DD21 2103 Informational Call QA 041621cc.docx

DD21-2013 Informational Call held 3/31/2021 Questions & Answers (Q & As) Last Updated Date: 4/7/2021

Grants.gov / Funding Opportunity Updates Q: Is the revised funding opportunity clearly marked as being revised?

A: The revision is clearly marked. Also note each revision is posted with a new posting date.

Q: If updates are made to the funding opportunity, could these be indicated in red or in a short paragraph at the beginning in the updated version of the document?

A: The Grants.gov system determines the format for posting revised versions. As such, revisions are not highlighted in the document. The revised version is clearly labeled with a new posting date.

Q: Will the narrative/script be sent out as well?

A: Both the script and responses to the questions will be posted at Grants.gov.

Eligibility Q: To clarify, does open competition mean that we do not need to be bona fide agents of a State?

A: The applicant does not need to be a bona fide agent of a State.

Q: Can an institution apply, or can only state disability and health programs apply for the request for applications (RFA)?

A: Any institution, organization, or entity that meets the eligibility requirement can apply (see Eligibility Information on pages 31 to 32).

Q: Would an application for the jurisdiction of New York City Metropolitan area be eligible? Does the project have to be statewide?

A: Any institution, organization, or entity that meets the eligibility requirement can apply (see Eligibility Information on pages 31 to 32). There are no requirements in the funding opportunity for proposed projects to be statewide.

Q: Do the state agencies funded during the previous RFA (CDC-RFA-DD16-1603, discussed on page 4 of the current RFA) have priority in this open competition? Is this RFA (CDC-RFA-DD21-2103) meant to be a continuation of funding for the previous RFA recipients?

A: No priority will be given to applicants funded under a previous award. This is a new funding opportunity announcement and does not include provisions for continued funding of awardees under the previous RFA.

Q: Please define what you mean by “recipients” in the funding opportunity. Do you mean grant recipients, service recipients, or something else?

A: The term “recipients”, used throughout the announcement, is intended to mean award recipients (i.e., applicants who go on to receive a Notice of Award for this funding opportunity).

Jurisdiction Q: Would CDC consider applications for projects that focus on a sub-state jurisdictional scale, for example, 1 or more counties within a state? Or will CDC only consider projects that cover an entire state?

A: There are no requirements in the funding opportunity for proposed projects to be statewide. As mentioned on page 13, funding is available to support up to 10 awards, with no more than one award in any given state or jurisdiction.

Q: How do you define “jurisdiction?"

A: The definition of jurisdiction is at the discretion of the applicant. The application should include a definition of how the project area is defined.

Target Population Q: Does a proposal have to reach people with mobility limitations (ML) and people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) or is a proposal focusing on one of the populations possible?

A: Applicants must address both populations in their proposed activities. Note activities associated with Strategy 4 are specific to adults with IDD.

Q: Regarding strategy #4, is this specific to only the IDD population or both IDD and ML?

A: Strategy 4 is applicable to people with IDD.

Q: Scope of Application: If we have an opportunity to work with state Special Olympics, can we limit to focusing on ID population when it comes to adults with IDD?

A: Applicants may propose any group of IDD and ML when addressing these populations in their jurisdiction. However, both IDD and ML populations must be addressed under this award.

Q: Strategy 5: It seems that award recipients will collectively identify evidence-based health promotion interventions for adults with IDD and for those with ML. Given this, wondering whether we need to propose a specific evidence-based health promotion for the target populations in our application. Do applicants need to propose a specific evidence-based health promotion intervention and Policy, System, and Environmental approach for adults with IDD and adults with ML in our application given that CDC will provide evidence-based guidance? The RFA says “recipients will collectively identify one evidence-based health promotion intervention with intended outcomes to implement for adults with IDD, and one for adults with ML.” (page 11) A: Strategy 5, on page 11 of the funding opportunity has two parts: (1) Evidence-based interventions and (2) Policy, systems or environment (PSE) approach. The applicant should either propose a specific evidence-based health promotion intervention for people with IDD and ML that can be evaluated, or two evidence-based health promotion interventions -- one for each of the target populations.

