nology that will be used, including the motivations of the technology’s advocates, and how the choice in technology may or may not serve host nation capacity-building goals. Finally, characterize the materials to be utilized, and determine if the technology will be available in time for project execution.
Licensing and approval processes
Develop a detailed list of the ministries, government agencies, and quasi regulatory bodies whose rules must be followed and whose input must be secured.
Ensure that regulatory stakeholders are involved and motivated at the preconcept/predesign phase.
Assess which host nation entity will be the regulatory applicant and assess the key relationships involving that entity.
Assess the motivations/biases/stressors of each regulatory body and develop motivational strategies across the project life cycle.
Assess the risk of major changes in the regulatory structure and the presence of implementation gaps in the legislation.
Identify key host nation players who may play dual roles (especially on expert review panels) or who may become roadblocks to implementation.
International/federal/regional/local differences and similarities: assess general interactions, especially known structural conflicts or cross-jurisdictional differences, as well as the impact of structural political conflicts on the project.
Integration across contracts: identify projects requiring similar regulatory regimes.
Identify similar internationally funded projects in the host nation that may involve the same stakeholders.
Treaties: evaluate the impacts of applicable treaties, including requirements and limitations.
Capabilities and resources
Staff: a significant number of dedicated in-country staff will be needed to create and maintain nonproliferation projects. Are the appropriate individuals available, and/or do they require training? If so, who will provide and maintain training?
Develop an understanding of the key organizational and individual players, especially those in charge of staff selection, and the composition of expert review panels.
Training: have training processes been granted regulatory approvals, and are appropriate trainers in place?
Clarify assumptions, goals, linkages (cross-project dependencies) and implications (risks) related to implementation
Supply chain concerns, including choices of indigenous versus imported equipment.
Economics/end state of the program, including sustainability questions. For example, who will be responsible for salaries, utilities, and security; and who will take on the responsibility of the “ownership” of the facilities and equipment.
Cost/schedule: gain concurrence on overall project schedule, cost, and budgets to be expended on U.S. versus host nation personnel.
Consideration of and agreement upon the framework of these elements should occur prior to contract award to a national laboratory, CTRIC, or a similar body. Furthermore, most of these factors should be considered iteratively throughout the project, thereby reducing the number of risks and enabling stronger communications within and between the host nation and U.S. stakeholders. The comprehensive completion of a project definition phase with a small body of technical personnel (with appropriate levels of authority) would ease intercountry relations throughout the program, reduce costs, and enhance program sustainability.