ASHA FY19 RFA 72ASHA19RFA00001 - 1 PUBLIC COMMENT RESPONSES 7.22.19.pdf

FY19 ASHA RFA (72ASHA19RFA00001):

Public Comments and Responses

Posted 7/22/2019

Organization Public Comment ASHA Response

Organization 1 Q1: The review process in Section E is complete and gives a good idea on how the evaluation of the submission will be conducted. This Section should start by stating how the weight are distributed.

We have updated the RFA to include that information. Additionally that information is under the Merit Criteria section.

Q2: The merit criteria are clear and well thought of. However, it is not intuitive that the weights are for Phase 1 (50%) and Phase 2 (50%). It should be explained that the final determination considers the Phase 1 submission which has half of the overall weight.

A table has been inserted to further clarify.

Q3: There is no information as to what happens during the merit review of an application that does not include “commodities and construction/renovation). How does the 25% weight get attributed to such an application?

ASHA applications are only for commodities and/or construction or a combination of both.

Q4: The RFA does not include a submission deadline for Phase 1 Technical Application. Is the submission deadline in October as stated in the ASHA July Bulletin? What day in October?

The Public Comment phase is not an issuance of the RFA, thus it did not include an application submission deadline. Now that the RFA has been posted for applications, the RFA has been updated to include application deadlines.

Q5: Page 1 – Last paragraph A list of countries is provided for the Middle East region. However, Algeria is not included. Is that an omission or Algeria cannot be considered for the purpose of this RFA under the side-aside but can be considered outside the set-aside since the RFA is for worldwide program?

Algeria has been added to the list. Please note that organizations can also submit their application outside the set aside. Organizations who submit under the set-aside must also meet the set-aside eligibility requirements.

Q6: Page 9 – Under Eligible Applicants – Item No.1 It might be useful to list institutions of higher learning as eligible, if they are.

The eligible types of organizations are listed under Eligibility item 11.

Q7: Page 9 – Under Eligible Applicants – Item No.2 The requirement is very restrictive and does not provide an opportunity for the organizations that have not been involved in the Middle East for over 10 years to compete. This set-aside is clearly going to favor organizations that have been active in the Middle East for 10 years or more and probably have already received ASHA funding in the past.

The set-aside is intended for organizations that have a predominant capability in order to address an Agency priority in the region. Any eligible Applicants who do not meet those requirements for the set-aside may apply through the full and open process.

Q8: Page 19 This page has two sub-sections numbered “e)”

Thank you. We have corrected the numbering.

Q9: Page 41 - Annex 2. Section III ASHA PD Custom 1: Number of American best practices that improve organizational performance. The indicator “description” seems to be missing an action verb between “best practices” and “that”. Is it the number of best practices used, selected, etc. It seems that Indicator ASHA PD Custom 2 is inclusive of what’s in trying to cover No.1.

The ASHA PD Indicators reference sheet (link is Annex 2, Section III) provides additional information on the indicators.

Organization 2 Q1: Time Frame for Comments: The limited time frame allowed for public comments on the RFA may not provide enough time for applicants to express a thorough and full scope of concerns to ASHA. We recommend using the standard 30 day period for public comments.

Given the increased oversight and consultations this year, the FY 19 RFA was posted very late in this funding cycle for public comment. Posting for public comments typically occurs in October/November. The comment period was reduced to complete the FY 19 grants process within the given timeframe for the FY19 appropriation. ASHA is, however, using the standard 15 day period for questions and answers during the application period with the issuance of the RFA.

Q2: 30% set-aside for projects in the Middle East: What is the rationale behind setting aside 30% of funds for projects in or relating to the Middle East?

Q2a: Also what is the function of the “past experience” evaluation factor and why is it only applied to this part of the funds?

Q2b: Why has this distinction been introduced this year, and will it affect the competitiveness of applicants from other regions, particularly new partners?

Q2c: Is this a cap on grants for institutions in the Middle East region?

Q2d: If ASHA expects to keep the set-aside as part of the RFA, we would like ASHA to use this opportunity to reintroduce the very important “past experience” evaluation factor in the grant process. This indicator of potential public diplomacy impact was inadvertently dropped from the ASHA evaluation framework in 2018.

The Middle East is a region of strategic importance. As such and historically has received few applications from organizations in the region. This amount ensures that a base amount of funding is dedicated to funding activities conducted by organizations that have a predominant capability in the region, per the set-aside eligibility criteria.

Q2a. The “Past Impact Statement” merit criterion allows the Selection Committee to effectively evaluate eligible applicants with predominant capabilities from the Middle East who choose to be considered for the set aside.

