7-29-2026_NOFO-ACB Cybercrime FY25 (FINAL).pdf

1 | P a g e

Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)

.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL)

Announcement Type: Request for Federal Assistance Award Applications

Funding Opportunity Title:

Global Cybercrime and Cryptocurrency Assessment and Intelligence Gathering

Funding Opportunity Number: DFOP0019468

Program: Cybercrime

Assistance Listing Number: 19.705 - Transnational Crime

Total Funding Available: $2,196,890 U.S. Dollars

Funding Source: Domestic-Funds

Application Ceiling:

Applicants can refer to the specific goals on page 5 to see the maximum request for their proposal.

Application Floor:

Applicants can refer to the specific goals on page 5 to see the maximum request for their proposal.

Anticipated Number of Awards: 2-5 awards

Initial Project Implementation

Length:

24 months unless otherwise specified

Estimated Project Start Date: October 2026

NOFO Issuance Date: July 29, 2026

Deadline for Submission of

Questions:

August 14, 2026 by 11:59 PM EST via email

Deadline for Submission of Applications:

August 31, 2026 by 11:59 PM EST via www.grants.gov

Assistance Type: Grant (GR) http://www.grants.gov/

2 | P a g e

Applicant Types and

Eligibility Categories:

Organizations only.

Refer to Section C: Eligibility Information for more information.

INL Points of Contact:

Dianne Murril (murrildr@state.gov) - GO

Harriet Atkinson (AtkinsonSH@state.gov) – PO

BUREAU MISSION

The mission of the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement

Affairs (INL) is to keep Americans safe by countering crime, illegal drugs, and instability abroad.

INL is at the forefront of responding to these challenges, uniting these overarching themes through our foreign assistance programs, diplomatic engagement, and policy coordination.

mailto:murrildr@state.gov mailto:AtkinsonSH@state.gov

3 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

B. FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION

C. ELIGILIBITY INFORMATION

D. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

E. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

F. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

APPENDIX A: PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN

APPENDIX B: PROJECT RISK ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C: APPLICABLE COST PRINCIPLES, BUDGET, AND BUDGET

NARRATIVE

4 | P a g e

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Overview: The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the U.S.

Department of State announces an open competition for organizations to submit applications addressing cybercrime and cyber-enabled crimes. Projects should focus on combating cyber intrusions, online fraud, online-facilitated drug trafficking, digital piracy, and the criminal misuse of cryptocurrency and virtual assets. These crimes represent a rapidly evolving, cross-border threat that directly undermines U.S. national and economic security and harms an estimated one in four

American households according to a 2018 Gallup survey. Criminals increasingly exploit the pseudonymous and borderless nature of virtual assets to launder proceeds, evade law enforcement, and victimize Americans at scale across all of these typologies. These trends have produced large-scale financial losses and growing harm to Americans, prompting President Trump's March 2026

Executive Order to strengthen efforts against cybercrime targeting U.S. families, businesses, and critical infrastructure.

Project Reporting: Note that this award must submit quarterly performance reports through INL’s

DevResults system. See Appendix A for more details.

Priority Region/Countries: Global. Priority countries will be determined based on the outcome of the baseline threat assessments paired with INL's strategic review. The assessments will identify key source countries of cybercrimes targeting the United States across all regions.

Problem Statement: Cybercrime is a rapidly evolving, transnational threat that directly targets and harms Americans and American businesses. According to the FBI, cybercrime imposed a substantial toll on American citizens and businesses, with total reported losses reaching $21 billion in 2025, including $17.7 billion from cyber-enabled fraud alone. According to a 2025 Pew Research

Center survey, seventy-three percent of U.S. adults have experienced online scams or attacks during their lifetime, highlighting the widespread nature of cybercrime. Each cybercrime typology — from hacking and ransomware to online fraud, digital piracy, sextortion, and drug trafficking — has different key source countries and requires different interventions.

Compounding this threat, virtual assets have become a preferred tool for cybercriminals across many of these typologies, enabling them to receive illicit payments, launder proceeds, and move funds across borders with speed and relative anonymity. Criminals exploit cryptocurrency in connection with ransomware and business email compromise, romance scams, drug trafficking, and digital piracy, making it a common thread across the full spectrum of cybercrime harming Americans. Each typology presents distinct cryptocurrency usage patterns, key source countries, and required interventions.

Due to the complex and global nature of cybercrime, INL’s cybercrime programming has maintained a broad geographic and substantive focus. Yet, baseline threat assessments and ongoing technical analysis are needed to help INL focus resources on the highest-impact interventions and keep pace with evolving threats and emerging technologies.

Project Goal(s) and Objectives: To disrupt and deter cybercrime networks harming American communities and businesses by strengthening foreign criminal justice institutions and regional coordination – enabling more effective enforcement, investigation, and prosecutorial of cybercrime and cyber-enabled crimes across all key typologies.

