Solicitation ID #: BPM054659

Advancing Cross-Cutting Engagement and Service Strategies for People Who Use Drugs (ACCESS)

Applicant Questions & MDH Responses

Updated: January 12, 2026

Questions from prospective ACCESS applicants submitted through eMMA or during the Pre-Application Conference webinar (January 5, 2026) are listed below along with MDH’s response to each question. Questions and responses are grouped based on the RFA section that the question is most relevant to. This document will be updated with additional questions as they are received by MDH and responses are made available. MDH requests that prospective applicants submit questions no later than 5:00 PM EST on January 15, 2026, to best ensure MDH has sufficient time to provide a response.

Section 1: General Information

1. “Should we request that extension [potential optional 1-year extension] in our initial application or provide supportive documentation in case of that possibility?”

MDH Response: No. The application should cover only the initial 1-year project period. As stated in RFA Section 1.1.4, any optional extensions to awards executed by MDH shall be contingent upon a grantee demonstrating progress toward successfully implementing the project, maintaining compliance with ACCESS Conditions of Award (COA), and submitting an approved non-competing continuation application for the extension period. If MDH intends to issue optional extensions, it will communicate the specific process for non-competing continuation applications to grantees after the initial awards have been issued.

2. “Are there criteria for who can apply for the extension and how is the extension requested?”

MDH Response: As stated in RFA Section 1.1.4, any optional extensions to awards executed by MDH shall be contingent upon a grantee demonstrating progress toward successfully implementing the project, maintaining compliance with ACCESS Conditions of Award (COA), and submitting an approved non-competing continuation application for the extension period. If

MDH intends to issue optional extensions, it will communicate the specific process for non-competing continuation applications to grantees after the initial awards have been issued.

Section 2.1: Applicant Eligibility

1. “While this RFA is applicable to local government agencies, it seems that it would not be applicable to local law enforcement agencies, correct?”

MDH Response: As agencies of local government, local law enforcement agencies that meet the additional applicant eligibility requirements listed in RFA Section 2.1 (including being currently authorized by MDH to operate an Overdose Response Program) are eligible to apply.

To be considered for an ACCESS award, eligible applicants must submit complete applications proposing projects that align with the goals and objectives of the grant program outlined in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the RFA. All applications will be evaluated based on the criteria listed in Section 5.2.

2. “IF we are not currently an OADPOP and are not permitted to become one, should we apply anyway or not apply?”

MDH Response: Organizations do not have to be a state-authorized OADPOP in order to be eligible to apply to the ACCESS RFA or receive an ACCESS award. Applicant eligibility criteria are listed in RFA Section 2.1.

Section 2.2: Applicant-Specific Annual Funding Limit

1. Multiple questions were received during the Pre-Application Conference Webinar regarding applicants’ inability to obtain their applicant-specific annual funding limit using Attachment B - ACCESS Budget Narrative Worksheet (MS Excel file), including:

● “When I downloaded the excel file [attachment B], I do not have boxes to check. It is showing FALSE in those areas.”

● “I am having the same issue… it is showing FALSE in answer to the "does your organization have an FY2026 ACCESS award" and no total is provided when our FY26 grant number is entered.”

● “Same Issue- FALSE and no $$ is provided.”

MDH Response: These issues appear to be the result of check boxes embedded in the Summary worksheet of Attachment B not displaying properly, potentially due to compatibility problems with the specific version of Microsoft Excel being used to open and edit the workbook.

To address these issues, applicants should enter “TRUE” in any cell containing a check box that they wish to check. This should produce the same result as checking the box if the check box was displaying properly.

For example, current ACCESS grantees should enter “TRUE” in cell B24 of the Summary worksheet, as displayed in the image below. The applicant’s funding limit should then display in cell B20 as long as a correct BHA award number is also entered in cell A28:

Similarly, applicants that are NOT current ACCESS grantees should enter “TRUE” in any cell in Column B immediately to the right of the name of the Maryland jurisdiction(s) where they are proposing to provide services. This should produce the same result as checking the boxes next to each jurisdiction name if the check boxes were displaying properly. For example, the image below shows how this would work for an applicant proposing to provide services in Allegany County:

2. “Does the calculator for determining applicant-specific funding limit account for the 30% restriction on the amount by which a current grantee’s funding can increase?”