Q2b. Based on past application patterns, ASHA does not expect the set-aside to impact the competitiveness of applicants from other regions or the competitiveness of new partners.

Q2c. The set aside is not a ‘cap’ on grants for institutions in the Middle East region.

Instead, it establishes a floor for grants to be awarded in the Middle East. This is now clarified in the RFA.

Q2d. ASHA has introduced the ‘Past Impact Statement’ as a merit criterion for the organizations that wish to be considered for the Middle East set aside. ‘Past

“Past experience,” broadly defined to include an institution’s reputation, capabilities and reach in relation to ASHA public diplomacy objectives, historically has been central to the evaluation process. As explained in the RFA, the set-aside relates solely to the reintroduction of “past experience” as an evaluation factor for public diplomacy impacts and is not intended to favor or disfavor particular applicants.

Q2e: Our understanding is that the 30% set-aside is a minimum funding level, intended to reflect the importance of this region to U.S. public diplomacy interests, and not a cap on funding for applicants from the region and that applicants that are ranked Satisfactory or higher will be ranked against the general pool of applicants for funding consideration on an equivalent basis once the set-aside funds have been exhausted.

experience’ as defined by USAID was removed as a merit review criterion in 2017 because past experience is generally assessed after apparently successful applicants have been identified--as part of the risk assessment analysis. This was done with the intent to not have the lack of ‘past experience’ with USAID or similar donors become a barrier for new applicants that are applying through a full and open competition process. More restrictive criteria are typically used when competition is restricted, typically to accomplish specific Agency priorities.

Q2e. Your understanding is correct. The 30% is not a cap. It was included to set a floor amount and ensure we do not go below it.

Q3: The RFA offers only limited guidance on the meaning of “public diplomacy.” May applicants rely on more detailed prior guidance provided through workshops and other means?

Q3a: Could the page limits be increased for Phase 1 since it relies so heavily on the applicant’s explanation of their public diplomacy credentials?

Q3b: We understand that the term public diplomacy is intended to have the same meaning as in prior application cycles. This should be made more explicit in the RFA, either through an elaboration of the guidance or specific reference to relevant explanatory materials on the ASHA website.

Q3c: Rather than restate this general guidance, the RFA draws attention to the importance of measurable public diplomacy impacts. This guidance also would benefit from further clarification, generally or through one or more specific examples –for example, explaining that while training health care providers and

Q3. Applicants should respond to the merit review criterion. Applicants are free to draw on their organization’s additional knowledge of public diplomacy; however, all responses must directly address the merit review criterion based on guidance provided. Additionally ASHA has updated the section to include a reference link to materials provided at the ASHA Meeting in October 2018.

Q3a. Page limit will remain at 3 for Phase 1, and another 3 for the additional set-aside criterion. ASHA feels that given the requirement under the criterion has been reduced to only focus on public diplomacy, 3 pages suffice to respond. In the previous year, Applicants were successfully able to make their public diplomacy case with less overall space; e.g., the other 8 pages were in response to other factors.

Q3b. The RFA is clear regarding the public diplomacy criterion. ASHA has updated the section to include a reference link to materials provided at the ASHA Meeting in October 2018.

Q3c. While this might help more experienced ASHA applicants, this level of detail and guidance will become too prescriptive and impede other ideas and possibilities.

The Agency as a whole tries to encourage new ideas, by not providing such examples that are typically taken as “tacit requirements.” ASHA has updated the section to include a reference link to materials provided at the ASHA Meeting in educating future leaders in government, business and science remain a central ASHA focus, it will also be important for an applicant to show how supported activities would raise awareness, shift positive attitudes or generate action in relation to American values, ideas and practices.

October 2018. This will provide a better well-rounded understanding of public diplomacy and different ways to measure it. Additionally, Annex 2, Section III has reference sheets for ASHA’s public diplomacy indicators.

Q4: Please clarify the scope and intent of the new “past project impact statement.” We assume, but wish to confirm, that the objective is to better understand an applicant institution’s public diplomacy bona fides – that is, its reputation, capabilities and reach in relation to ASHA public diplomacy objectives – and not simply its ability to meet technical grant requirements as in a traditional risk assessment analysis. This would comport with prior longstanding ASHA practice, pursuant to which applicants were encouraged to describe (in summary form) their organizational purpose, history and major achievements, as well as recent grant experiences with US and other public and private sector donor sources. Such contextual information historically has provided an essential foundation for meaningful qualitative judgments about an applicant institution’s potential to advance ASHA public diplomacy objectives. We recommend adding appropriate language to the RFA to clarify this broader purpose, as suggested here or along similar lines:

Past project impact statements are intended to provide a fuller picture of an applicant’s reputation, capabilities and reach in relation to ASHA public diplomacy objectives. Consistent with longstanding past ASHA practice, this may include relevant information about an institution’s mission, history and major accomplishments. Reference in the RFA to recent donor-funded projects is illustrative only, and neither limited to ASHA grants nor preclusive of other relevant evidence of public diplomacy impact. ASHA understands that while certain narrow public diplomacy impacts (such as student demographics in a grant period) may be easily quantified in the short-term, other broader and often more relevant impacts (such as future leaders produced) are more long-term and institutional in nature.