In addition to proposing an evidence-based intervention for people with IDD and ML, the applicant should propose a PSE approach to address the health of people with IDD and ML within the state or jurisdiction. Unlike the evidence-based intervention, the PSE approach will be decided only by the applicant. The budget should reflect support for the proposed evidence-based health promotion separately from the proposed PSE change.

Strategies and Activities Q: Is the intent of this opportunity for the grantee to propose a project that aligns with ALL six strategies or will you accept proposals that focus in on two or three of the strategies?

A: Applicants are encouraged to submit a proposal that addresses all six strategies.

Q: Strategies and Activities, Section iii - "Recipients of this award must implement "several" strategies and activities to achieve and measure the short-term and intermediate outcomes as indicated in the provided logic model. The strategies and activities are detailed below." Can you define "several"?

A: The sentence in the question above serves as a prelude to the “several” CDC strategies and activities that follow on pages 8-12. The applicant may add additional and more detailed activities to better define how the overall strategies can be operationalized in the locale.

Q: There is discrepancy between how activities are listed in the new table on pages 15-24 and how they are described in the Strategies and Activities section starting on page 8. For example, Strategy 2 has 3 activities shown in the table but only one described on page 9. Which version should we use? Also, the second paragraph of Activity 2.1. in the table has different wording than what’s on page 9. Part of the wording in the version in the table sounds like it belongs with strategy 4 instead of strategy 2. Again, which version should we use?

A: The Strategies and Activities on page 9 should align with those indicated in the evaluation tables on pages 15-24. To address this question, CDC will correct the alignment in the funding opportunity and post a revised version that will serve to clarify beyond the initial version that was posted on March 11, 2021.

Q: The outcomes in the revised funding opportunity don't match what's in the logic model. Which should we be working from?

A: The logic model provides a broad overview of the outcomes. Applicants should base their application on the more detailed outcomes described in the most recently posted funding opportunity.

Q: In what years are we required to recruit for the demonstration project? Page 10 references a minimum of 50 per year, and 200 people total across all five years. Would we need to have the demonstration project up and recruiting in year 1, or is it ok to be a planning year?

A: The first six months of the award will be used for planning (e.g., hiring and developing materials). Activities 3, 4 and 5 can begin after the first six months of the award.

Q: Are we to use the strategies and activities in the funding opportunity in our workplan?

A: Applications will be scored based on “Presenting a work plan that is aligned with the strategies/activities, outcomes, and performance measures in the approach and is consistent with the content and format proposed by CDC.” (Page 44)

Q: Do proposals need to specify which chronic diseases or health indicators they will focus on?

A: Proposed activities should align with Strategy 5, Activity 5.1 and 5.2, a, b, and c (See page 11).

Q: Strategy 2 - If the intervention(s) in strategies 4-5 are across all states/jurisdictions... Are we coordinating on needs assessment questions to identify common needs?

A: Coordinating information gathered through local needs assessments is not a requirement of this funding opportunity.

Q: Strategy 2 - need assessments: “Activity 2.1 Use available data sources (e.g., National Health Interview Survey, the Disability and Health Data System (DHDS), National Core Indicators Survey, administrative claims data or reports (e.g., Residential Information Systems Project) to describe disparities for adults with IDD and adults with ML…” and regarding NHIS, the NHIS sample is not big enough to provide reliable estimates for each state. But, combining several annual data could give reliable estimates for selected outcomes. This is also applied to Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) because MEPS is not designed for estimates at the state level. Will this approach (combining data set for several years) be okay?

A: Several years of data from a data source can be combined to estimate the health measures for the target populations within a state or jurisdiction.

Q: Strategy 3 - On Activity 3.1, (page 18) with the trainings targeting health care providers including CEU considerations, do they need to be existing trainings, or can new ones be developed in response to the need assessment identified gaps.

A: The funding opportunity indicates that trainings should be existing. The applicant can enhance or tailor existing trainings (see Strategy 3, pages 9 to 10).

Q: Strategy 4 - How much detail is needed in the year-1 workplan and budget for strategy 4, the demonstration project? This will be challenging, since applicants won’t know what the demonstration project is, or the resources needed, until the project is identified by grantees after funding.

A: Applicants should use the details that are provided for strategy 4 to build their workplan and budget for year-1 and indicate how the activities can be carried out within their project area.