MDH Response: Yes, the calculator incorporates the percentage increase cap above current award amounts for existing ACCESS grantees into the formula used to calculate the applicant-specific annual funding limit. The 30% increase cap applies to current ACCESS grantees that are state-authorized Opioid-Associated Disease Prevention and Outreach Programs (OADPOP).

3. “If you are applying to provide services over multiple counties, does the funding ceiling take that into account?”

MDH Response: Yes, the applicant-specific annual funding limit calculator incorporates jurisdiction-level substance use vulnerability measures into its formula. For applicants proposing to provide services in multiple jurisdictions, the jurisdiction with the highest vulnerability index rating will be used to determine the funding limit.

4. “What's the funding limit like bracket”

MDH Response: Applicants can use Attachment B to calculate their applicant-specific funding limit. RFA Section 2.2 describes the factors considered in determining an applicant's funding limit.

5. “Is the Specific Annual Funding Limit assuming we are replicating the same SOW for which we have been under contract and costs are just increasing by 15%?”

MDH Response: MDH has defined an applicant-specific annual funding limit for each prospective applicant organization based on the formula described in RFA Section 2.2.2. This funding limit applies to an applicant regardless of what specific activities or services they propose to implement in their application.

6. “If a current grantee wants to propose a substantial expansion in geographic area and/or service offerings, is there a way to request a funding limit increase if the amount they would be allowed as a new applicant is higher than the identified applicant specific funding limit?”

MDH Response: No. As stated in RFA Section 2.2.2: “Applications may not include a funding request that exceeds the Applicant-specific annual funding limit, as determined by MDH.

Applicants may request a one-year total funding amount that is less than, or equal to, the Applicant-specific limit. Applications that include a one-year budget that exceeds the Applicant-specific limit may be excluded from further consideration for award under this RFA.”

7. “[We] also do not have an award number for FY26 since we still don't have an executed agreement. If a full list of FY26 award numbers could be provided that might be helpful and cover everyone in one fell swoop.”

MDH Response: All FY26 ACCESS awards have been processed by MDH and sent to grantees for signature. In most cases, FY26 award is issued under the same BHA award number as the FY25 award, so the FY25 award number can be used to obtain the applicant-specific funding limit in Attachment B.

Award numbers are specific to organizations and should not be shared publicly or among grantees by BHA. Each entity received their FY26 award number with their award packet and should refer to this documentation.

8. “Will organizations who are ORPs and previously received SOR funding for these activities be grandfathered in as "existing ACCESS grantees" for future grant applications?”

MDH Response: No. The funding formula for current ACCESS grantees only applies to organizations that have SFY26 ACCESS awards.

9. “Could you please tell me the funding limit for our specific agreement?”

MDH Response: Applicants should use the applicant-specific annual funding limit calculator incorporated into Attachment B - ACCESS Budget Narrative Workbook to obtain their funding limit. Please see question #1 under Section 2.2 (above) for more information on how to resolve known issues with generating the funding limit using Attachment B. Please notify MDH via eMMA if you experience any additional challenges.

10.“Per Attachment B of the RFA, our funding limit for FY27 is [redacted] (30% above our FY26 budget). However, I can see that if we were a new applicant, we could potentially request [a higher amount] for FY27. I understand from the info session yesterday that current grantees are capped at the lower of the 2 numbers by default, but I'm wondering if there might be any reconsideration in our case.

When we applied for the previous round of ACCESS funding, we were a very new program, just a couple of months into service delivery in the community, having recorded only about 120 participant encounters total. In the time since, we have grown significantly. We now routinely record between 500 and 800 encounters per month, and most notably, we have recently become an authorized SSP in our city. While we were able to secure limited start-up funding for safer use supplies from other sources because we did not have any non-federal ACCESS funds that could be reallocated for that purpose, we anticipate continued growth in this area to meet community needs. We do not have ongoing resources to support growth that would effectively meet community needs, and we had hoped to include these supplies, etc. in our FY27 ACCESS proposal. This expansion in service delivery to include SSP alone represents a greater than 30% increase in anticipated costs due to the volume and expense of safer use supplies. But more importantly, our current ACCESS project is focused primarily on drug checking and wound care, so the addition of SSP services, supplies, and staffing meaningfully widens the focus so it is beyond the amount of growth that might be expected from longer-running grantees.”

