15.1.1.1).
This is the distinction everything else follows from. "Unlike Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases which are funded with partner national funds or Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds and signed by the partner, BPC cases are only funded using U.S. appropriated funds unless otherwise authorized by U.S. law" (SAMM C15.1.3).
The recipient is not called a purchaser. The manual calls it the Benefitting Partner, and that change of word is doing real work: there is no buyer in the transaction at all. How a partner funded case works instead is set out in what Foreign Military Sales is and who takes part.
A sales case starts with a request from the buying government. A capacity building case cannot, because the buying government does not exist.
The manual names the substitute directly. A memorandum of request or training and equipment list "is analogous to the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Letter of Request (LOR), which is submitted by the purchaser" (SAMM C15.2.1). It is submitted by an American Requesting Authority, which is responsible for planning and defining requirements to support United States objectives.
That inverts the usual sequence. The requirement is defined on the American side, often before funds have even been appropriated, and the phase closes when the Requesting Authority submits an actionable request (SAMM C15.2.1).
Nobody on the receiving side does. "A BPC case is not signed by the Benefitting Partner" (SAMM C15.1.3). Neither does the organization providing the money: "Neither the Benefitting Partner nor the Funding Authority sign the BPC case", and the purchaser signature block on the document is left blank (SAMM S333.6.1.1.6).
One signature is enough. An authorized representative of the implementing agency posts the military signature milestone representing the United States signature, and the manual states that "This is the only signature required" (SAMM C15.3.13.3).
A separate approval still gates implementation. After the agency and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency approve the case as written, "State approval is required to begin implementation", granted through a daily approval list (SAMM C15.3.13.4).
The consequence of the unsigned block is the most important sentence in the chapter for anyone reading a case file. "As a result, BPC case terms and case notes do not provide a means to obtain a legally binding commitment from the Benefitting Partner" (SAMM C15.1.3).
A Letter of Offer and Acceptance on a sales case carries undertakings the partner has agreed to. The same document on a capacity building case does not, because there is nothing to accept. Obligations on the receiving side have to come from somewhere else.
They come from a bilateral agreement concluded beforehand. "BPC assistance cannot be provided unless the partner has concluded a binding bi-lateral agreement with the USG pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), Section 505 Agreement (22 U.S.C. 2314)" (SAMM C15.2.3). Where a partner lacks one and the transfer authority does not require it, end use assurances must still be obtained in writing before anything is transferred. The undertakings in that agreement are described in what end use monitoring is and where it comes from.
On a sales case, a change the partner must accept is handled differently from one it need not. That distinction disappears here.
"BPC documents do not require Benefitting Partner acceptance or signature, therefore these changes will be accomplished via a BPC case or training grant amendment." The manual adds that "Modifications may not be used for BPC documents as there is no meaningful difference between a modification and amendment for documents funded with USG appropriations" (SAMM C15.1.5.5).
The equivalent distinction on a sales case is described in how an FMS case is built, from request to agreement.
Three categories of transfer must go through a case document, absent a waiver by the Director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (SAMM C15.1.3.1):
The pattern in that list is worth noting. Where the article carries an obligation that has to be tracked after delivery, the transfer is put onto the instrument that creates a record, even though that instrument binds only one side.
Two practical consequences follow for anyone working at the delivery end. The obligations that attach to the equipment were agreed before the case existed, in a separate instrument, so the case file alone does not show them. And the party that defined the requirement is American, which means the questions about what was actually asked for are answered in Washington rather than in the recipient capital.
| BPC | Building Partner Capacity, security cooperation funded by United States appropriations. SAMM C15.1.1. |
|---|---|
| Benefitting Partner | The recipient government. It is not a purchaser and does not sign the case. |
| Requesting Authority | The American organization that defines the requirement and submits the request. SAMM C15.2.1. |
| MOR and TEL | Memorandum of request and training and equipment list, the capacity building equivalents of a Letter of Request. |
| 505 Agreement | The bilateral agreement under 22 U.S.C. 2314 that must exist before assistance is provided. |
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.
Capacity building programs are bought by one government and used by another, which leaves the delivery end to be arranged. Sentfore provides secure movement, protective security, facilities and life support around defense programs in difficult environments. Requirements can be sent through the contact page.