Strategic goals and objectives are listed below with associated award ceilings and floors.

5 | P a g e

• Applicants must address only one strategic goal per application but may address one or more objectives within that goal.

• Applicants may submit one application per goal. If you wish to apply for multiple goals, submit separate applications.

• Applications addressing multiple objectives will not receive preference over those addressing a single objective. All applications will be evaluated on merit and anticipated impact.

• Submitting multiple applications for the same goal will result in all applications for that goal being deemed ineligible for technical review.

INL seeks to support programs that deliver immediate, measurable impacts to disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and strengthen law enforcement actions against them.

Proposals should prioritize time-bound, results-driven activities that directly contribute to operational outcomes, including investigations, interdictions, prosecutions, and related enforcement efforts.

Applicants are encouraged to propose innovative solutions within the scope of the objectives, but activities should be specific and appropriate to the country and/or regional context. Applicants should present a focused strategic approach grounded in identified needs, their organizational expertise, and an understanding of the broader funding and operational landscape. While immediate impact is prioritized, proposals should also consider how supported activities can reinforce longer-term capacity and effectiveness in countering TCOs.

INL places a strong emphasis on burden sharing and expects applicants to demonstrate meaningful contributions from host governments and/or other donors and stakeholders, contributions may include:

• Financial support

• In-kind resources

• Policy commitments, or

• Operational engagement

Proposals should clearly describe how such contributions will enhance program effectiveness, sustainability, and coordination.

Global:

1) Cybercrime Landscape Assessment(s) and Intelligence Gathering

Individual Award Ceiling: $1,000,000

Individual Award floor: $200,000

Cost Share Required: Recommended but not required

Anticipated number of Awards: 1-4

Funding Type: FY25 INCLE (Domestic)

Estimated Project Start Date: October 2026

Countries/Areas: Global

Goal 1: Disrupt and deter cybercrime harming American communities and businesses by strengthening threat understanding and investigative and cross-border coordination capabilities.

Objective 1.1: Establish comprehensive baseline understanding of cyber intrusions harming

Americans through development of a baseline assessment, a global heat map graphic, 6 | P a g e situational updates, and actionable intelligence packages. Examples of cyber intrusions include but are not limited to ransomware, malware, phishing, and business email compromise.

Objective 1.2: Establish comprehensive baseline understanding of online fraud harming

Americans through development of a baseline assessment, a global heat map graphic, situational updates, and actionable intelligence packages. The assessment should evaluate both the large scam centers and loosely affiliated/distributed online networks conducting romance scams, sextortion, identity theft etc.

Objective 1.3: Establish comprehensive baseline understanding of online drug trafficking harming Americans through development of a baseline assessment, a global heat map graphic, situational updates, and actionable intelligence packages.

Objective 1.4: Establish comprehensive baseline understanding of digital piracy harming

Americans through the development of a baseline assessment, a global heat map graphic, situational updates, and actionable intelligence packages.

Project activities and deliverables:

Applicants are not required to address all four typologies under Goal 1. Applicants should apply only for the typologies in which they possess specialized knowledge and demonstrated capacity. INL may make one or more awards covering different typologies, and proposals will be evaluated on a per-typology basis. Applicants must clearly identify in their application which typology or typologies they are proposing to address.

All assessments under Objectives 1.1–1.4 must measure harm exclusively to U.S. persons, U.S. businesses, and U.S. critical infrastructure. Harm to citizens of other nations — even where caused by the same criminal networks — is outside the scope of these assessments and must not be incorporated into harm scores or country rankings. Across all typologies, assessments must focus on criminal actors, apply attribution confidence weighting, account for underreporting, and produce normalized, comparable outputs that support INL's prioritization of resources and countries. Methodological requirements differ across typologies, as specified below, reflecting the distinct nature of each crime type and its impact on American victims.

The award recipient(s) will conduct the following activities and produce the following deliverables:

1. Baseline Landscape Assessments

Recipients must conduct a baseline landscape assessment for each typology addressed that identifies and provides supporting data — including crime statistics — on the top source countries harming Americans. Each assessment must identify key threat actors, criminal methods, vulnerabilities, and emerging trends; analyze the scale, scope, and impact of each cybercrime typology on U.S. interests; and deliver written threat assessment reports with executive summaries and data visualizations. Assessments must evaluate crimes occurring on the open web as well as the deep and dark webs.

Assessments must employ a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative data analysis with qualitative research. Quantitative analysis must utilize available government, private sector, academic, and international organization datasets. Qualitative analysis must supplement quantitative findings and must draw upon interviews with subject matter experts, law enforcement officials, cybersecurity practitioners, researchers, 7 | P a g e and relevant stakeholders, as well as reviews of investigative reporting and court records.

The final assessment must clearly distinguish between findings supported by quantitative evidence and those derived primarily from qualitative analysis.