Q: Strategy 4 - For the demonstration project, are we allowed to work with multiple contractors/agencies so we can cover different regions of the state, or should the linkage coordinator be with only one agency?

A: The funding opportunity does not impose any restrictions on the number of employees, contractors, agencies or partners that can be engaged in implementing proposed activities.

Q: Strategy 4 - In reference to page 13, the estimated funding to go to the demonstration is $200,000-$300,000 per year. Must this start in year 1 if we will not be recruiting yet?

A: Given that Strategies 3-5 may begin after the first six months of planning, it is the applicant’s discretion how much to allocate for beginning activities in the first year.

Q: Strategy 4 - Can the $200,000 - $300,000 for Linkage be used for part of the cost for data collection and research beyond the linkage coordinator position, plus supervisory cost?

A: The $200,000-$300,000 per year is provided as an estimated cost for the entire demonstration project. The applicant may propose a budget for the demonstration project that includes data collection and analysis. Data collection is intended for program evaluation and may not be used for research activities.

Q: Strategy 4 - The funding opportunity calls for a Data Management Plan to be submitted with the application in association with the demonstration project, particularly in alignment with activity 4.5: Activity 4.5 Collect, manage, quality assure, analyze, and report data to CDC including: (a) participant-level data from initial and 3-month follow-up sessions, and (b) recruitment and retention data to better support individual participants, improve the quality and reach of the project overall, and demonstrate project effectiveness. To develop an appropriate Data Management Plan (DMP) to support the activities associated with strategy 4, it would be helpful to better understand the nature of the participant-level data that is intended to be collected throughout this project. I am wondering if CDC anticipates that personal health information will be collected and shared as a part of this work. In other words, does CDC expect to receive PHI from participants for reporting purposes? Or is aggregated data acceptable to demonstrate project effectiveness?

A: Though individual-level data will be collected and maintained by the applicant site, CDC does not anticipate receiving any personally identifiable data. Instead, each participant in the demonstration project may be assigned an identification number for submission to CDC.

Q: Strategy 4 – The RFA lists six strategies to achieve outcomes on pp. 6-8, including “Strategy 4. Implement and evaluate a demonstration project to link adults with IDD to preventive health care and health promotion programs in their community.” Is this “the linkage demonstration project”? If so, it is not clear whether the applicants need to propose the demonstration project for this application or not. Is the estimated annual budget of $200K - $300K for the demonstration project throughout the project period? Also, is the fund for the demonstration project a part of the annual award amount or separate?

A: Strategy 4 is the linkage demonstration project. Applicant should include the linkage project in their proposal. It is estimated that the linkage project will need a budget of $200,000–$300,000 per year. The annual award amount includes funds for the demonstration project.

Q: Strategy 4 - Activity 4.2 “Recruit and train linkage coordinators to implement the demonstration project, e.g., how to communicate with participants and their caregivers, collect data, and provide follow up. Develop a job description for this position and submit it with the application.” (p. 10). Although we referred to the glossary section for the definition of linkage coordinators, it is not very clear about the linkage coordinators.

a) Can the linkage coordinators be affiliated with other organizations?

b) Do the linkage coordinators have to work on this project full time?

c) Will other organizations’ staff be able to work on this project part time?

d) Can undergraduate or graduate students be hired?

A: The funding opportunity announcement does not restrict the applicant from any of the above approaches. Partnerships and collaboration are encouraged.

Q: Strategy 4 - “Implement and evaluate a demonstration project to link adults with IDD to preventive health care and health promotion programs in their community,” can you clarify to what extent applicants should be detailed in their proposed demonstration project given that recipients “may also elect to conduct in-depth, detailed evaluations of selected program activities or elements, either individually or in collaboration with other recipients.”

A: The proposal for Strategy 4 should align with the activities outlined on pages 10-11, and the applicant should provide details about how they plan to conduct the activities, their experience and capacity with conducting such activities, as well as any potential adjustments needed to fit this opportunity. The phrase, “may also elect to conduct in-depth, detailed evaluations of selected program activities or elements, either individually or in collaboration with other recipients,” means that applicants are welcome to add another layer of evaluation. The recipient must still be able to conduct evaluations as outlined on pages 15-24.