Past project impact statements are intended to capture these important but less easily quantified impacts as well.

“We assume, but wish to confirm, that the objective is to better understand an applicant institution’s public diplomacy bona fides – that is, its reputation, capabilities and reach in relation to ASHA public diplomacy objectives[.]” The quoted excerpt is correct: ‘past impact’ statement is an applicant’s opportunity to address how the institution is positioned to address public diplomacy objectives.

Since the past impact statement is being used as a merit review criterion under the set aside to evaluate the pool of eligible organizations in the Middle East who feel they have a predominant capability in this area, the description has been simplified to clearly identify factors that will be evaluated under this new criterion.

Rather than being prescriptive, applicants will find different ways to substantiate past impact by providing any type of information that acts as evidence for this claim.

Q5: Program Administration: USAID and the ASHA Coalition has been successful at showing the merits of the ASHA program to Congress, which has elevated the program budget to $30 million in FY19. Out of that $30 million, $27 million is being used for awards and we assume the remaining $3 million is for overhead costs.

We are concerned that this increase in overhead costs may cut substantially into the awards available to applicants.

The reflected amount in overhead cost is not an increase. Actual administration and oversight AND program design and learning costs have been used to calculate available funds for projects. Overhead costs are for the ASHA program only and reflect responsible oversight and administration. This cost has historically remained well under comparable agency costs. ASHA makes every effort to reduce costs from year to year by using recoveries from past projects.

Q6: Terminology: There are a couple areas in the RFA which applicants have found confusing. Could you please clarify:

Q6a: Page 8, Line 8; Page 26; Page 33 Line H : “M&E plan and AMEP”. Isn’t the Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan the same as the M&E Plan or what also is called the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan?

Q6b: Page 11, item #2: In the paragraph under “Cost Sharing or Matching” would “funds from other sources can be included as leveraged funds” mean that leveraged funds will be considered matching funds.

Q6c: Annex 2: Please provide clarification on:

Q6c1: Number of American best practices that improve organization performance

Q6c2: Number of American best practices that formally disseminated, accepted, or adopted

Q6c3: Page Limits: ASHA has again sharply reduced the page limits for the critical concept paper phase (from 10 to 3 pages for standard applications), making it very difficult for an applicant institution to identify itself, describe the proposed project and articulate in reasonable detail a case for public diplomacy benefits.

While abbreviated concept papers may make sense in other contexts, where applicants are already well known or the case for grant support is straightforward, evaluation in a public diplomacy context is more complex and dependent on nuanced qualitative judgments that should reflect more than conclusory assertions by competing applicants.

Q6c3-i: We believe the prior 10-page limit is more appropriate for this program.

Q6a. Language in the RFA has been modified to clarify the confusion.

Q6b. No. Applicant must clearly state which funds will be considered as match and which funds will be considered as leveraged. Funds put forward as a match are auditable and organization will be held accountable for making up the difference, if during an audit it is found organization has not met its match commitment.

Q6c1. Please read the ASHA PD Indicator reference sheet provided as a link in Annex 2, Section II

Q6c2. Please read the ASHA PD Indicator reference sheet provided as a link in Annex 2, Section II

Q6c3. ASHA has scaled back the requirements for Phase 1 (formerly known as “concept paper”) in order to make this possible. ASHA expects the applicant to focus the response to address the merit review criterion.

Alternatively, applicants should be permitted to submit – on a voluntary basis – relevant supplemental materials that serve to substantiate and distinguish otherwise conclusory assertions in a concept paper. This has been the longstanding ASHA practice, for more than 50 years, pursuant to which an applicant might attach a summary listing of notable achievements or other similar materials. At one time, this also included for some applicants detailed information about how they defined and disseminated American values and practices consistent with ASHA objectives, as well as illustrative “success stories” encouraged by a prior ASHA leadership.