Assessments must also identify both primary operational hubs—countries where criminal actors are based or operate—and facilitating jurisdictions—countries that enable cybercrime through infrastructure hosting, financial services, safe havens, or other enabling mechanisms—as these may require different U.S. government responses and

Each assessment must apply a consistent, documented harm measurement methodology that enables comparison of harm levels across source countries. Across all typologies, the methodology must:

• Apply attribution confidence tiers (high, medium, low) and weigh findings accordingly, recognizing that criminal networks frequently use infrastructure and intermediaries across multiple jurisdictions;

• Normalize and aggregate harm indicators into a composite score that enables cross-country comparison and ranking;

• Account for known underreporting and document all methodological assumptions and limitations transparently.

Typology-specific methodology requirements are as follows:

Objective 1.1 — Cyber Intrusions

The assessment must focus exclusively on criminal threat actors and must apply clear, documented criteria for distinguishing criminal actors from state-sponsored ones. All harm indicators must be scoped to U.S. persons, U.S.-domiciled businesses, and U.S.

critical infrastructure. Harm must be defined across multiple dimensions. The following primary indicators must be weighted most heavily in the composite harm score:

• Financial losses to U.S. victims;

• Volume of incidents targeting U.S. persons or infrastructure;

• Sensitivity of data compromised belonging to U.S. persons or entities; and

• Number of Americans affected.

The following secondary indicator must also be incorporated into the composite harm score, but weighted less heavily than the primary indicators, reflecting INL's programmatic focus relative to other bureaus with lead responsibility for critical infrastructure protection:

• Severity of impact on U.S. critical infrastructure sectors.

Authoritative data sources must include, but are not limited to: FBI IC3 reports, DOJ indictments, CISA advisories, and vetted private sector threat intelligence.

Objective 1.2 — Online Fraud

All harm indicators must be scoped to U.S. persons and U.S.-domiciled businesses. The assessment must distinguish between large, organized scam center operations and loosely affiliated or distributed criminal networks, as these require different interventions and present different harm profiles. Harm must be defined across multiple dimensions, including:

• Direct financial losses to U.S. victims;

• Volume and frequency of fraud incidents targeting U.S. persons;

8 | P a g e

• Psychological and emotional harm to U.S. victims, including documented cases of depression, trauma, and suicide — particularly in romance scam and sextortion cases where emotional manipulation is central to the criminal method;

• Reputational and familial harm, including family financial devastation resulting from U.S. victim losses; and

• Number of Americans affected, disaggregated by fraud typology (e.g., romance scams, sextortion, identity theft, investment fraud).

The assessment must incorporate U.S. victim mortality data where available, including suicide deaths among American victims linked to fraud victimization, drawing on law enforcement records, medical examiner data, and open-source reporting. Recipients must acknowledge that such data is significantly underreported and that the true toll is likely substantially higher than recorded figures.

Authoritative data sources must include, but are not limited to: FBI IC3 reports, FTC

Consumer Sentinel data, DOJ indictments, financial institution fraud data, and vetted

NGO and victim advocacy reporting.

Objective 1.3 — Online Drug Trafficking

All harm indicators must be scoped to U.S. persons and U.S. communities. The assessment should distinguish between how harm is perpetrated against private companies, citizens, and governments as each presents a different harm profile and requires different interventions. Harm must be defined across multiple dimensions, including:

• Volume of illicit drug transactions targeting U.S. buyers conducted via dark web marketplaces;

• Financial flows associated with online drug sales to U.S. consumers, including cryptocurrency-denominated transactions, using blockchain transaction data as a real-time barometer of illicit economic activity;

• Downstream public health and economic costs to the United States, including emergency response, healthcare, and lost productivity; and

• Other dimensions of harm to U.S. populations, which could include, but are not limited to, estimated business costs or losses.

The assessment must also evaluate the role of online platforms, particularly on the dark web, in enabling the sourcing of precursor chemicals from foreign suppliers that fuel domestic U.S. drug manufacturing and contribute to American overdose deaths.

Authoritative data sources must include but are not limited to: CDC overdose surveillance data, DEA drug threat assessments, FBI and HSI case data, UNODC reporting, and vetted dark web monitoring and blockchain analytics.

Objective 1.4 — Digital Piracy

All harm indicators must be scoped to U.S. rights holders, U.S. workers, U.S.-domiciled businesses, and American consumers. The assessment must distinguish between large-scale commercial piracy operations (e.g., organized illicit streaming services, counterfeit software distributors) and individual or small-scale infringement, as the former represents the primary source of systemic harm. The assessment must also evaluate the degree to which piracy operations in source countries benefit from permissive legal environments, weak enforcement, or implicit government tolerance, while remaining focused on criminal

9 | P a g e actors rather than state-directed activity. Harm must be defined across multiple dimensions, including:

• Economic losses to U.S. rights holders across affected industries, including film, music, software, publishing, and gaming;

• Volume of infringing transactions targeting U.S.-owned content or U.S.

consumers;

• Harm to U.S. workers in creative and technology industries resulting from revenue displacement;

• Cybersecurity risks to American consumers posed by piracy platforms that bundle malware, adware, or credential-harvesting tools with infringing content; and

• Erosion of U.S. intellectual property value and competitiveness.

