720BHA25RFA00001 Ethiopia Q&A responses.pdf

Date: November 20, 2024

Subject: Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance's (BHA) responses to questions received on the BHA Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) released on November 4, 2024 - Funding Opportunity Number: 720BHA25RFA00001

Summary: U.S. Agency for International Development Assistance’s (USAID) Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) has summarized responses to the questions received on the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) 720BHA25RFA00001 released on November 4, 2024. The questions submitted prompted minor changes to the Ethiopia RRM NOFO which have been highlighted in the NOFO amendment. The minor changes include improved clarity on performance indicator requirements, changes to ensure consistency on expected response timeframes, improved clarity on BHA’s prepositioning expectations, and emphasis on the requirement to incorporate past and/or current experience into the application. The questions and BHA responses are detailed below:

Questions on Notice of Funding Opportunity and BHA Responses:

1. Could you provide more details on the expected structure and components of the Rapid Response Mechanism?

BHA Response: Please refer to SECTION C: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION of the NOFO for guidance on expected structure and components of the Rapid Response Mechanism.

2. Are there specific models or frameworks that USAID/BHA recommends or prioritizes for community engagement?

BHA Response: USAID requests that applicants incorporate a proven community engagement approach into the Ethiopia Rapid Response Mechanism and encourages partners to consider a wide array of evidence-based models and/or frameworks to develop this approach. Applicants should utilize and leverage relevant prior experience and/or evidence to justify the community engagement approach for the purposes of this RRM in the context of Ethiopia.

3. Could you elaborate on the key indicators or outcomes USAID/BHA aims to achieve concerning community capacities?

BHA Response: USAID encourages applicants to develop and present an RRM model that, among other purposes, improves adaptive and absorptive capacities of communities. This model should be based on the applicant's own understanding of the context and needs in Ethiopia and may be informed by previous/current experience and/or literature.

4. Are there specific documentation or data requirements that applicants must include to demonstrate capability and experience?

BHA Response: The applicant must incorporate relevant experience and capability information throughout the application.

5. Could you kindly advise us on where we might access the portfolio of potential recipients or likely candidates for this grant?

BHA Response: Please refer to "SECTION B: ELIGIBILITY."

6. Does BHA have established mechanisms or partnerships in place to facilitate co-funding with other institutional donors in Ethiopia? How can organizations leverage these opportunities in their proposals?

BHA Response: USAID encourages partners to coordinate across other donor-funded response mechanisms to maximize limited resources to address humanitarian needs; however, BHA does not have an existing mechanism or partnership in place to facilitate co-funding of the Ethiopia RRM. For the purposes of this RRM, applicants must outline their capacity to coordinate across other donor-funded rapid response mechanisms in Ethiopia.

7. Can BHA provide further guidance on the budget planning for future upcoming shocks and does BHA allow for lump sum contingency funding for the first days of a response?

BHA Response: USAID welcomes a diverse set of applicant approaches as it relates to budget planning for future upcoming shocks. The approach should be integral to the partner's overall RRM strategy and should be developed to ensure efficiency, timeliness, and effectiveness of the RRM. Funding will be made available to the recipient prior to any response being initiated.

8. Are the signed Certifications required to be submitted with the initial application submission, or should they be submitted at the second stage?

BHA Response: The certifications and assurances are to be submitted in the initial application, as part of the Business (Cost) Application.

9. What strategies does BHA recommend for ensuring that beneficiary targeting is both effective and adaptable during the initial stages of response? How can organizations balance urgency with the need for thorough assessments?

BHA Response: The applicant is expected to develop participant eligibility guidelines that ensure independent and vulnerability-based targeting. The applicant should consider developing a strategy based on the local context and the sector/s in question to develop targeting methodology that maintains balance between urgency and thoroughness.

10. How can organizations ensure their targeting criteria remain flexible enough to accommodate changing needs in the first two weeks of response?

BHA Response: The applicant should take this into account when developing its participant eligibility guidelines.

11. Can USAID clarify the expected timeframes of the RRM for each crisis / disaster?

BHA Response: USAID expects response timeframes be 1-6 months; not to exceed 6 months.

This has been updated for clarity in the revised NOFO.

12. Could USAID clarify if certain sectors (e.g., health or shelter) should aim for different intervention durations within the 1-6 month range, based on the type of response needed and anticipated challenges in specific regions?

BHA Response: USAID expects response timeframes to be 1-6 months; not to exceed 6 months.

Partners should leverage findings from rapid needs assessments and other contextual factors to cater sectoral response timeframes as appropriate and on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, sectoral response timeframes within a multisectoral response may differ. For instance, a response may require shorter-term duration shelter interventions while simultaneously warranting a longer-term WASH response within the 1-6 month timeframe. USAID may provide guidance on a case-by-case basis as part of substantial involvement.

