2011artmethod2-rfa.pdf

OMB CONTROL NUMBER – 0584-0512

FNS 728

THE FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

FISCAL YEAR 2011

REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS AND TRAINING GRANTS

METHOD II - TRAINING AND OVERSIGHT GRANTS

States are required to use this solicitation to apply for the Administrative Reviews and Training Grants Method II: Training and

Oversight Grants.

APPLICATION DUE DATE: MAY 10, 2011

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number (CFDA number 10.579)

OMB BURDEN STATEMENT: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0584-0512. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 60 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

FNS 728 Page 2

National School Lunch Program Fiscal Year 2011

Request for Applications for Administrative Reviews and Training Grants Method II - Training and Oversight Grants

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

II. PURPOSE OF GRANT FUNDING

III. AUTHORITY

IV. ART METHOD II GRANT TYPES

A. Planning Grants B. Implementation Grants

V. WHO MAY APPLY?

VI. CRITICAL DATES AND AWARD PERIODS

A. Critical Dates B. Award Periods

VII. HOW TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING

VIII. WHAT TO INCLUDE IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE

A. Planning Grant Applications B. Implementation Grant Applications

IX. APPLICATION FORMAT

X. APPLICATION REVIEW AND GRANT AWARD PROCESS

A. Initial Screening B. Panel Review C. Selection

XI. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS

A. Administrative Requirements B. Funding C. Assurances and Disclosures D. Reporting

APPENDIX A: OMB Cost Principles 2 CFR 225 APPENDIX B: Summaries of Active ART Method II Grant Projects APPENDIX C: Planning or Implementation Grant Budget Checklist APPENDIX D: ART Method II Planning Grant Proposal Narrative Instructions APPENDIX E: ART Method II Implementation Grant Proposal Narrative Instructions

FNS 728 Page 3

National School Lunch Program

Fiscal Year 2011 Request for Applications for Administrative Reviews and Training Grants

Method II - Training and Oversight Grants

I. INTRODUCTION

The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265) amended Section 22 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) to establish a requirement that State agencies (SAs) conduct additional administrative reviews of selected school food authorities (SFAs). It also amended Section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act to provide funding for States to be used for administrative reviews and training of SFAs. Both of these requirements are focused on SFAs which have demonstrated a high level of, or a high risk for, administrative error.

To assist SAs in achieving these requirements, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has approximately $8 million available in fiscal year (FY) 2011 to fund Method II Administrative Reviews and Training (ART) Grants for training and oversight. The grant funds will be available only to the 57 SAs that administer the Child Nutrition Programs, and are for the purpose of identifying, reviewing, monitoring and training local educational agencies that have demonstrated a high level of, or a high risk for, administrative error. FNS will make the funds available on a competitive basis. States may apply for a Planning grant or an Implementation grant, as described in Section IV, ART Method II Grant Types, in this Request for Applications (RFA).

The purpose of this RFA is to:

• Describe which entities are eligible to apply for grant funds;

• Describe the types of grants available;

• Solicit applications from eligible entities;

• Describe the requirements for submitting a successful application;

• Describe how applications will be reviewed and selected; and

• Describe the terms and conditions that grantees must adhere to.

FNS intends to work collaboratively with grant applicants and grantees throughout the application process and the life of grants awarded through this RFA. Accordingly, within approximately three weeks of this RFA’s publication, FNS will conduct a webinar with all State agencies and FNS regional offices to review the RFA and address questions regarding the application process. Notification of the webinar date, time and call-in information will be communicated to SAs via the FNS Regional offices and the FNS Child Nutrition Division’s PartnerWeb at https://www.partnerweb.usda.gov.

FNS 728 Page 4

FNS reserves the option to award these funds using either a grant agreement or cooperative agreement. FNS specifically anticipates awarding the funds associated with the implementation projects as cooperative agreements to allow FNS more active participation with the cooperator during both project development and project execution. Examples of FNS participation include activities such as the following:

• Ongoing evaluation of quarterly progress and financial reports to monitor the grantee’s project activities to ensure that the objectives, terms and conditions of the agreement are met;

• Periodic on-site and off-site technical assistance to provide evaluation and guidance on project activities and outputs as they relate to child nutrition program objectives, including: providing program guidance on curriculum development; evaluation of training materials and websites; evaluation of technology improvements; review of project plans and milestones; review of procurement documents for sub grantee involvement (i.e., requests for proposals, contracts, statements of work, and project plans) and other technical assistance related to project objectives; and

• Periodic collaborative meetings for multiple grantees for the purposes of technical assistance, training, problem solving and sharing successful or promising practices.