Recipients must account for the inherent difficulty of quantifying revenue displacement versus actual loss and document methodological assumptions transparently.

Authoritative data sources must include but are not limited to: U.S. Trade Representative

Special 301 Reports, industry association data (e.g., MPA, RIAA, BSA), DOJ and HSI case data, and vetted digital piracy monitoring services.

2. Country Profiles, Source Country Maps, and Data Gaps Assessment

• A source country map with data visualizations, statistics, and analysis derived from the baseline assessment findings;

• Country profiles for each identified priority source country, describing key cybercrime actors, criminal business models, enabling conditions, governance factors, and relevant trends. Profiles must identify both primary operational hubs and facilitating jurisdictions and must note where countries serve primarily as infrastructure or financial enablers rather than as direct sources of criminal activity. Each country profile must include an assessment of data gaps, attribution challenges, and confidence levels associated with the country's findings, documenting the strengths and limitations of available data sources, identifying where findings are supported by quantitative evidence versus qualitative analysis, and flagging areas where underreporting or attribution uncertainty materially affects conclusions; and

• A summary assessment of cross-cutting data gaps and methodological limitations that apply across source countries or typologies, to inform INL's interpretation of findings and prioritization of future research.

3. Situational Updates and Intelligence Packages

Following completion of the baseline assessment, recipients must deliver regular situational updates, briefings, and intelligence packages derived from ongoing OSINT monitoring, field research, and networking. OSINT monitoring must include foreign language data that would not otherwise be accessible in English. These packages will focus on identifying and tracking cybercrime networks, actors, and operations in priority countries identified in the assessment and subsequent consultations with INL. The recipient will deliver intelligence products on demand or based on a schedule negotiated with INL.

4. Additional Deliverables

Additional deliverables may be identified following award.

10 | P a g e

Budget Considerations: Applicants should include costs for:

• Research staff with expertise in cybercrime analysis, intelligence analysis, and OSINT monitoring

• Technology and software for OSINT monitoring and data analysis

• Field research travel to priority source countries (if applicable and security conditions permit)

• Translation services for non-English language sources

• Data visualization and report production

• Stakeholder engagement and briefing activities

2) Criminal Misuse of Cryptocurrency Landscape Assessment and Intelligence Gathering

Individual Award Ceiling: $1,700,000

Individual Award floor: $800,000

Cost Share Required: Recommended but not required

Anticipated number of Awards: 1

Funding Type: FY25 INCLE (Domestic)

Estimated Project Start Date: October 2026

Countries/Areas: Global

Goal 2: To disrupt and deter cryptocurrency-enabled criminal networks by strengthening the enforcement, investigative, and prosecutorial capacity of criminal justice institutions to combat the criminal misuse of virtual assets.

Objective 2.1: Establish comprehensive baseline understanding of cryptocurrency-enabled crime harming Americans through development of a baseline assessment, a global heat map graphic, situational updates, briefings, and actionable intelligence packages. The assessment must identify and provide supporting data on the top source countries where criminals misuse cryptocurrencies to victimize Americans across the following typologies: cyber intrusions, online fraud (both scam centers and loosely affiliated/distributed online networks), digital piracy, and drug trafficking. The assessment should also include any emerging cybercrime typologies not in this list.

The assessment must focus exclusively on criminal threat actors and must apply clear, documented criteria for distinguishing criminal actors from state-sponsored ones. Where state-sponsored actors also engage in financially motivated criminal activity (e.g., cryptocurrency theft operations conducted primarily for revenue generation), recipients must apply a documented analytical framework to determine whether such activity falls within scope based on the primary motivation and operational character of the activity, rather than the identity of the actor alone. Activity that is primarily financially motivated and operationally consistent with criminal behavior may be included, but recipients must clearly flag such cases and document their analytical reasoning. Activity that is primarily directed by a state for geopolitical, espionage, or strategic purposes must be excluded, even where cryptocurrency is used as a tool.

Project activities and deliverables: All assessments under Objective 2.1 must measure harm exclusively to U.S. persons, U.S. businesses, and U.S. critical infrastructure. Harm to citizens of other nations—even where caused by the same criminal networks—is outside the scope of these assessments and must not be incorporated into harm scores or country rankings.

Assessments must focus on criminal actors, apply attribution confidence weighting, account

11 | P a g e for underreporting, and produce normalized, comparable outputs that support INL's prioritization of resources and countries.

The award recipient will conduct the following activities and produce the following deliverables:

1. Baseline landscape assessment

The recipient must conduct a baseline landscape assessment that identifies and provides supporting data—including on-chain and off-chain financial data, crime statistics, and law enforcement case data—on the top source countries where criminals misuse cryptocurrency to harm Americans across all covered typologies.