13. In instances where needs remain unmet due to external delays or logistical challenges (e.g., conflicts, inaccessible areas), would USAID allow flexibility in extending certain sector responses beyond the 6-month maximum if a longer presence is necessary to meet critical needs? If so, what criteria would determine such an extension?

BHA Response: The recipient will be expected to identify and coordinate with other humanitarian partners in affected areas to ensure closeout and/or handover for protracted humanitarian needs and/or early recovery and resilience programming once the rapid response intervention(s) are completed. The exit strategy must be a critical component of response plan development and integral to the recipient’s overall approach. It is critical that the RRM not be used to address protracted humanitarian needs and that the partner plans to address immediate, rapid response needs while effectively planning for a near-term exit and transition to other actors after the 6-month period, if necessary. As a general rule, USAID expects the RRM interventions not to extend beyond the 6-month period. However, USAID may consider extensions on a case-by-case basis due to access constraints and/or other contextual factors.

14. Could USAID provide guidance on managing handovers and coordination with longer-term humanitarian actors if transitions are delayed? Are there particular expectations or recommended strategies for RRM implementers to ensure effective handovers without needing extensions?

BHA Response: USAID expects the partner to anticipate the possibility for delay in the transition plan or exit strategy and as part of its initial exit strategy, develop contingency plans to mitigate this risk. Incorporation of lessons learned on the exit strategy will be equally critical throughout the life of the award.

15. Given the rapid response focus, are there any specific indicators or criteria USAID recommends for determining when an RRM intervention can be shortened or if a phased exit is possible [the NOFO emphasizes the rapid nature of the RRM and the 1–6-month response timeframe.

However, specific indicators or criteria for determining the duration of each intervention are not provided, leaving it open to interpretation. Different regions or sectors (e.g., WASH vs. Health) may require unique triggers to determine when an intervention should end or pivot. This question seeks clarity on whether USAID has any pre-determined indicators, thresholds, or context-specific criteria in mind for evaluating how quickly and under what conditions a response should be concluded].

BHA Response: Per Program Description, Subsection V, USAID/BHA expects the recipient to develop and utilize clear pre- and post-shock indicators to inform response interventions. These triggers should be used to determine the appropriate sectoral response type and duration for each sector. These response triggers should be developed and proposed by the partner and later refined with USAID.

16. Are performance indicators limited to the BHA Indicator Handbook? Does this include specific measures around RRM timeliness / responsiveness / effectiveness / operations etc. (or can we create these)? Additionally, do we need to structure our technical narrative around the 3 purposes outlined in the RFA when it comes to the full application in line with EAGs. Does USAID have any additional guidance on this?

BHA Response: In addition to utilization of performance indicators for each sector, as described in the BHA Indicator Handbook, the applicant must also develop a set of appropriate performance indicators to assess RRM timeliness, responsiveness, and effectiveness. This is an update that has been reflected in the revised NOFO. Furthermore, the technical narrative submitted by the Apparently Successful Applicant should be structured around the three purposes outlined in the RFA, in line with the EAGs.

17. Can USAID advise on whether pre-positioned supplies might be utilized strategically to expedite response and exit timelines, particularly in remote or high-conflict areas? [While the NOFO mentions that pre-positioning of supplies may be allowed, it does not specify if or how pre-positioned resources could support more rapid activation or expedited exit timelines. In practice, strategically pre-positioned supplies can enable a faster deployment of response activities and potentially facilitate a quicker exit by enabling World Vision to scale down or complete interventions more rapidly once pre-positioned resources are utilized. This question is intended to understand USAID’s expectations on how pre-positioned resources should be leveraged within the response cycle and if they see them as part of an exit acceleration strategy].

BHA Response: USAID encourages pre-positioning of some supplies as a critical part of response readiness. Pre-positioning should be used where appropriate to ensure response timeliness.

18. Could USAID clarify the extent to which the RRM proposal may include pre-positioning of supplies as part of response readiness? Specifically, would USAID expect proposals to identify certain critical supply categories (e.g., health, shelter) that may need to be strategically pre-positioned, and if so, is there guidance on budgeting or location planning?

BHA Response: USAID encourages pre-positioning of some supplies as a critical part of response readiness. The applicant is required to demonstrate the degree to which the applicant and all proposed consortium members or sub-awardees possess the depth and breadth of institutional capacity and relevant experience, technical expertise, and management systems to plan, implement, and support the pathways and interventions described in the technical approach.

This includes countrywide capacity to implement timely and effective response interventions, including logistical, importation, and prepositioning capacity. USAID/BHA expects the recipient to demonstrate this capacity in its proposal and include these plans in the proposed budget. This is an update that has been reflected in the revised NOFO.