Meetings may be conducted as webinars, teleconferences or training workshops in the Washington, D. C. area or at a program related conference.

II. PURPOSE OF GRANT FUNDING

The purpose of this grant funding is to decrease administrative errors in those SFAs and schools identified by SAs as having problems or where problems are likely to arise. For FY 2011, SAs should focus on one or more of the following three areas in developing their ART Method II Grant applications:

• Training of SFA administrative personnel in application, certification, verification, meal counting and meal claiming procedures. Training may include internet-based training sessions.

• Oversight and training activities focused on the nutritional quality of the meals.

• Technology improvements which demonstrate an ability to address administrative errors through the use of targeted monitoring and increased training in error-prone SFAs. States choosing this option must clearly demonstrate how the proposed technology can be used to implement State-level activities, specifically review and training activities associated with error prone SFAs. For example, proposals may include the following:

o Development of data analysis tools to monitor application, certification (including direct certification), verification (including direct verification), meal counting and meal claiming procedures for error-prone school districts;

FNS 728 Page 5 o Training methods utilizing internet technology; or o Other innovative State-level automated solutions to identify and reduce administrative errors in error-prone school districts.

Proposals for technology improvements addressing other aspects of State-level program management or local-level functions will not be considered.

See Appendix B: Summaries of Active ART Method II Grant Projects to review brief descriptions of currently approved ART Method II Grant projects. This information may be helpful to SAs in exploring possibilities for viable use of funding.

Funds authorized under the ART Method II Grants cannot be used to replace or augment funding allocated for existing review requirements. In addition, pursuant to Section 7(g) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, funds authorized cannot be used to replace funding allocated for training in administrative practices (including training in application, certification, verification, meal counting and meal claiming procedures) which is required to occur at a minimum of once a year.

III. AUTHORITY

The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265) authorizes funding for ART Grants. To be eligible, SAs must propose projects that identify and target SFAs that are experiencing or are likely to experience administrative errors.

IV. ART METHOD II GRANT TYPES

The FY 2011 ART Method II Grant award process involves two types of awards:

• ART Method II Planning Grants; and

• ART Method II Implementation Grants

SAs may apply for either type of grant, but not for both. Only one grant application will be accepted from an SA in response to this solicitation.

A. Planning Grants

Planning grants are intended for NSLP Agencies that know they need to improve and address their State’s administrative errors, but may need to conduct additional research to identify the most effective way of doing so to ensure that a chosen approach is actually the most effective approach. Therefore, potential uses of Planning grant funds include, but are not limited to:

feasibility studies and cost/benefit analyses to plan for automation projects; conducting an internal review of the State’s administrative processes; hiring a contractor or university to conduct a study of the processes and recommend solutions; consulting with stakeholders; and assessing current training and oversight capabilities and needs.

FNS 728 Page 6

NSLP Agencies that are awarded Planning grants from this solicitation may apply for funding for an Implementation grant at the next annual opportunity (FY 2012) in order to carry out an implementation project in follow-up to their Planning grant activities and outcomes. Planning grant funds may be used to complete the planning for the implementation project and to develop an ART Method II Implementation grant application based on the Planning grant project outcomes. However, SAs awarded Planning grants in FY 2011 who then apply for an Implementation grant in FY 2012 are not guaranteed to receive an FY 2012 Implementation grant award. Due to funding limitations each year, all ART Method II Grant awards, both Planning and Implementation, are competitive awards and will be based on the evaluation criteria stated in each fiscal year’s grant announcement. Consequently, FNS encourages SAs to apply for Planning grants to conduct activities that would be beneficial in helping them reduce administrative errors, even if they do not receive an ART Method II Implementation Grant award and have to rely on other resources to carry out an implementation project.

State agencies must address the questions in the Appendix D: ART Method II Planning Grant Proposal Narrative Instructions to develop a Planning grant application. The instructions are designed to assist SAs in developing fully responsive Planning grant applications for viable planning activities and to bring consistency to the proposal process for evaluation purposes.

The maximum amount of any single Planning grant is $75,000. However, FNS retains authority to award less than the amount requested in the application.

B. Implementation Grants

Implementation grants are intended for NSLP Agencies that know what they need to do to improve their State’s administrative training and oversight processes, but lack the resources to implement those changes. Potential uses of Implementation grant funds include, but are not limited to, developing and delivering training to SFA administrative personnel, improving State-level technologies to enhance State-level monitoring capability to identify and address errors in error-prone school districts, upgrading software, purchasing hardware and implementing accordingly.