The assessment must employ a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative data analysis with qualitative research. Quantitative analysis must utilize available government, private sector, academic, and international organization datasets, including blockchain analytics, law enforcement case data, and financial intelligence.

Qualitative analysis must supplement quantitative findings and must draw upon interviews with subject matter experts, law enforcement officials, cybersecurity and virtual asset practitioners, researchers, and relevant stakeholders, as well as reviews of investigative reporting and court records. The final assessment must clearly distinguish between findings supported by quantitative evidence and those derived primarily from qualitative analysis.

The assessment must also identify both primary operational hubs—countries where criminal actors conducting cryptocurrency-enabled crime are based or operate—and facilitating jurisdictions—countries that enable cryptocurrency-enabled crime through permissive regulatory environments, infrastructure hosting, financial services, or other enabling mechanisms—as these may require different U.S. government responses and

The assessment must:

• Identify key threat actors, criminal methods, cryptocurrency platforms and services exploited, vulnerabilities, and emerging trends;

• Analyze the scale, scope, and impact of cryptocurrency-enabled crime on U.S.

persons, U.S.-domiciled businesses, and U.S. critical infrastructure;

• Distinguish between large, organized criminal operations (e.g., large-scale scam compounds, professional money laundering networks, and criminal organizations operating cryptocurrency mixing or layering services) and loosely affiliated or distributed criminal networks, as these require different interventions;

• Evaluate crimes occurring on the open web as well as the deep and dark webs, including dark web marketplaces, mixing and tumbling services, and privacy coin usage; and

• Deliver written threat assessment reports with executive summaries, data visualizations, and actionable recommendations for INL programming.

The assessment must apply a consistent, documented harm measurement methodology that enables comparison of harm levels across source countries. The methodology must:

• Apply attribution confidence tiers (high, medium, low) and weight findings accordingly, recognizing that cryptocurrency transactions frequently traverse multiple jurisdictions and that attribution to specific criminal actors or source countries requires documented analytical judgment;

12 | P a g e

• Normalize and aggregate harm indicators into a composite score that enables cross-country comparison and ranking;

• Account for known underreporting and document all methodological assumptions and limitations transparently; and

• Incorporate both on-chain data (e.g., blockchain analytics tracing illicit wallet addresses, transaction flows, and exchange activity) and off-chain data (e.g., law enforcement records, court filings, open-source reporting, and financial intelligence) to produce the most complete picture of harm possible.

The following primary indicators must be weighted most heavily in the composite harm score:

• Financial losses to U.S. victims attributable to cryptocurrency-enabled crime, disaggregated by typology;

• Volume of illicit cryptocurrency transactions linked to criminal actors targeting

U.S. persons or infrastructure;

• Number of Americans affected, disaggregated by crime typology; and

• Value of cryptocurrency proceeds laundered through jurisdictions identified as key source countries.

The following secondary indicators must also be incorporated into the composite harm score, but weighted less heavily than the primary indicators:

• Permissiveness of the virtual asset regulatory environment in source countries

(e.g., absence of AML/CFT controls, lack of virtual asset service provider oversight); and

• Degree to which source country criminal actors exploit decentralized finance

(DeFi) platforms, mixing services, privacy coins, or peer-to-peer exchanges to evade detection.

Authoritative data sources must include, but are not limited to: FBI IC3 reports, DOJ indictments, FinCEN advisories, OFAC designations, blockchain analytics platforms, FATF mutual evaluation reports, and vetted private sector threat intelligence.

2. Country Profiles, Source Country Maps, and Data Gaps Assessment

• A source country map with data visualizations, statistics, and analysis derived from the baseline assessment findings, illustrating the geographic distribution of cryptocurrency-enabled criminal activity harming Americans across all covered typologies; and

• Country profiles for each identified priority source country, describing key criminal actors, criminal business models, cryptocurrency platforms and methods exploited, enabling conditions, and relevant trends. Profiles must identify both primary operational hubs and facilitating jurisdictions and must note where countries serve primarily as regulatory safe havens, infrastructure hosts, or financial enablers rather than as direct sources of criminal activity.

• A summary assessment of cross-cutting data gaps and methodological limitations that apply across source countries or typologies, to inform INL's interpretation of findings and prioritization of future research.

3. Situational Updates and Intelligence Packages

Following completion of the baseline assessment, the recipient must deliver regular situational updates, briefings, and intelligence packages derived from ongoing OSINT monitoring, blockchain and off-chain data analysis, field research, and networking.

13 | P a g e

Leads should primarily include virtual asset wallet addresses and off-chain data analysis associated with individuals located in countries identified in the assessment as key source countries for cryptocurrency-enabled cybercrime harming Americans.

OSINT monitoring must include foreign language data that would not otherwise be accessible in English. The recipient will deliver intelligence products on demand or based on a schedule negotiated with INL.