Q: Strategy 4 - In one place it says preventive health care AND health promotion, in another place it says preventive health care OR health promotion (implying one or the other can be the objective--which makes more sense to me as a demonstration project, but just want to make sure I am interpreting correctly).

A: Under Strategy 4, on pages 10-11, the linkage coordinator (under site-developed procedures) will determine if the screened individual may need referral(s) to an accessible provider(s) for applicable preventive health care and/or a health promotion intervention. Having a way to screen and refer individuals in either direction, or both, is part of this Strategy.

Q: Strategy 5 - When would the intervention for Activity 5.1 be approved by CDC? As stated on page 11, it would be discussed with CDC and agreed upon collectively. How should we write for this activity if we do not know what activity will be selected?

A: Strategy 5 - The intervention(s) for Activity 5.1 will be agreed upon and approved within the first six months of the award. Applicants should describe strategies and activities that are achievable, evidence-based, and will work toward the outcomes as described on pages 19-20.

Q: Strategy 5 - Can you elaborate on the need to use an intervention that is “collectively identified” by all funded entities, in Strategy 5. Grantees’ infrastructure for evidence-based programs will vary significantly.

A: Applicants should describe strategies and activities that are achievable, evidence-based, and will work toward the outcomes as described on pages 19-20.

Q: Strategy 5 – Activity 5 indicates that “recipients can select one intervention (e.g., focused on the two target populations), but this must be agreed upon across all award recipients.” Can you clarify what you mean by this? Must all award recipients (up to 10) agree on the specific intervention, or must they agree that each will do a single intervention though the nature of the intervention may differ?

A: Under Strategy 5, the intervention(s) for Activity 5.1 will be agreed upon and approved within the first six months of the award. Applicants should describe strategies and activities that are achievable, evidence-based, and contribute to the outcomes as described on pages 19-20.

Q: Strategies 4 and 5, am I correct in reading this to mean that these are projects designed collaboratively by all grantees (similar to the ten-state projects in the previous grant cycle)? If so, what level of detail are you looking to see in the proposal from individual applicants?

A: Under Strategy 4, award recipients will help design the demonstration project. Under Strategy 5, the intervention(s) for Activity 5.1 will be agreed upon and approved within the first six months of the award. Applicants should describe strategies and activities that are achievable, evidence-based, and contribute to the outcomes as described on pages 19-20.

Q: Strategy 5 - Since we need consensus among all recipients and selection is partially contingent on needs assessment data, do applicants need to provide specific evidence-based interventions planned for Strategy 5?

A: Under Strategy 5, the intervention(s) for Activity 5.1 will be agreed upon and approved within the first six months of the award. Applicants should describe strategies and activities that are achievable, evidence-based, and will contribute to the outcomes as described on pages 19-20.

Q: Strategy 5 - Can you please give more explanation of what you mean by PSE?

A: A description of PSEs can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/reaching-people.html (See the “Healthy Communities” link in Strategy 5, Activity 5.2 on page 11).

Q: Strategy 5 - The RFA says that award recipients will select one PSE change for adults with ML and one for adults with IDD and their caregivers. Does this mean that applicants do not have to identify a specific PSE intervention in their proposal?

A: All applicants are asked to propose a specific PSE intervention that is based on needs of their target population. A description of PSEs can be found at https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/reaching-people.html

Q: Regarding the Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan, the following are listed on page 25: “Their infrastructure and capacity to evaluate this project, plans for sustainability, any plans for conducting local (recipient-driven) evaluation and performance measurements.” Are these plans expected of applicants only after they are awarded grant? It is not very clear whether they are required of the applicants or the recipients of the grant.

A: Applicants are required to submit a draft Evaluation and Performance Plan that aligns with the CDC plan that is presented on pages 15-24, as well as a draft data management plan (DMP) indicated on page 24.

Formatting/Page Limit/Font Size Q: Formatting - Will any reviewers be using assistive technology? The suggested formatting (for example, the work plan tables) is not accessible.

A: Applicants are not asked to format their documents in a way that makes them compatible with assistive technology. CDC will provide accommodations as needed.

Q: Acronyms - Are we allowed to use acronyms throughout the Project Narrative document and then provide an acronym reference list as an attachment? There is nothing in the funding opportunity about including an acronym list—should we include one when we submit the grant?