SAs must address the questions in the Appendix E: ART Method II Implementation Grant Proposal Narrative Instructions to develop an Implementation grant application. These instructions are designed to guide applicants in thinking through all aspects of implementing proposed solutions, with particular emphasis on reducing risks associated with technology related aspects of their proposals prior to the grant award. Following the guidance will assist SAs to develop fully responsive Implementation grant applications, and to bring consistency to the proposal process for evaluation purposes.

The maximum amount of any single Implementation grant is $1.5 million. However, FNS retains authority to award less than the amount requested by an applicant. The size of Implementation grants will likely vary significantly, based on differences in the size of eligible States, the responsiveness of application packages (see Section VIII, What to Include in the Application Package), and clarity of demonstrated need.

FNS 728 Page 7

V. WHO MAY APPLY?

Eligible applicants include all SAs that administer the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

In this instance, the term SA means (a) the State educational agency; and (b) any other agency of the State which has been designated by the Governor or other appropriate executive or legislative authority of the State and approved by the Department of Agriculture to administer the Program in schools. In instances where there are two agencies within a State, such as in the case where the public and private agencies are different, separate applications are acceptable.

VI. CRITICAL DATES AND AWARD PERIODS

A. Critical Dates

Applications must be received via www.grants.gov on or before 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, May 10, 2011. Applications received after this date and time will not be considered.

SAs have the option of applying for either a Planning grant or an Implementation grant, but not both. Only one grant application will be accepted from an SA in response to this solicitation. FNS will evaluate the applications in accordance with the criteria outlined in Section X, Application Review and Grant Award Process, to select applications for awards.

The actual number of awards will depend on the quality of the applications and the availability of funds. Applications selected for award will be announced within approximately 90 days following the grant application deadline, and funds will be made available via a Grant or Cooperative Agreement award document following the award announcements.

B. Award Periods

The award period for the FY 2011 ART Method II Grants will be as follows, beginning from the date of the award:

• Planning grants will be awarded for up to one year; and

• Implementation grants will be awarded for one to three years.

All grant funds must be obligated and all program activities under the grant (other than activities relating to the close out of the grant) must be completed by the end of award period. The close out of the grant must occur no later than 90 days following the end of the award period, and all obligations incurred under the grant must be liquidated by this date. Any funds that are not liquidated within 90 days following the end of the award period must be returned to FNS. In addition, the final progress reports are due to FNS no later than 90 days following the end of the award period. Please see Section XI, Administrative Requirements and Terms and Conditions, for additional reporting requirements.

VII. HOW TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING

FNS 728 Page 8

Applicants must apply electronically through www.grants.gov and notify the FNS Grant Officer that the application has been accepted by the system. To submit the application electronically via the www.grants.gov website, there are a number of steps in the registration process that will be required before the application may be submitted. It is very important that users of the grants.gov system familiarize themselves with the requirements for system use.

Please be aware that in order to use the grants.gov system, the user will need to register online and obtain both a Data Universal Number (DUNS) and a Contract Registry Number. Applicants will receive a confirmation notice that the application has been accepted by the system.

Applicants must then send an email to notify the FNS Grant Officer that the proposal has been submitted through the www.grants.gov portal and that you have received a confirmation notice from www.grants.gov that the application has been accepted by the system.

The application must be successfully submitted to www.grants.gov and the FNS Grant Officer must receive notification of electronic submission no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on May 10, 2011. We strongly recommend that you submit the online application several days before the application deadline in case there are problems with the website. Electronic or paper applications sent via any other method will not be accepted.

All questions regarding the application and notifications regarding electronic submission should be referred to the FNS Grant Officer, Carla Garcia via email at Carla.Garcia@fns.usda.gov or by telephone at (703) 305-2760.

VIII. WHAT TO INCLUDE IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE

To be considered complete, the ART Method II Grant application must include all the required documents and information listed in the following sections for the specific type of grant -- Planning or Implementation.

A. Planning Grant Applications

To be considered complete, application packages for ART Method II Planning Grants must include all information listed in the following table. Failure to provide any item on the list could result in your application being removed from competition.

Table 1 – Checklist for Planning Grant Application Package

Required Documents and Information

Explanation

1. Cover Page Include

- Agency Name and Address

- Contact Information - Name, address, phone number, email address, and fax number for the NSLP agency staff person(s) responsible for the application;

- Type of Grant Applied for -- Planning or Implementation;

- Brief abstract to summarize proposed grant project purpose and key elements (no more

FNS 728 Page 9

Table 1 – Checklist for Planning Grant Application Package than half a page)

2. Project Proposal Narrative - Appendix D

10-page limit

For a Planning grant project proposal narrative to be considered complete, applicants must structure and develop their proposal narrative by answering all questions listed in the Appendix D: ART Method II Planning Grant Proposal Narrative Instructions.