4. Additional deliverables

Additional deliverables may be identified following award.

Budget Considerations: Applicants should include costs for:

• Research staff with expertise in cryptocurrency analysis, cybercrime analysis, intelligence analysis, and OSINT monitoring

• Technology and software for OSINT monitoring and data analysis

• Field research travel to priority source countries (if applicable and security conditions permit)

• Translation services for non-English language sources

• Data visualization and report production

• Stakeholder engagement and briefing activities

Participants and Audiences: INL is the intended end-user of the assessments and situational updates. Intelligence and leads packages will be delivered to INL and law enforcement officials at U.S. Embassies and potentially to foreign partner criminal justice officials. After the awardees complete the initial assessments, INL will deliberate internally to validate which priority countries warrant further programming investment via the intelligence and leads packages.

Project Expansion: If the project is successful, INL will consider the option of an award modification to expand the project to other areas or countries in the region, subject to availability of future funding. Applicants may include in their proposal a brief section outlining how additional funds could potentially be used to expand work into additional activities or countries in future years. Applicants are strongly encouraged to demonstrate how their project might leverage funding through other organizations.

B. FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION

Applicants are encouraged to reference the table on the first page(s) of this NOFO to determine the basic federal award information (e.g., project length, amount of funding available, anticipated number of awards, assistance type, etc.). Additional award information is included in this section, although specific aspects of the award(s) issued from this NOFO may differ from program to program.

1. Project Implementation Period

The initial project implementation length is the amount of time (e.g., months) applicants should plan to implement the project. If a range of months is listed, applicants should propose a realistic project length within that range. INL reserves the right to decrease or increase the initial project implementation period in accordance with the needs of the INL project/program.

INL may extend the project implementation period, contingent on INL priorities, good performance of the recipient, Department of State management approvals, and funding availability. INL projects shall not exceed five (5) total years of project implementation.

14 | P a g e

2. Assistance Type

The type of assistance is determined by the scope of INL’s involvement in the implementation of the project. Refer to the table on the first page(s) of the NOFO to determine whether this particular project will be a grant or cooperative agreement.

For cooperative agreements, INL may be substantially involved in the following ways:

• Approval of the recipient’s annual work plans, including: planned activities for the following year, travel plans, planned expenditures, event planning, and changes to any activity to be carried out under the Cooperative Agreement;

• Approval of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan; and

• Other country- or project-specific approvals will be included in the award documents.

3. Funding Notices

This award will be supported with International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement

(INCLE) funds under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This notice is subject to the availability of funding.

Length of performance period: 24 months (unless otherwise specified)

Anticipated program start date: October 2026

Number of awards anticipated: 2-5 awards (dependent on amounts)

Award amounts: awards may range from a minimum of $200,000 to a maximum of $1,700,000

Total available funding: $2,196,890

Type of Funding: FY25 INCLE funds

C. ELIGILIBITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicant Types

The following organizations are eligible to apply:

• U.S.-based non-profit/non-governmental organizations (NGOs);

• U.S.-based educational institutions subject to section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code or section 26 US 115 of the U.S. tax code;

• Foreign-based non-profits/non-governmental organizations (NGOs);

• Foreign-based educational institutions

• U.S.-Based for-profit organizations

• Foreign-Based for Profit Organizations

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

Cost share is the portion of project costs not borne by the U.S. government. Cost share is recommended but not required for this project. Applicants must be able to ensure cost share is accounted for/tracked through accounting systems and/or supporting documentation (such as Personnel Activity Records, proof of voluntary hours, proof of any purchases for materials being included as cost share, etc.)

Any cost share proposed must be appropriately captured within the SF-424A, budget, and budget narrative.

15 | P a g e

3. Other Eligibility Requirements

• In order to be eligible to receive an award, all organizations must have a Unique Entity

Identifier (UEI) issued via SAM.gov as well as a valid registration in SAM.gov. Please see Section D for more information. Individuals are not required to have a UEI or be registered in SAM.gov.

• Applicants must address only one strategic goal per application but may address one or more objectives within that goal. Applicants may submit only one application per goal.

Submitting multiple applications for the same goal will result in all applications for that goal being deemed ineligible for technical review. Organizations may form a consortium and submit a combined proposal; however, one organization should be designated as the lead applicant and other organization(s) listed as sub-recipient partner(s).

• Applicants are reminded that U.S. Executive Orders and U.S. law prohibits transactions with, and the provision of resources and support to, individuals and organizations associated with terrorism. It is the legal responsibility of the recipient to ensure compliance with these Executive Orders and laws. This provision must be included in any sub‐awards issued under this grant award.

Note: Public International Organizations (PIOs) are excluded from applying to INL grant/cooperative agreement announcements.

D. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Applicants should carefully follow all instructions in this section to ensure their application is formatted properly and includes all required documents. Proposals that do not meet the requirements of this announcement or fail to comply with the stated requirements will be deemed ineligible for review.

