Burgos and Bloomsbury did not respond to an initial analysis of the pro-grant authority, unlike the authority of the Law on Cooperation Agreements for the use of a financial aid instrument. In the first case, Burgos, Executive Order No. 11625 of 13 October 1971, which created OMBE, the concession agency, speaks clearly of the power to support public and private organizations so that they can in turn provide technical and management support to minority companies. The Appropriation Act, pub. L. No. 95-431, 92 Stat. 1032, expressly mentions that the appropriations granted are available for subsidies. However, the decision was not justified for the above reasons, but because the decision to move to a subsidy mechanism was approved by the FGCA. «In conclusion that the payments made under the three student loan programs are grants granted in accordance with the agreements, I am aware that the statutes approving the three programs provide for distribution to the government and the participating institution from each loan fund upon conclusion of the loan programs (NDSL – 20 U.S.C 1087 s; HPSL — 42 U.S.C 294c; NSL — 42 U.S.C 297th). However, the provision for the allocation of the assets of the loan fund does not alter the nature of the relationship between the Government and the participating institution. This relationship is, as noted above, a supportive relationship that is governed by the terms of a grant agreement. The programming authority of each agency must be analysed in order to identify the nature or types of authorised relationships and the circumstances in which any authorised relationship can be taken into its programme legislation, regardless of the existence of specific words such as `grant`. Once the power has been found, it is necessary to use the legal instrument (contract, grant or cooperation agreement) that corresponds to the envisaged agreement, the definitions to be used in the FGCA to know which instrument is appropriate.
Together with other bodies, the OMB continues to play an important role in the interpretation and implementation of laws between federal government contracting authorities. The current subsidy directives have been largely marked by a number of statutes, regulations, executive orders and guidelines. The legislative findings contained in Section 2(a) of the FGCA Act highlight the pre-law confusion regarding the choice of legal instruments and the need to clarify the proper use of grants, cooperation agreements or contracts for certain types of relationships in order to promote consistent decisions are government authorities. The main objective of the Section 2(b) Act is to address the problems identified in these findings by characterizing and defining the relationships created by the three instruments and defining criteria that would contribute to uniform use by agencies in choosing the appropriate instrument. As explained in the Senate committee`s report, the fundamental purpose of the act is to clarify the relationship between the federal government and non-federal institutions. S. Rep. 95-449 pp. 3. The purpose of the law is as follows: the FGCAA distinguishes between acquisition (acquisition/contracts) and aid (grants and cooperation agreements), depending on the main purpose of the legal relationship between the parties. Cooperation agreements are in many ways similar to federal grants. According to the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (FGCAA), the primary purpose of both relationships is to transfer the value of federal organizations to public, local, and private organizations.
Cooperation agreements differ from grants in the degree to which federal and non-federal agencies are expected to cooperate after award. . . .