Applicants should address all questions in the order they are listed. The instructions are intended to simplify both the narrative development for applicants and the evaluation process for reviewers.

3. Form SF-424 Application for Federal

Assistance Link to form at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/grants.htm

4. Form SF-424A, Budget Information – Non-Construction Programs

5. Form SF-424B, Assurances –

6. Form SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities

7. Form AD-1047, Certification Regarding

Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters

8. Form AD-1048, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion- Lower Tier Covered Transaction (Must submit with application only if a Sole Source Contractor is identified)

9. Form AD-1052 Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements

10. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement If Indirect Costs are included in the budget, applicants must provide a copy of their agency’s signed Indirect Cost Rate Agreement with a Federal agency.

11. Justification for Sole Source Contracts If Contractual costs are included in the budget estimate and the contractor is (or will be) acquired without competition, the applicant must provide a justification for a sole source contract.

FNS 728 Page 10

B. Implementation Grant Applications

To be considered complete, application packages for ART Method II Implementation Grants must include all information listed in the following table. Failure to provide any item on the list could result in your application being removed from competition.

Table 2 – Checklist for Implementation Grant Application Package

1. Cover Page Include

- Agency Name and Address

- Contact Information - Name, address, phone number, email address, and fax number for the NSLP agency staff person(s) responsible for the application;

- Type of Grant Applied for -- Planning or Implementation;

- Brief abstract to summarize proposed grant project purpose and key elements (no more than half a page)

2. Project Proposal Narrative - Appendix E

30-page limit

For an Implementation project proposal narrative to be considered complete, applicants must structure and develop their project proposal by answering all questions in the Appendix E: ART Method II Implementation Grant Proposal Narrative Instructions. These instructions are designed to guide applicants in thinking through all aspects of proposed solutions, with particular emphasis on reducing risks associated with technology related aspects of their proposals prior to the grant award.

As this document is to be used when developing your proposal, the content of a proposal submission should align with the questions posed in the instructions and incorporate all applicable questions in the order listed.

If the same response applies to more than one question, you may provide the response in the first question where it applies, and then reference the answer in later questions. However, be sure that you have provided sufficient information to fully respond to all questions. Applicants should have an entry for every question.

All questions may not be applicable for projects that do not involve technology developments or improvements. If questions are not applicable, FNS 728 Page 11

Table 2 – Checklist for Implementation Grant Application Package indicate by stating “not applicable.”

3. Form SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance

4. Form SF-424A, Budget Information –

5. Form SF-424B, Assurances –

6. Form SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities

7. Form AD-1047, Certification Regarding

Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters.

8. Form AD-1048, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion- Lower Tier Covered Transaction (Must submit with application only if a Sole Source Contractor is identified)

9. Form AD-1052 Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements

10. Indirect Cost Rate Agreement If Indirect Costs are included in the budget, applicants must provide a copy of their agency’s signed Indirect Cost Rate Agreement with a Federal agency.

11. Justification for Sole Source Contracts If Contractual costs are included in budget estimate and the contractor is (or will be) acquired without competition, the applicant must provide a justification for a sole source contract.

IX. APPLICATION FORMAT

Applications should meet the following formatting guidelines:

• 10-page maximum length for Planning grant narrative response to Appendix D;

• 30-page maximum length for Implementation grant narrative response to Appendix E;

• Page restrictions apply only to content of the narrative proposals and do not apply to other required forms and supporting documents, such as the SF-424, SF-424a, SF-424b, cover page, indirect cost rate agreement, and assurance forms);

FNS 728 Page 12

• 8 ½” by 11” paper;

• 12 point Times New Roman or Arial font size (smaller font may be used in tables, charts and graphs as long as they are clearly readable);

• Numbered pages

X. APPLICATION REVIEW AND GRANT AWARD PROCESS

A. Initial Screening

FNS will screen all applications to ensure they are eligible and fully responsive. Eligible and responsive applications are those that meet the following requirements:

1. Submitted by eligible applicants (see Section V, Who May Apply?);

2. Submitted on or before the required deadline (see Section VI, Critical Dates and Award

Periods);

3. Are complete (see Section VIII, What to Include in the Application Package); and

4. Are in the required format (see Section IX, Application Format).

Ineligible or nonresponsive applications will be removed from further consideration for grant funds. Thereafter, FNS will review and consider eligible applications in accordance with the evaluation process described in the following paragraphs.

B. Panel Review

After initial screening, FNS will convene an evaluation panel of FNS staff to consider the merit of each grant application. Each application that passes initial screening will be given to the panel to be evaluated and scored according to how well it addresses each application component. The panel will assign each application a score using the evaluation criteria and weights specified below for each evaluation component.