MDH Response: As stated in RFA Section 2.2.2: “Applications may not include a funding request that exceeds the Applicant-specific annual funding limit, as determined by MDH.

Applicants may request a one-year total funding amount that is less than, or equal to, the Applicant-specific limit. Applications that include a one-year budget that exceeds the Applicant-specific limit may be excluded from further consideration for award under this RFA.”

11.“We have a question about our organization's funding request limit; specifically our organization. We are inquiring about how our organization, is classified as far as jurisdiction. We currently and in the past have operated in multiple counties and want to make sure that this has been taken into account for our organization. On some of our current grant docs it has stated our jurisdiction is only one county which is not accurate;

I have raised this issue with our recent grant monitors. During the webinar, you had mentioned that we need to be clear to mark the multiple counties in which we operate and/or for which we are applying relevant to our work. However, the following actions happened when we tried to utilize the budget document: when we first clicked the counties in which we operate, the document came up with a funding limit number and then when we clicked yes and entered our current grant number, the limit was reduced by half and the choices for counties was taken off the form. Would it be possible to get a confirmation that our organization is classified as operating in multiple counties, make sure they are the correct ones as well as an explanation of how the formula specifically for our organization is working? If we are applying for funding for work in counties that is different than what the current grant is for, how does that work in altering the funding limit, or does it? Please advise on this clarification as soon as you can so we know how to proceed.”

MDH Response: Applicants that are current ACCESS grantees should only check the “Yes” box and enter their BHA award number in order to obtain their applicant-specific annual funding limit. Current grantees should not check off the jurisdictions they are proposing to serve, as this will not impact their funding limit. MDH has already incorporated information about jurisdictions served by existing grantees into the funding limit formula. Only organizations that are NOT current ACCESS grantees should check the boxes for the jurisdictions they are proposing to serve.

Section 3: Scope of Work

1. MDH received multiple questions related to public, subject-specific trainings as an allowable activity, including:

● “Will there be limitations on what type of training that staff may attend? ie, "harm reduction". 2) Are we allowed to host subject specific training sessions and open it to all peers, cprs, etc?”

● “In this grant, could an organization include in their budget to host subject specific and mandatory training sessions for Maryland peers?”

MDH Response: The list of Other Allowable Activities in RFA Section 3.2.5 includes the following activities related to training:

● “Provide (or provide connections to) education and training for local organizations to improve their competency in serving people who use drugs.”

● “Provide training, education, and professional development for staff through BHA-approved trainings, symposia, conferences, and other resources.”

Although ACCESS does not specifically prohibit grantees from hosting subject-specific trainings that are open to the public, MDH cannot confirm whether any proposed training initiative that is not explicitly listed in Section 3 will be considered allowable without reviewing the full application proposal to determine alignment with ACCESS grant program goals, priorities, and allowable costs. If MDH selects an application for award, fund source determinations for training activities may be based on whether the specific training is allowable or unallowable under a specific fund source.

2. “Second the questions about trains, and would like to add trainings that have CEU attached for peers and social workers”

MDH Response: Training that provides CEUs is an allowable expense. What is not allowable is the cost of a certification or licensure that is specifically for a staff member.

Section 4.2: Applications

1. “Are we essentially submitting two responses in eMMA? The first with the narrative documents and then the second with the budget documents?”

MDH Response: Applicants should make one full submission per organization, as eMMA allows applicants to upload multiple documents as a part of their single submission. All documents uploaded as part of Volume I: Technical Application should be separate from documents uploaded as part of Volume II: Budget Narrative. When uploading each individual document, eMMA allows the applicant to apply a label to the document that is distinct from the document’s file name. Applicants should label each document accordingly to clearly identify whether it is part of Volume I or Volume II.