A: Page 37 indicates that applicants should use the federal plain language guidelines and Clear Communication Index, https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/pdf/ClearCommUserGuide.pdf to respond to this funding opportunity. Page 12 of the Index “The general rule is to use acronyms and abbreviations sparingly, and when you do use them, spell them out and explain what they refer to.” An acronym or abbreviation reference list is not requested.

Q: Links - Can links be embedded in the narrative?

A: The funding announcement does not provide guidance on the use of hotlinks. It is at the discretion of the applicant to use hotlinks.

Q: Links - Do you expect the 20-page narrative to include references? Or should we just use hotlinks with author name and date.

A: The funding announcement does not provide guidance on the use of hotlinks. References are not requested. It is at the discretion of the applicant to use hotlinks or cite references using authors’ names and dates.

Q: Font Type - Is there a required font type in addition to size?

A: Applicants of this funding opportunity are not required to use a particular font type, but a minimum 12-point font for the Project Narrative is required (page 36).

Q: Project Narrative - Are applicants able to make the font smaller than 12 point in the workplan or any graphs that we include in the narrative?

A: The entire project narrative should be in 12 point. If there are graphs and tables, they should be referenced in the project narrative and uploaded in Grants.gov as an appendix in a pdf and labeled appropriately.

Q: Workplan / Workplan Template Table - On page 18 of the funding opportunity, the format for the work plan is provided. If one completes 6 of these tables (one for each strategy) and includes the outcomes and activities included in the funding opportunity, it takes a minimum of 8.5 pages of space in a Word document. Does the 12-point font requirement apply to these tables? If tables are included can the font be smaller than 12 point? We noted the 12-point font requirement for the Project Narrative. Is a smaller font allowable for tables and figures? The funding opportunity does not provide guidance about the use of tables when providing responses to some of the questions. In many cases, a table may provide more clarity and allow for a response to be more concise. Are there any restrictions related to the use of tables? Is the work plan part of the 20-page limit or an attachment not included in the page count? My understanding from the funding opportunity is the work plan template (in the guidance) is recommended. Is the recommended template for the workplan to be included in the 20-page limit OR can it be included as an attachment? Should the applicant use the workplan template shown in the funding opportunity or can they use another workplan format? For example, the workplan template in the funding opportunity does not appear to include the activities or any SMART objectives. Should we use the headings then include activities outlined under each strategy in the funding opportunity or write our own SMART objectives?

A: The entire Project Narrative has a 20-page limit. The work plan is one of five parts included in the Project Narrative (see pages 36-37). The entire Project Narrative should be in 12-point font including the font in the workplan template table. The Workplan Template Table on page 28 is optional. The funding opportunity does not request SMART objectives. The table is not a substitute for a narrative. If the table format is used, it should be uploaded in Grants.gov as an appendix in a pdf labeled, Workplan Table, in the appendix.

Q: Table of Contents/Project Abstract - The RFA suggests that applicants submit a detailed table of contents for the entire submission package listing a) all headings in the project narrative and b) every document included in the submission package including the project narrative. If this is correct, the second part is not clear. For instance, regarding project abstract summary, Applicants must enter the summary in the “Project Abstract Summary” text box at Grants.gov, page 36. Although the abstract summary is submitted separately, should the abstract summary be listed in the table of contents? [For the Table of Contents mentioned on page 36, there is no page limit. The table of contents is not included in the project narrative page limit. The applicant must provide, as a separate attachment, the “Table of Contents” for the entire submission package. Provide a detailed table of contents for the entire submission package that includes all the documents in the application and headings in the "Project Narrative" section.] A: The Project Abstract Summary should be listed in the Table of Contents and entered in the text box in Grants.gov.

Human Subjects, IRB, Research/Definitions/Data Sources Q: Non-research - The RFA states that this is NOT a research grant. The requirements include significant data driven outcomes. Please clarify the focus and the classification of non-research.

A: CDC has an established process for determining which projects are considered research vs. public health practice. This project has been determined to fall under the public health practice category. Evaluating program outcomes at the individual level is a common element of projects CDC considers as falling under public health practice. Under this award, recipients will not be permitted to engage in activities that CDC determines to be research. Applicant organizations might vary in how they define research, so recipients will be required to follow their own institutional policies governing research with human subjects. Learn more about how CDC distinguishes between research and non-research at: https://www.cdc.gov/os/integrity/hrpo/index.