1. How to Apply and Submit Questions

This opportunity is posted on www.grants.gov, along with all required application forms and, where applicable, templates for application documents. Applications and all supporting documents must be submitted via www.grants.gov. INL reserves the right to reject any applications submitted through improper channels.

Applicants are encouraged to closely review the NOFO and email questions to the INL points of contact by the deadline listed on the first page(s) of this document. After the question deadline has passed, INL will respond to all questions publicly through a Questions & Answers document uploaded to the Related Documents tab of this opportunity.

2. Required Application Documents

All documents in the following list must be included in your application, unless explicitly listed as optional. If a document includes a page limit, please adhere to that limit in your application.

Applicants that do not submit all required documents will be notified via email of their ineligibility after the application deadline.

Standard Application Forms

SF-424 (Application for Federal Assistance – Organizations)

Must be signed by an authorized signatory of the applicant’s organization.

16 | P a g e

SF-424A (Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs)

SF-424B (Assurances for Non-Construction Programs) – Optional

The SF-424B is only required for applicants who are not registered in SAM.gov.

Project Proposal

The proposal should contain sufficient information that anyone not familiar with it would understand exactly what the applicant is proposing to do. The following documents may be submitted separately or combined into one document. If combined, please be sure to adhere to the page limits for each section.

Proposal Narrative – Maximum 30 pages

Applicants may use their own proposal template, but it must include all the sections below.

Refer to Appendix A for additional guidance on drafting a proposal narrative.

Cover Page: include organization name, project title, requested number of months, target country(ies), point(s) of contact, and requested funding amount.

Table of Contents: list all documents and attachments with page numbers.

Executive Summary: Provide a synopsis of the project.

Project Context: Include an analysis of the issue to be addressed, including why it is important to address, what the main causes of the issue are, and who has power to effect change on the issue; suggested approaches and solutions (with evidence to support suggestions); and suggestions for outcomes, i.e., the specific changes the project could expect to achieve within the period of performance.

Theory of Change & Implementation Plan: Describe the implementation plan

(specific activities to implement suggested solutions); and explain how or why they should result in accomplishment of the outcomes. Projects should be designed such that activities, if implemented according to plan, should result in achievement of the outcomes. The Theory of Change should clearly address why the outcomes do not already exist in practice, and how the project will address those constraints. Finally, discuss likely challenges to implementation, including any risks of harm to project implementers or participants, along with mitigation strategies.

Evidence: The theory of change should demonstrate a clear understanding of where previous relevant interventions have succeeded or failed, and demonstrate how those lessons will inform the proposed intervention(s). Projects are also expected to incorporate insights from the evidence on what has been shown to be promising in related areas of the intervention(s). The Center for Evidence-Based

Crime Policy provides a good overview of the available systemic reviews in criminal justice policy, linked here. In addition, the National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine publishes consensus reports including those on international crime and justice issues such as policing, linked here, that should be reviewed if relevant to the intervention(s). Where feasible, it is highly recommended that projects incorporate a research or evaluation components to ensure lessons developed through the course of implementation can inform the broader stakeholder community for future projects.

Description of Prior Work: Provide brief descriptions, including outcomes and deliverables, of any similar projects the organization has implemented.

Future Funding Plan/Sustainability: Briefly discuss the plan for ensuring the sustainability of the project (i.e., that the project continues to have impact beyond the grant period) or note if sustainability is unlikely without continued support.

Applicants may also include a brief section outlining how additional funds could https://cebcp.org/systematic-reviews/ https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/evidence-to-advance-reform-in-the-global-security-and-justice-sectors

17 | P a g e potentially be used to expand work into additional activities or countries beyond the initial project period.

Performance Monitoring Plan

See Appendix A for more details and instructions. Applicants MUST submit the following:

• Change Map (see template). Note: The Change Map will eventually include INL Standard Indicators, as determined by grantee responses to the Standard Indicator Form. These do not need to be reflected in the

Change Map at the application stage.

• Illustrative Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (see template)

Note 1: If full performance monitoring information is not available at the time of the proposal, the applicant should indicate that the Change Map and PIRS are notional. If selected, a final version of the documents will be required as an early deliverable.

Note 2: Grantee must generate quarterly performance reports using INL’s performance monitoring system (DevResults). Grantee must submit several forms and templates (see

Appendix A) within 30 days of award to enroll in the system. INL will provide user accounts and training for new users.

Project Risk Analysis

A template is included under the Related Documents section of this NOFO announcement on www.grants.gov. Refer to Appendix B for additional guidance on drafting a Project

Risk Analysis.

Timeline

Outline key milestones in the project, project start-up, and closeout, programmatic activities, and monitoring and evaluation activities (e.g., monitoring trips or semi-annual reviews). May be a written schedule and/or a GANTT chart.

Organization, Staff, and Partners

The following documents may be submitted separately or combined into one document. If combined, please be sure to adhere to the page limits for each section.