2. “Technical question: when logged in to the eMMA portal, trying to save the solicitation returns the prompt: "To respond to this Solicitation, please acknowledge receipt." Do you know how we are supposed to acknowledge receipt? It's not really clear. Thanks”

MDH Response: Click the title of the solicitation and click “Add to My Solicitations”. The following should appear:

Select “I acknowledge receipt of this Solicitation”. You will then be prompted to choose “Will Respond” or “Not Respond”.

3. “I have tried sending messages with questions and for some reason they keep disappearing on our solicitation. As well, this morning, the solicitation for the ACCESS grant was also missing and I had to re-acknowledge the solicitation so that we can respond.”

MDH Response: Whenever new or revised items are added to the solicitation in eMMA it creates what is called a new “round.” Please be advised that eMMA will request that users re-acknowledge the solicitation every time a new round is opened. Acknowledging receipt of the new round ensures that you have access to all newly updated attachments/addenda.

Sometimes, when new rounds are created, the solicitation may be unavailable for some time while eMMA is processing the updates. This is why the deadline for questions is one week before the closing to ensure that all vendors/applicants have time to acknowledge the most recent version of the solicitation before submitting their responses.

Section 4.4: Budget Narrative

1. MDH has received multiple questions related to ACCESS award requirements for subdividing budgets into multiple budget periods, including:

● “In attachment B, we are only being asked for one full-year budget, whereas we've had to do a July-Sept budget + Oct-June budget in the past - will there still be a specific number for Q1 that we are required to spend down?”

● “Will the project period be broken down July-Dec and then Jan-June?”

MDH Response: As stated in the RFA, application budgets should be structured for a full 1-year project period corresponding with state fiscal year (SFY) 2027, i.e. a start date of July 1, 2026, and an end date of June 30, 2027. If the applicant is selected for an award, the grantee may be required to submit a revised budget for the SFY2027 project period that subdivides the budget into multiple distinct budget periods. The start and end dates for these budget periods typically correspond to distinct budget periods for any federal funds included in an individual ACCESS award. ACCESS grantees are expected to treat these as distinct and separate budget periods and aim to fully spend down funds within each budget period in accordance with their MDH-approved award budget. Due to federal grant requirements, MDH cannot guarantee that federal funds in an ACCESS grant that remain unspent at the end of one budget period will continue to be available for use by the grantee in a later budget period.

2. “Do we break out supplies in medical supplies/ other supplies as we have in past years?”

MDH Response: Applicants should include all supplies under the “Supplies” budget category in the Budget Narrative regardless of the type of supply. Although ACCESS grantees are required to submit award budgets that distinguish between types of supplies based on the fund source being used for their purchase, this is not required for the Budget Narrative submitted as part of the application.

3. “In the budget workbook, last year staff requested we put client transportation under "Travel", even though it doesn't look like it fits there. Where should we include it this year?”

MDH Response: Applicants should complete their Budget Narrative in accordance with the guidance provided in RFA Section 4.4.5 and should also review Attachment G - ACCESS Allowable and Unallowable Costs for any relevant information. MDH will communicate more specific budgeting requirements to applicants selected for award.

4. MDH received multiple questions related to the 37.81% fringe rate cap referenced in RFA Section 4.4.5, including:

● “The Fringe rate for state employees is much higher than that percentage due to health care coverage. Our fringe percentage ranges from 30.03% to 89.74%”

● “it is rare for a merit employee to have a fringe rate < 37.5% since FICA and Retirement alone are 29% and then when you add Health Insurance and Retiree HI it is significantly over 37.5%”

● “As an LHD are we still required to adhere to the fringe cap of 37.81%?”

MDH Response: MDH issued an addendum to the RFA on January 8, 2026, to revise relevant sections of Exhibit A, Attachment B, and Attachment C that include instructions related to fringe calculations. The revised instructions include the following language:

“For Applicants that meet the definition of a “social organization” in RFA Section 2.1.1 (i.e.

private nonprofit organizations), the total fringe cost for a position cannot exceed 37.81% of the position’s total salary cost.

For Applicants that are a local or state government agency, public college, or state university, fringe costs should be calculated in accordance with applicable agency budget guidelines, including annually updated budget guidance issued by the Maryland Department of Budget and Management, as appropriate.”