Q: Human Subjects/IRB - Wondering why demonstration project objective is solely targeting adults with IDD versus adults with ML. Also, if not research, wondering about requirement to recruit individuals and measure their outcomes at the individual level, which our IRB will likely consider research.

A: The Program prefers that all recipients participating in the linkage demonstration project focus on the same target population. IDD was selected for this project. CDC has an established process for determining which projects are considered research vs. public health practice. This project has been determined to fall under the public health practice category. Evaluating program outcomes at the individual level is a common element of projects CDC considers as falling under public health practice. Under this award, recipients will not be permitted to engage in activities that CDC determines to be research. Applicant organizations might vary in how they define research, so recipients will be required to follow their own institutional policies governing research with human subjects. Learn more about how CDC distinguishes between research and non-research at: https://www.cdc.gov/os/integrity/hrpo/index.

Q: Definition of Healthcare Provider - How does CDC define healthcare professionals?

A: “Healthcare provider” is defined on page 60.

Q: Definition of IDD - Is there a standard question or definition that is being used to identify people with intellectual or other developmental disabilities (e.g. perhaps the BRFSS question used to identify people with cognitive disabilities)? Definition of IDD - Is there a particular way IDD is defined in the data? The funding opportunity recommends DHDS data as one option for looking at the I/DD data – I/DD is not one of the six functional categories in the BRFSS. The closest thing is cognitive, which includes people outside of I/DD.

A: Please refer to the Glossary (pages 59-60) for definitions of DD and ID for the purposes of this funding opportunity.

Q: Is use of Medicaid claims data required?

A: Use of Medicaid claims data is not required. Medicaid data are mentioned as one example of potential data sources that can be used, if available. (See other examples of data sources in Strategy 2, Activity 2.1, page 9).

Travel Q: Will we need to budget for CDC site travel in our budget narrative? Is travel to the CDC/Atlanta required in the first year?

A: For the purposes of the application, it is not necessary to include travel to Atlanta in the budget. Travel and safety guidelines are evolving due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It is not anticipated that physical travel will occur in year 1.

Budget Q: You mentioned that a 5-year budget should be submitted with the application. Is it sufficient to submit a budget worksheet showing the amounts per budget category, for each of the five years? What format and level of detail are required for years 2-5, as part of the application? Do applicants need to provide detailed itemized budgets for all 5 years of funding? How would that be done (through the submission of 5 SF424-A forms)? Or do applicants need to provide a detailed budget for just the 1st year through one SF 424-A and totals for the remaining 4 years under Section E in the SF424-A?

A: Applicants should provide a detailed itemized budget justification for the 1st year in the budget narrative. On the SF-424A, the applicant will indicate the totals for each budget category for year 1 Under section E of the SF 424-A, applicants should indicate the totals for the remaining 4 years.

Q: What is the average cost of the award, per year?

A: The average annual amount is $572,500 (see page 2). This amount includes all direct and indirect costs.

Q: Will recipients be allowed to adjust their budget after getting awarded in case recipients need to modify their proposed activities/plans?

A: Budget revisions can be requested at any time as long as they are within the scope of the funding opportunity.

Q: The funding opportunity indicates that the funding will be the same for all approved recipients to address the strategies, activities, and scope of work outlined in this funding opportunity. What does that mean for developing the budgets? Does that mean that each of the award recipient will receive the same award amount, regardless of what they have proposed or their specific direct costs and indirect cost rates?

A: Award amounts may vary based on the applicant’s requested budget. Applicants may not request more than $585,000 as specified in the funding announcement.

Q: As a currently funded Disability & Health state program, we applied for a no-cost extension. Do we need to submit a “duplication of efforts” (page 35)?

A: Duplication of effort must be documented if the applicant proposes to conduct activities that are currently funded and underway in another funding opportunity.

Q: Are funded projects allowed to provide reimbursements (such as gift cards) to demonstration project participants recruited under Strategy 4?

A: Participant support costs are defined in the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act (FCGA), section 200.75. Participant support costs are allowable with prior approval of the Federal awarding agency. Proposed incentives will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Q: Is there a CDC cap on the facility & administrative (F&A) rate (overhead) for this funding opportunity?