1. Scoring for Planning Grant Applications:

• Project Purpose 20 points

- The significance of the problem(s) to be addressed is clearly demonstrated and proposed planning activities are appropriate to address the problem(s) identified.

- The project goals and objectives are in line with the ART Method II Grant focus areas and purpose of the funding described in Section II, Purpose of Grant Funding.

• Project Design and Management 20 points

FNS 728 Page 13

- The project organization, management approach and staffing plan indicate that the applicant has the capacity to manage and execute the planning project successfully.

- The scope and timeline proposed for the project are reasonable and attainable during the Planning grant time frame.

• Impact on Program Integrity 20 points

The planning activities to be completed during the grant period clearly support:

- Identification of ways to reduce administrative errors in error-prone school districts;

- Planning for implementation of solutions to improve program integrity, including the areas of application, certification, verification, meal counting and meal claiming.

• Budget Plan 20 points

- The total funding amount requested is appropriate for the scope of the project.

- Proposed costs are reasonable, necessary and allocable to carry out the project's goals and objectives.

- The budget includes a line item description for every allowable cost and shows how it supports the project goals.

• Sustainability and Transferability 20 points

- The proposed planning project is likely to produce outcomes and information that not only will aid the applicant SA in implementing program improvements, but also will produce knowledge that is transferable to other SAs for similar improvement projects.

- The applicant demonstrates that the SA has to capacity to implement program improvements in follow-up to the Planning grant activities, when ART Method II Planning Grant funding ends.

2. Scoring for Implementation Grant Applications:

• Project Purpose 20 points

- The significance of the problem(s) to be addressed is clearly demonstrated and proposed implementation activities are appropriate to address the problem(s) identified.

FNS 728 Page 14

- The project goals and objectives are in line with the ART Method II Grant focus areas and purpose of the funding described in Section II, Purpose of Grant Funding.

• Project Design and Management 20 points

- The project organization, management approach and staffing plan indicate that the applicant has the capacity to manage and execute the implementation project successfully.

- The scope and timeline proposed for the project are reasonable and attainable during the Implementation grant time frame.

• Impact on Program Integrity 20 points

The implementation activities to be completed during the grant period clearly support:

- Reduction of administrative errors in error-prone school districts;

- Implementation of viable solutions to improve program integrity, including the areas of application, certification, verification, meal counting and meal claiming.

• Budget Plan 20 points

- The total funding amount requested is appropriate for the scope of the project;

- Proposed costs are reasonable, necessary and allocable to carry out the project's goals and objectives;

- The budget includes a line item description for every allowable cost and shows how it supports the project goals.

• Sustainability and Transferability 20 points

- The proposed implementation project is likely to produce outcomes and information that not only will aid the applicant SA in accomplishing program improvements, but also will produce knowledge that is transferable to other SAs for similar improvement projects.

- The applicant demonstrates that the SA has to capacity to implement and sustain the program improvements resulting from the Implementation grant activities after the ART Method II Implementation Grant funding ends.

FNS 728 Page 15

C. Selection

After evaluation and scoring, grant applications will be arrayed by type (planning or implementation) and by score within the type, starting with the highest score. Applications with the highest scores for each type will be chosen to receive funding. FNS intends to award no more than $450,000 as Planning grants. The remaining available funds will be awarded as Implementation grants to the highest scoring Implementation grant applications.

In addition, FNS reserves the option to select out of ranking in order to achieve diversity and regional representation.

A list of all applications deemed eligible for award will be submitted to the Selection Official for a final decision regarding funding. The Selection Official has ultimate authority to decide which applications are approved and funded, and generally will adhere to the recommendations made by the program reviewers, provided that funding is available. However, the Selection Official reserves the right to deviate from those recommendations. The Selection Official may take other factors into account when granting awards and/or not awarding a particular award. Other factors the Selection Official may consider include, but are not limited to: the innovation demonstrated in an application; and the geographic, socioeconomic, and demographic diversity of populations a proposed grant would impact.

Lastly, the Selection Official may suggest changes to your application, and make approval of your application contingent on your acceptance of those changes. The reasons the Selection Official may suggest such modifications include, but are not limited to, improving the efficiency and/or effectiveness of your proposed grant activities, approving only a portion of the grant activities, or limited availability of funds.

FNS will review and consider the merit of each grant application and reserves the right to fund only those applications that are able to demonstrate their capability to improve their State’s administrative processes and error rates. Additionally, FNS may adjust the amounts requested in the application to ensure that funds are made available at appropriate levels.

FNS also reserves the right to suspend or terminate an award for materially failing to perform in accordance with a State application.