5. MDH has received multiple questions related to indirect cost (IDC) rate that can be charged to ACCESS awards, including:

● “Can you please confirm what the IDC rate is?”

● “Is there an indirect cost limit? In years past it’s been 10% but this RFA only referenced the federal IDC rate agreement. For our organization this will seriously limit the amount of funding that goes directly to our project.”

MDH Response: If a nonprofit organization gets a state-funded grant or contract (whether fully state-funded or a mix of state and other non-federal funds), the nonprofit must be allowed to get reimbursed for its indirect costs. The allowed reimbursement rate depends on the nonprofit’s situation: If the nonprofit already has a federally approved indirect cost rate, or has negotiated one with another non-federal funder using federal cost rules, they can use that same rate. If the nonprofit does not have a negotiated rate, they must be allowed to use whichever is higher: The standard federal default (known as the “de minimis” rate), or 15% of eligible direct costs (based on federal rules for how to calculate them). Important Note: This only applies to nonprofit organizations that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6) of the IRS code.

6. “Is there a limit on the amount of funding that can be used for supplemental nutrition/participant food this year?”

MDH Response: The full conditions of award (COA) for FY27 ACCESS awards have not yet been finalized. In developing their applications, applicants should review Attachment G - ACCESS Allowable and Unallowable Costs for information on any allowable cost limitations currently applicable to the ACCESS grant program. This includes the note on “Food for participants” which states “Food can be included as an expense for individuals receiving SAMHSA-funded mental and/or substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery support services, not to exceed $10.00 per person per day. This per-person-per-day breakdown must be included in your budget narrative.”

Section 5 - Evaluation Committee, Evaluation Criteria, and Selection Procedure

1. “Do you factor in other grants (such as Opioid Restitution Funds) that have been provided in each jurisdiction?”

MDH Response: No. Award decisions will be based on applying the evaluation criteria specified in the RFA Section 5.2. The evaluation criteria do not include consideration of other funding going to the jurisdiction where an applicant is proposing to provide services.

RFA Attachments

1. “I do not see attachment F in eMMA (referenced on slide 26 as “Attachment F: ACCESS Grant Program Conditions of Award”)”

MDH Response: Attachment F is included in the RFA Exhibit A PDF, starting on page 20. All attachments other than Attachments B, C, D, and E are included within the Exhibit A PDF.

2. “Is there a link to the excel file for attachment B? I am not finding it or the file in the RFP, just reference to it.”

MDH Response: Yes. Attachment B is available as a separate document in the RFA posting on eMMA. Attachment B may be downloaded from eMMA at this link:

https://emma.maryland.gov/bare.aspx/en/fil/download_public/e51baa51-179c-4a77-bf44-32bc9b 2bd1a8?file_context[rfp]=87560&file_context[containerUrl]=%2frfp%2frfp_info_extranet%2f8756 0%2f Attachments B, C, D, and E are uploaded as separate documents in eMMA. Any other attachments are included within the RFA PDF (Exhibit A).

3. “Attach B - sheet is locked, is there a code to unlock?”

MDH Response: Attachment B - ACCESS Budget Narrative Workbook (MS Excel) is password protected to prevent editing of the worksheet, formulas, and other features included to ensure accurate auto-calculations and standardized data capture. Applicants do not need the password or to disable these protections in order to enter the required information into the workbook.

Applicants should not attempt to disable these protections or otherwise alter the workbook structure.

4. “Could you please provide additional instructions regarding your requirements for completion of the Core Activities/Other Allowable Activities – Narrative Progress Reports section of the Performance Measures and Benchmarks form? Are benchmark number expected? If narratives are to be included in this section, what are the requirements?”