19. Given the emphasis on localization, does USAID encourage engaging local partners in readiness training or brief preparedness activities that ensure response capability (e.g., rapid assessment skills or emergency supply management)? If so, are there any preferred structures for this, e.g.

targeted training workshops?

BHA Response: USAID encourages the recipient to engage with local partners in readiness training and/or brief preparedness activities that ensure response capability. USAID would expect the recipient to develop an appropriate approach with the potential for USAID involvement for further refinement.

20. To what extent should the RRM proposal integrate with existing or planned DRR-focused programs in Ethiopia, particularly for exit strategies? Should RRM activities refer to DRR programs for any handover components?

BHA Response: RRM activities should integrate other Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), resilience, recovery, and/or development activities as part of the exit or transition strategy, and as appropriate.

21. Would USAID consider it appropriate to monitor basic early warning indicators (e.g., rainfall data, market prices) as part of the RRM to help guide activation timing, or should the response be entirely reactive? If so, are there priority indicators USAID that provide real-time or near-term data about evolving conditions in specific sectors?

BHA Response: In order to better anticipate the most shock-prone areas, the recipient should consider developing a risk “scorecard” that establishes a baseline assumption of risk for humanitarian shocks across geographical areas. The recipient should utilize existing data sources such as meteorological sources, hydrological data, FEWSnet data, HEA, satellite data, etc. to inform anticipation of shocks. As a rapid response mechanism, the RRM activities should be limited to post-shock interventions.

22. Are there any specific eligibility criteria that would prioritize certain types of organizations?

BHA Response: Please refer to "SECTION B: ELIGIBILITY."

23. Can you clarify the extent to which cost-sharing or local partner contributions might influence the evaluation of applications, given that cost-sharing is encouraged but not required?

BHA Response: Cost sharing is not required. If an applicant proposes cost share and receives an award, the cost share will be incorporated into the award budget. However, since cost sharing is not required, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.306, it will not be considered during the merit review of applications.

24. What is the anticipated balance between immediate rapid response needs and long-term capacity building? How much emphasis should be placed on sustainability in a rapid response context?

BHA Response: USAID understands that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to balance immediate, life-saving response needs with longer-term capacity building. USAID expects the applicant to develop an appropriate response plan that acknowledges these sets of priorities and prioritizes accordingly.

25. For Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA), what specific metrics will BHA use to assess its cost-effectiveness, and are there inflation adjustment mechanisms BHA prefers?

BHA Response: USAID expects partners to align with any inflation adjusted guidance coming from the National Cash Working Group (CWG). If such guidance does not exist, USAID requests that the partner will indicate how it will actively engage the CWG to ensure it is established. For cost-efficiency metrics, BHA refers partners to the USAID BHA Emergency Application Guidelines Page 147 which states "BHA generally expects that the total transfer value will be at least 50 percent of the total sector costs–or higher where conditions permit. If it is less, you will need to substantially justify the approach in your application." As noted, this is a minimum floor level and applications will be compared on the basis of cost-efficiency. With that said, costs are only one of several considerations.

26. Is there any proportional breakdown between the sectors (nutrition, health, WASH, shelter, protection and MPCA)?

BHA Response: USAID expects the applicant to propose an appropriate sectoral budget breakdown. USAID may request the partner revise the proposed budget breakdown, if necessary.

27. Could you provide additional insights into the relative weighting or scoring of each evaluation criterion (e.g., context analysis, adaptive management, and local systems strengthening)?

BHA Response: The 5 merit review criteria are listed in the NOFO in descending order of importance; the relative weight of the first criterion is greater than the second, and so on.

Numerical "scores" will not be assigned.

28. How critical is it to coordinate with existing humanitarian clusters, and are there specific clusters or partners BHA recommends engaging with for this award?

BHA Response: USAID views coordination with existing humanitarian clusters as critical to the success of the RRM. The recipient will be expected to coordinate with other humanitarian actors through the relevant sectoral Clusters and the InterCluster Coordination Group, and other entities including the Ethiopia Humanitarian International NGO Forum.

29. Can BHA clarify expectations regarding collaboration with private sector actors or national government bodies?

BHA Response: The recipient should collaborate with the private sector whenever possible and is expected to collaborate with government bodies if there is a clear value-add. However, the recipient must ensure that this collaboration does not compromise the independence of RRM implementation in meeting life-saving humanitarian needs.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uv2N9MpWVWR0PqDGcurxUhexQeFLFhgeMLpPtuwy5UI/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uv2N9MpWVWR0PqDGcurxUhexQeFLFhgeMLpPtuwy5UI/edit?usp=sharing

30. Are there any limits on indirect costs, administrative fees, or specific budget categories (e.g., personnel vs. direct project costs)?

BHA Response: No, there are no specific line item limits.