XI. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS

A. Administrative Requirements

The grant program will be awarded and administered in accordance with applicable Federal and program regulations. These include but are not limited to:

7 CFR Part 3015: USDA, Uniform Federal Assistance Requirements implementing OMB directives (OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments);

7 CFR Part 3016: USDA, Uniform Federal Assistance Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments;

FNS 728 Page 16

7 CFR Part 3017: Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement);

7 CFR Part 3021: Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance);

7 CFR Part 3018: Restrictions on Lobbying; and

7 CFR Part 3052: (OMB Circular A-133) Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations

7 CFR Part 15: Discrimination; Civil Rights

2 CFR Part 25 – Universal Identifier and Central Contractor Registration

Effective October 1, 2010, all grant applicants must obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (D & B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as a universal identifier for Federal financial assistance applicants, as well as active grant recipients and their direct sub recipients of a sub-grant award. To request a DUNS number visit http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform.

The grant recipient must register its DUNS number into the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) as the repository for standard information about applicants and recipients, and the registration must be maintain in the CCR throughout the performance period of the grant award.

To register a DUNS number and or maintain a CCR registration visit www.ccr.gov. OMB requires grant recipients DUNS number registered in CCR be current in order to access (usaspending.gov) the federal prime grant recipient reporting website.

FNS may not make an award to an entity until the entity has complied with the requirements described in 2 CFR 25.200 to provide a valid DUNS number and maintain an active CCR registration with current information.

2 CFR Part 170 – Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation

As required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–282), as amended by section 6202 of Public Law 110–252, requirements for recipients’ reporting of information on sub awards and executive total compensation apply to the FY 2011 ART Method II Grants.

Prime Grant recipients awarded a new Federal grant greater than or equal to $25,000 as of October 1, 2010 are subject to FFATA sub award reporting. The prime recipient is required to file a FFATA sub award report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime recipient awards any sub-grant greater than $25,000. The grants sub award reporting data must be entered into the Federal Sub award Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov.

Specific OMB award terms and conditions will be included in all grant awards.

B. Funding

In addition to the administrative requirements mentioned above, the provisions below will also be a part of the agreement between FNS and the SA.

FNS 728 Page 17

• Funds authorized cannot be used to replace existing funding (e.g. State Administrative Expense (SAE) funds) earmarked by the SA for administrative review, oversight and training.

• Current expenditures of State and local funds for the operation of school nutrition programs shall not be diminished as a result of receipt of funds to implement administrative review, oversight and training.

• Funds cannot be used to shift existing staff from their normal duties paid with SAE funds to support the grant activities unless the staff that are reassigned are replaced with additional staff in the positions that are vacant.

• Funds cannot be used for local level expenses.

• Funds must be expended in accordance with the budget estimate submitted with the proposal, except with prior FNS approval or FNS revision. No more than ten percent of the funds budgeted by the SAs can be shifted from one cost category to another without prior approval from FNS.

• Any change to a project that is outside the scope of an approved proposal requires prior approval by FNS.

• Funding for approved proposals will be provided through the Letter of Credit process in the same manner as other funds. However, SAs will be required to separately track and report these funds via a SF-425, Federal Financial Report.

C. Assurances and Disclosures

Applicants must provide the following assurances and disclosures:

• Assurance – Non-Construction Programs, SF 424B;

• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, SF LLL;

• Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters (AD-

1047);

• Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-

Lower Tier Covered Transaction (Must submit with application only if a Sole Source Contractor is identified) (AD-1048);

• Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (AD-1052)

The forms listed above are available at the following FNS website:

FNS 728 Page 18

D. Reporting

All SAs receiving funds FY 2011 ART Method II Grants are required to submit the following reports in accordance with the deadlines noted:

1. Quarterly Financial Reports, SF-425. In FY 2011, FNS transitioned to electronic submission of financial data. Grantees will be required to submit quarterly SF-425 financial reports and a final SF-425 financial report electronically via the FNS Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS). In order to access FPRS, SAs are required to become “e-authenticated.” Further instructions regarding data entry into FPRS, the reporting format and dates will be provided to those receiving awards. The designated FNS Grants Officer will provide assistance and guidance for FPRS access.

2. Quarterly Progress Reports. The Quarterly progress report must include (in narrative form):

• A brief description of what the planned activities were for the report period;

• Major accomplishments for each activity and dates of accomplishment;

• A description of any deviations from the proposed plan discussing difficulties encountered and solutions developed;

• Budget impact and/or costs associated within this reporting period; and

• A list of key activities planned for the next report period.