Q6c3-ii: We believe the opportunity to submit such supplemental information has been salutary and should be continued. This would require an amendment to the RFA guidance precluding supplemental information (at 15). As proposed, applicants would continue to have the option of submitting supplemental materials they deem relevant, with the understanding that such materials would be informational only and reviewed solely at evaluator discretion. For applicants outside the set-side process, such materials might include at an applicants’ discretion comparable reputational or other supplemental information.

Q6c3-i. ASHA feels that because the requirement under the criterion has been reduced to only focus on public diplomacy, 3 pages suffice to respond. For Applicants who will apply for the set-aside, the criterion is also very focused and does not require additional annexes in Phase I. If invited to submit a Phase II application, the applicant may choose to submit additional annexed documentation.

In Phase I (previously known as the “concept phase”) additional documentation is not needed; only a concise response to the criterion/a.

Qc3-ii. Applicants have the option of submitting supplemental information in Phase II, if invited to apply to Phase II. Again, Phase I is very focused and is an exercise in concisely addressing the criterion/a.

Organization 3 Q1: Few corrections have been made. But no comments related to the RFA per se are included. The email attachment is mainly a CV and project summary.

The comment provided was not understood by ASHA. The initial posting was to solicit Public Comments on the draft RFA. ASHA has now issued the RFA to which organizations may apply.

Organization 4 Q1: Could you provide clarification regarding the relationship between the USO and the OSI?

I am currently faculty at Yale University School of Medicine and am working on a project to introduce and develop an American model of Emergency Medicine in the Republic of Armenia. This could be done via a partnership with American University of Armenia. AUA but does there have to be a preexisting relationship between Yale and AUA or can it be between myself as a representative from Yale and AUA with which I have been working with over the last 15 years? If it is easier to speak by phone, we could arrange a time to speak this week as well.

The USO and OSI must be able to demonstrate a formal relationship for the past two years at least.

Organization 5 Q1: How have the ASHA funding priorities and programmatic focus shifted or changed between 2018 and 2019?

Q1. The priorities have not shifted. The only difference is that there is a set aside in place for the Middle East to ensure at least 30% of funding goes to organizations in this priority region.

Q2: Does ASHA have a new strategic plan for FY19-FY23? We understand that ASHA’s strategic plan ended in FY18.

Q3: Why is ASHA prioritizing the Middle East for 30% of the total estimated amount of funding this round?

Q4: Can ASHA elaborate on the amount of funding anticipated to go to other regions?

Q5: Does ASHA strive for geographic equity in its project funding?

Q6: Does ASHA anticipate differing levels of estimated funding to go to commodity versus construction applications?

Q7: Please detail the timelines further for the application process. Considering the process from 2018, we will be surprised if awards will be able to be made in calendar year 2019 as expressed in the RFA.

Q8: We appreciate if further information can be given regarding the USAID TB, HIV, and Malaria mechanisms that fund capital projects.

Q9: We appreciate if further information can be given regarding USAID’s Global

Q2. ASHA has a results framework for Y2019-FY23 and a strategic vision statement. The results framework has been included in the RFA. The Strategic Vision Statement is in clearance, however, key points have been included in the

RFA..

Q3. The Middle East is a region of strategic importance. As such and historically has received few applications from organizations in the region. This amount ensures that a base amount of funding is dedicated to funding activities conducted by organizations that have a proven record of public diplomacy impact.

Organizations from the Middle East may choose to be considered for the set aside by submitting a past impact statement for consideration or instead they may choose to be considered against the global pool of applicants.

Q4. The allocation of the rest of FY19 funding will be determined via full and open competition. There is no regional allocation of funding.

Q5. No. Applicants that effectively address the merit review criteria, and other requirements as noted in the RFA, are typically funded, regardless of their region.

Q6. No.

Q7. ASHA is operating under a very tight deadline. ASHA expects to fund selected applications and make awards in calendar year 2020 (as soon as funds become available). All other deadlines have been updated in the RFA and will be further provided in the letter if invited to submit a Phase 2 Application.

Q8. This question will be referred to Global Health to provide an answer via a separate mechanism.

Q9. If an applicant wishes to be considered for a GDA, they should apply for GDA funding through the GDA APS on grants.gov. GDA applications referred to ASHA could be considered for funding if they meet ASHA public diplomacy goals and would be reported to the Hill along with other applicants.

Development Alliances (GDAs) within the RFA.

Organization 6

Q1: Specifically, we have questions regarding the USAID policies, if during construction, antiquities are discovered including:

Q1a: Can we receive an extension in time, if antiquities are found in the ground in order to deal with the archeological services?

Q1b: Could we change the location of the project, if something significant is found underground?

Q1a. Yes you would receive an extension. During environmental review these issues and how they are resolved should be identified.