MDH Response: The following guidance relates specifically to completing the bottom two sections of the table included in Attachment E - Performance Measures and Benchmarks.

https://emma.maryland.gov/bare.aspx/en/fil/download_public/e51baa51-179c-4a77-bf44-32bc9b2bd1a8?file_context[rfp]=87560&file_context[containerUrl]=%2frfp%2frfp_info_extranet%2f87560%2f https://emma.maryland.gov/bare.aspx/en/fil/download_public/e51baa51-179c-4a77-bf44-32bc9b2bd1a8?file_context[rfp]=87560&file_context[containerUrl]=%2frfp%2frfp_info_extranet%2f87560%2f https://emma.maryland.gov/bare.aspx/en/fil/download_public/e51baa51-179c-4a77-bf44-32bc9b2bd1a8?file_context[rfp]=87560&file_context[containerUrl]=%2frfp%2frfp_info_extranet%2f87560%2f

● For the section labelled “Core Activities – Narrative Progress Reports (enter at least 3)”, enter the name of each Core Activity that the applicant proposes to implement (see RFA Section 3.2.4) In the left column of the section.

● For the section labelled “Other Allowable Activities - Narrative Progress Reports”, enter the name of each Other Allowable Activity (see RFA Section 3.2.5) that the applicant proposes to implement. If the applicant is proposing to implement additional activities that meet the goals and requirements of the ACCESS grant program but are NOT explicitly listed in RFA Sections 3.2.4 or 3.2.5, list them (using a very brief description) in the left column of this section as well.

● In the right column (“Benchmark for Project Period”) of both sections, enter a brief narrative description of the intended outcomes of the activity at the end of the project period and identify the major milestones that would indicate progress toward these outcomes. This description could include quantitative performance targets as well, particularly if the quantitative performance measures listed in the sections above do not include metrics directly relevant to the specific activity. If the applicant is selected for award, MDH will use these descriptions to inform the content of quarterly progress reports that the grantee will be required to submit.

5. MDH received multiple questions related to the requirement in RFA Section 4.3.4 for private nonprofit organizations to submit a Form 990 with their application, including:

● “Could you please confirm whether we may submit our most recently filed Form 990 (Tax Year 2024) in support of this application? Many organizations are still receiving final December statements and completing year-end closeout activities.

Finalizing the current-year Form 990—including internal review, board approval, and (where applicable) auditor coordination—within 13 days, and completing the new ACCESS application, are not feasible for many nonprofits, especially for those with active, complete quarterly ACCESS Reporting all within the same time frame.”

● “The RFA specifies that a copy of the applicant organization’s 2025 Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax filing must be provided. For organizations following the calendar tax year (January 1, 2025-December 31, 2025) the 2025 Form 990 is not due to the IRS until May 15, 2026, long after submissions to the RFA are due. Will a 2024 Form 990 be accepted for the submission in place of a 2025 Form 990?”

MDH Response: MDH issued an addendum to the RFA on January 12, 2026, to revise Section

4.3.4 to allow applicants to submit the most current version of their Form 990 instead of requiring a 990 for 2025.

6. “The RFA states that a W9 with a contact name and phone number must be included with the submission. However the IRS Form W9 does not include fields for contact name and phone number and federal tax status paperwork is not intended to be modified. So long as a contact name and phone number for the organization is provided elsewhere in the submission and in the eMMA account information for the applicant organization's response team, will the application meet minimum criteria for consideration?”

MDH Response: MDH issued an addendum to the RFA on January 12, 2026, to revise Section

4.3.4 to remove the requirement that the W-9 include a contact name and phone number.

7. “Do you know if we have to use attachment D as downloaded? Anything I type is in blue.”

MDH Response: Attachment D - Project Narrative is a locked Microsoft Word form. All user-editable fields have a light blue background to clearly indicate the areas that users can enter information. Users are not able to make changes to any formatting in the document, which includes the blue background, and should not attempt to disable the document protections.

MDH will accept a Project Narrative submitted as a different type of document than the Attachment D Word form. However, MDH strongly recommends that applicants use Attachment D rather than attempt to capture all the required information and adhere to the content requirements (including section word limits) in a different document. Information that is missing, incomplete, or difficult to interpret will negatively impact scoring of the Technical Application.

8. “On attachment D, Project Narrative, you ask for estimated # of full time equivalent staff.

As a small non-profit organization, we can only hire staff based on funding received and how much funding we secure. So are you asking for what is projected in the next fiscal year budget? Since funding is not secured yet for FY27, this would be a projection. Or are you asking for the current year? How does this relate to 1099 contracted employees?”