An original and one copy of the Quarterly Progress Report must be submitted no later than 30 days after the close of each quarter. In addition, at the completion of the grant period, a final report is due within 90 days of the end of the award period. The Final Progress Report should be a narrative project summary that includes lessons learned, future implications within the State, and transferability to other States.

FNS 728 Page 19

APPENDIX A: OMB Cost Principles 2 CFR 225

Link to 2 CFR 225, OMB Cost Principles for State, Local and Tribal Governments:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/2005/083105_a87.pdf

FNS 728 Page 20

APPENDIX B: Summaries of Active ART Method II Grant Projects

Planning grants have not been offered previously under this funding source, so all projects listed are implementation projects.

Alabama Department of Education There are two phases to the Alabama project. The first phase involves the development of a comprehensive computerized system for identification and periodic monitoring of error-prone SFAs. There are four components to this proposed system, including a verification system, claims processing system, and a Provision 2 schools component. The second phase is to develop online training for managers and cashiers to ensure meal counting and claiming errors are minimized.

California Department of Education The California Department of Education (CDE) is requesting funding to plan, design, conduct, and assess the impact of a comprehensive curriculum series specifically designed to improve administrative accuracy and program integrity in California’s school meal programs. The CDE plans to develop and deliver in-depth instructional programs designed to improve the nutritional integrity of school meals and to decrease administrative review errors that CDE’s compliance staff report to be continually on the rise. Project activities will include: developing school meal program integrity (SMPI) training materials; delivering SMPI training to targeted, at-risk school district staff; using web-based technology to increase the number of at-risk sponsors receiving training and instruction; developing a self-assessment tool to assist at-risk agencies in monitoring; and, through training, build consistency in conducting administrative reviews. The CDE also plans to conduct ongoing oversight and evaluation of the effectiveness of the ART grant project activities in decreasing administrative errors related to meal claiming and nutrition standard requirements.

Idaho State Department of Education Idaho is a rural state. The state’s size, shape, location and population create specific problems in training NSLP sponsors in the rules and regulations for the Federal Child Nutrition Programs. Idaho is seeing increased growth in the number of charter schools in the state and unique barriers are in the way, preventing charter schools from beginning or staying as an NSLP sponsor. Food service supervisors continue to have difficulties despite attending training or over the phone technical assistance. Some NSLP sponsors in the state are having difficulty meeting the nutrition standards set forth in the SMI. The State Agency (SA), through a coordinator funded by the ART grant, plans to develop and implement a comprehensive training and technical assistance plan for SFAs, charter schools, and At-Risk Residential Child Care Institutions. The training will encompass reviews of rules and regulations with featured topics including applications, certification, verification, meal counting, meal claiming, menu planning methods, civil rights and more. The focus will be to improve performance and reduce error findings in the Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) reviews and increase the availability of nutritious, reimbursable breakfasts and lunches in compliance with USDA regulations.

FNS 728 Page 21

Iowa Department of Education The Iowa Department of Education (IADE), Bureau of Nutrition Health and Transportation Services proposes to implement a data driven integrated systems approach to identify, target and reduce administrative error in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP). This approach will facilitate and support the State Agency (SA) in:

1) Implementing targeted monitoring to identify school food authorities (SFAs) that have demonstrated a high level of, or a high risk for, administrative error; 2) Improving program integrity and administrative accuracy by focused strategies to assist high risk SFAs reduce errors; 3) Providing increased timely training to high risk SFAs; and Providing expanded oversight and training activities focused on the nutritional quality of the meals served as addressed in the School Meal Initiative (SMI). The grant will support and enhance the State Agency’s ability to identify, review, oversee and train high risk SFAs in application processing and certification, verification, meal counting, meal claiming and areas related to the nutritional quality of school meals. Establishing SFA performance benchmarks in key areas such as financial management and the school meals initiative is a key element of the project. This will enable the SA to conduct trend analysis and make comparisons among districts for grant purposes.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Data collected from 06-08 CRE reviews of school nutrition programs revealed that of 360 schools evaluated by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, more than half committed one or more non-certification errors. These included administrative as well as school based errors. Central office and site errors included consolidation errors, incorrect identification of a reimbursable meal based on the type of menu planning used, and incorrect menu format; cashier errors also included incorrect identification of a reimbursable meal as well as counting and recording inaccuracies. The SA would like to use their ART grant to purchase the Mass School Meals Accountability and Responsibility Training Tools (SMARTs). The MASSmart will provide a multi-level, integrated approach to improving accountability by designing and testing a seamless data entry and reporting system and, at the same time, developing educational modules that reflect the importance of personal and professional responsibility at all levels for reducing administrative errors in school nutrition programs, thus improving the quality and efficiencies of school nutrition programs.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction The State agency received a 2007 ART grant and focused their efforts on the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP). A large number of MPCP schools were identified as error-prone, as demonstrated by a high level of PS1 errors relating to the free and reduced price meal application process, certification, verification and meal counting and claiming. There were also concerns regarding the general administration of the child nutrition programs due to the high turnover rate of staff in a significant number of these schools. The SA requested an ART grant to provide technical assistance and training to a number of schools across the state and to purchase and host accountability software. The software will allow the SA to provide continuous real-time monitoring of SFAs that have had multiple errors and were monitored through the 2007 ART grant. The monitoring system will also allow the SA to follow up on corrective action implementation to ensure the accountability of SFAs once their CRE reviews are conducted.