Biographical Information of Applicant Organization – Maximum 4 pages

Introduce the applicant organization, including biographical information such as mission statement, organization size, relevant office location(s), etc.

Provide a summary description of past and present operations, demonstrating the applicant’s ability to carry out the project

Describe any experience the organization has in the target country or region

Confirm whether the organization is a registered business entity within the target country or region

List of Key Personnel – Maximum 3 pages

Names, titles, responsibilities, and relevant experience or qualifications of key personnel involved in the management of the project

18 | P a g e

Partner Information (if subrecipient) is being proposed) – Maximum 3 pages

Introduce and provide relevant information about key partner organizations and sub-recipients

Briefly describe the division of labor and/or distinct roles and responsibilities among the applicant organization and its partners

If proposing a sub-recipient, please briefly describe the applicant organization’s experience related to managing sub-recipients

Letters of Support – Optional

If desired, applicants may submit letters of support from project partners, host government entities, or other relevant stakeholders

Project Budget and Cost Documents

Summary and Detailed Budgets

A proposal budget must be submitted in spreadsheet format (e.g., Microsoft Excel). A template is located under the Related Documents section of this NOFO announcement on www.grants.gov for applicants as a reference. Refer to Appendix C for additional guidance on drafting a proposal budget.

One tab of the spreadsheet shall contain the Summary Budget, which lists the

OMB-approved budget categories and total estimated cost per category

One tab of the spreadsheet shall contain the Detailed Budget, which breaks down the OMB-approved budget categories into individual line items and provides detailed cost estimates per line item

If applicable, federal costs and recipient cost share must be reported in separate columns

Budget Narrative

The Budget Narrative is a companion document to the summary and detailed budgets and must be submitted in word document format. A template is included under the Related

Documents section of this NOFO announcement on www.grants.gov. Refer to Appendix

C for additional guidance on drafting a Budget Narrative.

The Budget Narrative should communicate to INL any budgetary information that is not readily apparent in the detailed budget. Rather than simply repeating with words what is stated numerically in the budget, the Budget Narrative should explain the logic behind the amount budgeted for each line item

If applicable, proposed recipient cost share must be included in the Budget

Narrative, including reference to the source of the cost share

Indirect Costs

Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA):

If the applicant has an approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement

(NICRA) and includes NICRA charges in the budget, a copy of the organization’s most-recent NICRA must be included in the application

If the applicant is proposing a sub-recipient that has an approved NICRA, and includes NICRA charges in the sub-award budget, a copy of the sub-recipient organization’s most recent NICRA must be included in the application

19 | P a g e

De Minimis Rate:

The applicant can elect to charge the de minimis rate up to 15% of modified total direct costs (MTDC), which is allowable if the organization does not have a current agreement. (Please see Appendix C: Budget and budget narrative for more information regarding the De Minimis Rate.)

If the applicant elects to utilize the De Minimis Rate, that rate may be used indefinitely.

If an award is issued utilizing the de minimis rate and the recipient subsequently negotiates a NICRA, the GO may consider amending the award to reflect the new

NICRA rate under the following conditions:

o If the applicant intends to negotiate a NICRA, the applicant must inform the

GO during the application period that they plan to negotiate a NICRA, or are in the process of doing so, and would like to amend the award in the future after a rate is finalized.

o Once the recipient receives a rate, they may submit a written request for a budget realignment. The new rate may only be applied to costs incurred during the effective period of the NICRA.

o The NICRA cannot be applied to costs incurred during a period of performance that is prior to the effective date of the new rate.

Applicant Management Capabilities

INL must assess each potential applicant for organizational risks related to the financial and programmatic management of a federal assistance project.

History of U.S. Government Federal Assistance Awards

This document outlines the applicant organization’s experience with implementing U.S.

government-funded federal assistance awards, including current and completed projects.

The list must include the awarding agency, point of contact, name of the project, start and end dates, and amount of the award.

If the applicant has never received a U.S. federal assistance award, please list other projects the organization has implemented, including the information requested in the bullet above.

FY2026 INL Applicant Pre-Award Risk Survey

This risk survey reviews the applicant organization’s financial capacity, policies, and infrastructure. The FY2026 template is included under the Related Documents section of this NOFO announcement on www.grants.gov.

Please take note of the questions within the survey that request additional documentation. These documents must be included in the application.

Submission of an outdated INL Applicant Pre-Award Risk Survey does not satisfy the FY2026 INL Applicant Pre-Award Risk Survey submission requirement.

Organizational Audit

If the applicant organization is required to undergo an audit per 2 CFR 200.501

(Subpart F – Audit Requirements), a complete copy of the organization's most recent audit must be submitted. Organizations (domestic and foreign) that expend

$1,000,000 or more in federal awards during their fiscal year must submit a single

20 | P a g e audit report conducted in accordance with 2 CFR 200.514.