MDH Response: The intent of this field is to capture an estimated number of staff employed by the applicant at the time the application is submitted. Given that organizations may employ many part-time staff (including contractual employees), we ask that you use full-time equivalent calculations rather than report part-time staff as one whole position. For instance, if the applicant has four part-time staff each at 50% effort (0.5 FTE), the total number of positions reported would be two (i.e. 0.5 x 4).

Other Questions

1. “OADPOP?”

MDH Response: OADPOP is an acronym that refers to organizations authorized by MDH to operate an Opioid-Associated Disease Prevention and Outreach Program under Health-General Article, Title 24, Subtitle 9, Annotated Code of Maryland, or an organization approved to operate as a satellite site of a state-authorized OADPOP. OADPOPs deliver a comprehensive array of drug user health services, including distribution of sterile supplies to reduce infectious disease transmission.

2. “Will the slides be in eMMA or sent via email for those who were not able to attend?”

MDH Response: The PowerPoint slides and responses to all questions will be available to all applicants through eMMA.

3. “When will awards be announced?”

MDH Response: Though a specific date of announcement has not yet been identified, relaying award information is a priority. It is MDH’s intention to provide an announcement as quickly as possible with the goal of fully executing awards by the start of the state fiscal year 2027.

4. “Approximately how many grantees do you anticipate awarding?”

MDH Response: The number of SFY27 ACCESS awards issued by MDH will be dependent upon available funding and the number of qualified applications received.

5. “Since a for profit company does not apply, are there any ideas on how to secure funding for wound care supplies for substance abuse treatment centers (since Medicaid does not cover the supplies)?”

MDH Response: A potential option could be to partner with an ACCESS grantee to provide services and/or supplies on site or refer clients to the ACCESS grantee for wound care.

6. “We are an approved and operating ORP program. We educate and distribute Naloxone and test strips: Fentanyl, Medetomidine, Xylazine. We receive $0 funding. How do we continue as we are? Thanks”

MDH Response: MDH authorizes organizations to operate an Overdose Response Program (ORP) under Health-General Article, Title 13, Subtitle 3, Annotated Code of Maryland. This authority to operate an ORP and provide services is separate and distinct from the ACCESS Grant Program. Your organization may continue to provide overdose response education, distribute naloxone and drug testing strips, and request purchase of these supplies through

MDH as long as you maintain your ORP authorization in good standing. Please email mdh.naloxone@maryland.gov with any questions about your organization’s ORP authorization status.

7. “We received notification of the RFA on the afternoon of 12/23, when many staff were already off for the holiday break. As you know, harm reduction work carries significant stress and burnout, and this time is often the only opportunity for staff to rest. A later due date would allow organizations to develop more thoughtful, strategic applications for

FY27.”

MDH Response: Thank you for your thoughts surrounding the time frame of the RFA. The RFA timeline was established to best ensure awards are fully executed by the SFY27 start date, i.e., July 1, 2026.

8. “Is there a recording available for the January 5th pre-application conference regarding the ACCESS grant program. If so, would you be able to share the recording/link with me?”

MDH Response: There is not a recording available for the Pre-Application Conference;

however, a PowerPoint Presentation that includes everything that was covered in the conference has been included with the RFA attachments.

mailto:mdh.naloxone@maryland.gov

2.“IF we are not currently an OADPOP and are not permitted to become one, should we apply anyway or not apply?”

Section 2.2: Applicant-Specific Annual Funding Limit

1.Multiple questions were received during the Pre-Application Conference Webinar regarding applicants’ inability to obtain their applicant-specific annual funding limit using Attachment B - ACCESS Budget Narrative Worksheet (MS Excel file), including:

1.MDH received multiple questions related to public, subject-specific trainings as an allowable activity, including:

1.MDH has received multiple questions related to ACCESS award requirements for subdividing budgets into multiple budget periods, including:

4.MDH received multiple questions related to the 37.81% fringe rate cap referenced in RFA Section 4.4.5, including:

1.“Do you factor in other grants (such as Opioid Restitution Funds) that have been provided in each jurisdiction?”

RFA Attachments