Back to Solutions Library
Process Guide 05 of 8PWS · Non-Traditional EnvironmentsFO · Risk Management
Risk Management Guide
FFP operates in emergency, unstable, and otherwise non-traditional environments that USDA has not historically administered. Risk assessment, third-party monitoring, program evaluation, and implementing-partner personnel safety all require methodologies adapted to environments where standard pre-engagement diligence is unavailable.
Why It Matters
The Risk Management Guide is the operational core of the FFP transition. Without it, USDA assumes the risk surface of emergency programming without the tools to manage it.
HSG's Approach
- 1Build the risk-assessment framework for FFP-eligible countries where standard diligence is unavailable — drawing on Maurice House's execution of the first U.S. wheat export to Taliban-led Afghanistan, the canonical case.
- 2Design third-party monitoring decision criteria — when third-party monitoring is appropriate, contract architecture, cost-benefit framework.
- 3Develop evaluation methodologies adapted to insecure environments.
- 4Build the USDA international field-office relationship architecture for cases where field office and activities are in different countries.
Expected Deliverables
- Risk Management Guide (PWS Deliverable 5) — month 7
- Risk-assessment framework with limited-information scenarios
- Third-party monitoring decision tree
- Insecure-environment evaluation methodology
- USDA field-office-to-third-country relationship architecture
Expected Outcome
USDA can scope, monitor, and evaluate FFP operations in non-traditional environments with documented methodology that survives OIG scrutiny.