Q1b. Yes, you may request a change if something significant is encountered. This is done through a letter to the AO if/when this situation is encountered.

Organization 7 Q1: In order to ensure that we make the right type of request, can you please clarify what a commodity is in the context of a school? For example, if a construction/renovation project includes electronic equipment or furniture and fixtures, are these considered commodities or part of the construction?

Q2: What is the definition of leveraged funds? Could these be debt, other grants or donations towards the project for which a proposal is being submitted?

Q3: How does USAID treat fluctuations in currency for projects that are executed in a foreign currency? Our project will be delivered in an African country, where all of our costs are incurred in the local currency.

Q1. Materials that are needed to construct or renovate are part of the construction costs. Durable commodities are what you require to run a project or operations.

Please also see note in RFA with regard to special types of durable commodities that ASHA considers construction.

Q2. Yes, all the categories you mention may be considered as leveraged funds.

However, we will ask you state how much of these funds you have actually secured and what is still pending.

Q3. Many partners avoid transferring the funds to local currency until they are ready to make payments to avoid this common problem. ASHA does not cover currency fluctuations costs.

Organization 8 Q1: I see good detail about the requirements for the full application, but I am unclear on what the specific requirements are for the concept note that is due by July 12th.

Can you point me in the right direction?

Only Public Comments were due on July 12, 2019; not yet applications. The process is, after the Public Comments period has closed, ASHA reviews the public comments and issues responses. ASHA also updates the RFA and then issues the RFA for applications. At that time, the deadline for submission of applications has been updated in the RFA. The RFA now includes an application deadline for Phase 1 (formerly known as “concept paper/note”).

Organization 9 Q1: It appears that for the FY19 process ASHA does not intend to request the submission of a concept paper as it did during the FY18 process.

Q1a: If that is indeed the case, ASHA may want to edit language in footnote #5 on page 11 and, on page 24, in the first paragraph below the table, which both refer to the concept paper.

Q1b: Further, since many applicants from the FY18 process will have provided a concept paper for that cycle, it may be helpful to add a footnote or comment clarifying that the FY19 process will eliminate this step.

Q.1 ASHA has maintained the two-phase application approach. ASHA now refers to Phase I instead of “Concept Paper”.

Q1a. Thank you. We have made the correction.

Q1b. This is not applicable.

Organization 10 Q1: In the section “Phase 2 Technical Application Merit Review Criteria,” two criteria are listed: Management Approach and Commodity and Construction/Renovation Approach. Each is listed as ¼ weight. Should these criteria each be weighted ½ rather than ¼, or are there other elements of the Phase 2 application that will be weighted in consideration?

Q1. The RFA has been updated for clarity.

Organization 11 Q1: Would a project be eligible if the OSI school already provides secondary education but the project involves construction of a preschool section in the same school?

Q2: Must the OSI school already offer English instruction at the time of concept note submission?

Q2a: Is the OSI eligible if the English course is being planned for introduction during the ASHA application process (i.e. in the coming school year)?

Q3: Can branding waivers be issued in sensitive countries, such as those in the Middle East?

Q4: Also, the ADS 303 link on page 33 is broken.

Q.1 Funds would need to be for the secondary education program, per the eligibility requirements.

Q2. Please see the eligibility criteria.

Q2a. Please see the eligibility criteria.

Q3. A branding waiver can be processed after award but is considered on a case by case basis.

Q4. Thank you. That has been corrected.

Organization 12 Q1: What is a NOFO? (page 12, not included in the glossary of terms at the end of the RFA)

Q2: Page 24: Under the samples that are illustrative of the adjectival ratings: it is noted that the applicant has addressed how to engage communities and make an

Q1. NOFO is Notice of Funding Opportunity. We have updated the glossary of terms to include it.

Q2. ASHA has provided two mandatory public diplomacy indicators. For explanation and examples, please see the ASHA PD Indicator reference sheet impact based on public diplomacy needs: Can you provide examples of public diplomacy indicators that applicants can be used to show how they will be able to measure public diplomacy change or impact in communities?

Q3: Page 25: Phase 1 Merit Approach Criterion -- the second criterion is the relation between the proposed project and US government foreign policy priorities.

From where can applicants obtain lists of US government foreign policy priorities for a specific country?

Q4: Page 26: Phase 1 Merit Approach Criterion -- section (c) refers to "Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators -- F indicators" -- can you provide a hyperlink to where these indicators can be found?

linked in Annex 2, Section III.

Q3. Please talk the public affairs officers at the US Embassies in the countries you are working with. Often you can also find this information on the Embassy and USAID websites.

Q4. ASHA has updated the Annex 2, Section III with the link. It has also been updated on page 26.