31. Could BHA provide examples of successful budget narratives or clarify expectations on line-item flexibility, particularly given potential changes in the field?

BHA Response: The budget narrative must give enough detail for USAID to determine the allowability, realism, and reasonableness of each line item. The recipient will have budget flexibility, but must be in compliance with the work plan and the award terms.

32. If the award is granted, will the funds be advanced to the grantee or only activated when there is an RRM need?

BHA Response: Once awarded, USAID will obligate the entire Year 1 funding tranche into the recipient's award, and the recipient will request advances / draw down funds, as needed, for responses that occur during that year.

33. Are there predetermined geographic priority areas, or is flexibility allowed to respond as needs evolve across Ethiopia?

BHA Response: USAID seeks to design a RRM that has the flexibility to respond to a diverse set of rapid response needs as they evolve across all regions of Ethiopia.

34. What are BHA’s expectations around the timeline for mobilization and response, particularly in conflict-affected areas with potential access constraints?

BHA Response: USAID recognizes that the timeline for mobilization will be determined by the context. However, the applicant is expected to respond as expeditiously as possible and demonstrate its unique capacity to do so through its proposal.

35. The NOFO includes lessons learned from a previous RRM evaluation. Would USAID be able to share this evaluation report?

BHA Response: USAID has compiled information from various sources on previous RRMs funded by USAID in Ethiopia, but is unable to share this information at this time.

36. Does USAID hold any expectation of the number of partners who would receive RRM funding in a given year, based on past experience?

BHA Response: USAID does not have an expectation on the number of responses that would occur in a given year.

37. Would USAID’s preference be that the Prime recipient of this award be responsible for the direct administration of RRM funding for the entire Country of Ethiopia, or would the Prime be able to choose sub-recipients for specific regions who would manage RRM administration within those geographic regions?

BHA Response: The prime recipient will be responsible for the entire activity. However, the prime recipient may issue subawards to cover specific regions, as needed and as approved by

USAID.

38. While USAID has noted that one award will be made, will priority be given to pre-identified consortiums?

BHA Response: USAID will rely on the Merit Review Criteria for the basis of its evaluation and selection.

39. Would the Prime recipient be able to develop its own mechanisms for identifying, vetting and awarding RRM funding to partners, or would USAID prefer preidentified methods to be used?

BHA Response: The prime recipient will be responsible for identifying, vetting, and managing RRM funding to subaward partners, following USAID/BHA approval of the subaward partner.

40. Would USAID procurement regulations flow down from the Prime to the final recipient through this funding mechanism?

BHA Response: Generally, USG regulations apply to subrecipients via the USAID Standard Provisions. Additional information can be found in Standard Provision M.6 https://www.usaid.gov/about-us/agency-policy/series-300/references-chapter/303maa

41. Are we able to submit a proposal specific to a few locations, and a limited number of sectors?

Should the proposal be for the entire $90 million or are we able to submit for a lesser amount?

BHA Response: USAID expects the applicant to develop a countrywide proposal and demonstrate capacity to address shocks that meet response trigger criteria across all regions.

The budget should cover the full $90 million over three years.

42. USAID noted that support for household latrine construction does not benefit the broader community. However, Community Led Total Sanitation is a widely accepted approach for sanitation implementation in Ethiopia. Since this is not recommended through the RRM, is there a specific sanitation approach that it does recommend?

BHA Response: In order to achieve a community-level benefit from sanitation, 80% coverage of households latrines is needed. BHA doesn't typically fund HH latrines unless the partner is able to bring the level of coverage above 80%. In IDP settings, we support shared emergency latrines in line with national minimum standards (e.g., 50 users/latrine). We expect WASH partners to cover the entire IDP site population with water supply, sanitation, and hygiene promotion in line with minimum standards. Partial coverage at IDP sites is not acceptable.

43. We are a [local] NNGO and currently implementing a project as a sub-implementing partner and we are interested to apply to your call for proposal. Is it possible to apply as a single applicant organization? We are challenged to get an INGO who can be included in the consortium.

BHA Response: It is possible to apply as a single applicant organization. A consortium is not required.

44. Under the Budget and Budget Narrative section on page 30, it mentions "See Annex 1 for Summary Budget Template" but there is no annex 1 attached.

BHA Response: Budget template guidance: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/USAID-BHA_Budget_Template_Guidance.pdf ; https://www.usaid.gov/document/usaid-bha-budget-template-ida ; https://www.usaid.gov/document/budget-narrative-example https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/USAID-BHA_Budget_Template_Guidance.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/USAID-BHA_Budget_Template_Guidance.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/document/usaid-bha-budget-template-ida https://www.usaid.gov/document/usaid-bha-budget-template-ida https://www.usaid.gov/document/budget-narrative-example