FNS 728 Page 22

Wyoming Department of Education The Nutrition Section of the agency is currently managing the NSLP, SBP, and ASSP along with other nutrition programs without adequate technology to compile, review, and analyze CNP data from LEAs. Therefore, the SA does not currently have the ability to identify at-risk LEAs and develop appropriate corrective action. The State agency (SA) has a very small staff and without adequate and available software to manage the NSLP and SBP, time is spent in areas that do not affect program integrity and administrative accuracy. The SA wants to implement a technology system with the ability to modify forms, reports, interfaces and outputs as necessary to improve program integrity and administrative accuracy. The system will be especially targeted for districts that are error prone. Some features of the system include data collection and claiming at the site level, reimbursements calculated/totaled at the sponsor level, collection of federally required data elements, etc.

FNS 728 Page 23

APPENDIX C: Planning or Implementation Grant Budget Checklist

BUDGET CHECKLIST YES NO

This budget checklist should be used in the development of a grant. NOTE: The proposed project budget must align with the activities outlined in the proposal. FNS reserve the right to request information not clearly addressed in the proposal and or budget.

Personnel Did you include all key employees paid for by this grant under this heading?

Are employees of the applicant’s organization identified by name and position title?

Did you reflect the current yearly salary as a percentage of time to be devoted to the project?

Fringe Benefits Did you include your organization’s fringe benefit amount along with the basis for the computation?

Did you list the type of fringe benefits to be covered with Federal funds?

Travel Are travel expenses itemized? For example origination/destination points, number and purpose of trips, number of staff traveling, mode of transportation and cost of each trip.

Are the Attendee Objectives and travel justifications included in the narrative?

Is the basis for the lodging estimates identified in the budget? For example include excerpt from travel regulations.

Equipment Is the need for the equipment justified in the narrative?

Are the types of equipment, unit costs, and the number of items to be purchased listed in the budget?

Is the basis for the cost per item or other basis of computation stated in the budget?

Supplies Are the types of supplies, unit costs, and the number of items to be purchased reflected in the budget?

Is the basis for the costs per item or other basis of computation stated?

Contractual: (FNS reserves the right to request information on all contractual and sub-grant awards associated costs after a contract or sub-grant is awarded.)

Are the products to be acquired or the professional services to be funded described in the budget?

Has the justification for the need to contract or sub grant been included in the budget?

For professional services, are the hours to be devoted to the project and the amounts to be charged to the project clearly stated?

Is the methodology on how the applicant determined the contractual costs included in the budget?

Are there sole-source contracts listed under this heading? If so, has sufficient justification been provided in order to approve the use of a single source?

Other Consultant Services. All associated costs must be clearly related to the consulting services and the proposal. Details to justify the costs should include: a description of services being considered; an itemized list of all potential direct cost and fees, including labor estimates; number of personnel including related position titles; and specialized qualifications as appropriate.

Consultant Services. Is the need for consultant services justified in the budget? Are all instances in

FNS 728 Page 24 which consultant services would be required listed in the budget?

BUDGET CHECKLIST YES NO

For all other line items listed under the “Other” heading, list all items to be covered under this heading along with the methodology on how the applicant derived the costs to be charged to the program.

Indirect Costs Is the amount requested based upon a rate approved by a Federal Agency? If yes, is a copy of the negotiated rate agreement must be provided along with the application?

If no approved federal agency negotiated agreement exists, are the basis and the details of the indirect costs to be requested reflected in the budget narrative?

FNS 728 Page 25

APPENDIX D: ART Method II Planning Grant Proposal Narrative Instructions

For a Planning grant project proposal narrative to be considered complete, applicants must structure and develop their proposal narrative by answering all questions listed in the following ART Method II Planning Grant Proposal Narrative Instructions table below. Applicants should address all questions in the order they are listed. The instructions are intended to simplify both the narrative development for applicants and the evaluation process for reviewers.

ART Method II Planning Grant Proposal Narrative Instructions

1. Contact Information: Provide the name, address, phone…