A: Organizations typically negotiate overhead, indirect, or facility & administrative rates with the federal government. A link to help guide non-profit organizations can be found at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASAM/legacy/files/DCD-2-CFR-Guide.pdf Q: Do applicants need to provide detailed itemized budgets for all 5 years of funding?

A: A detailed budget is only required for year 1 on the SF 424-A. Include totals for the remaining four years under Section E of the SF424-A.

Q: Can you confirm that this competition is designated as public service and not as a training competition? Our office of sponsored projects requires confirmation to determine the appropriate indirect cost rate.

A: This funding opportunity is designated as public service, within the program, which is authorized under the Public Health Service Act, Section 317C (42 U.S.C. 247b-4, as amended (see page 4).

Q: If collaborating organizations are to be paid via subawards, our university requires that they submit to us a detailed subaward commitment form signed by an authorized official, and a corresponding budget and budget narrative, prior to proposal submission. Could this signed subaward commitment form be uploaded in place of an MOU for these organizations, given that it contains all of the same detailed information that would traditionally appear in an MOU?

A: Please see page 58, where MOU/MOA is defined. It is at the discretion of the applicant to determine and indicate if a submission of commitment meets the definition of an MOU/MOA.

Document Submission/CVs/Staffing Q: Letters of Support or Commitment - Where should they be uploaded?

A: Letters of Support are not requested. MOUs/MOAs are requested, but not required. If included, they should be uploaded in Grants.gov as an appendix. (see pages 12 to 13, Collaborations, item b).

Q: Letters of support - can they be included in attachments? And if so, can they only be provided to show experience, or can they show commitment to new partnerships?

A: Letters of support are not requested. The Glossary on page 58 provides a definition of an MOU and examples of information it includes.

Q: Regarding collaboration with organizations not funded by CDC, especially statewide or community-based organizations, does the applicant need to submit an MOU if they propose to collaborate with an organization? Clarification for MOU will be helpful.

A: MOUs are requested but not required. Partnerships and collaborations should be described in the Project Narrative. If available, MOUs should be uploaded in Grants.gov in the appendix as a pdf (see pages 12-13 – collaborations, b). The Glossary on page 58 provides a definition of MOU.

Q: CVs/Position Description - Is there any limit on the number of pages for attachments? Do we need to provide a CV/Resume for all staff working on the funded project beyond Program Manager, and PI?

A: There is no page limit for attachments. Resumes/CVs are not required for all staff working on the project. In addition to Program Manager and Principle Investigator, applicants are asked to include a position description (PD) for the linkage coordinators and a resume for the informatics or data management staff. Submission for other staff are at the discretion of the applicant.

Q: CVs/Position Description - Is the required position description for the linkage coordinator part of the 20-page narrative, or is it allowed to be uploaded as part of the Evidence of Experience appendix?

A: The PD for the linkage coordinator should be attached to the budget along with the CVs for key staff (i.e., the PI, PM) and data management staff (see page 45).

Q: Staffing - Is it acceptable to use existing contractors and existing contractual employees as a linkage coordinator?

A: The funding opportunity does not restrict how to staff the project. Applicants should propose a staffing plan in their application.

Q: Staffing - The linkage coordinator position, could this be adapting or expanding someone's existing role at the state? Or is this a new position? Don't quite understand why we would create a position, funded by the grant, that would hinder its being sustained beyond the grant.

A: It is the award recipient’s decision to determine how this position will be filled with a qualified candidate.

Q: Appendices - Does the Data Management Plan, as referenced on page 25 of the RFA, have to be included in the 20-page Project Narrative, or can it be included as an attachment?

A: The evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan (page 24-25) is part of the 20-page Project Narrative (see page 36); The DMP draft should be referenced in the Project Narrative and uploaded in Grants.gov as an appendix.

Q: Appendices - Do appendices count towards the 20-page limit for the narrative? What is acceptable to include in appendices?

A: Appendices are outside of the Project Narrative and do not count toward the 20-page limit for the Project Narrative. Page 54 provides a list of acceptable attachments. Please note under “other optional documents,” that applicants may include documents that provide relevant evidence of experience.