Food for Progress Q & A week of March 31 2022.pdf

Food for Progress FY2022 Notice of Funding Opportunity

Questions and Answers

March 25, 2022 through March 31, 2022

NOTE: Questions are answered in the order received. FFPr recommends using the document

“Find Text” function to find specific items.

1. Q: When will the recording of the March 24, 2022 Public Meeting be published?

A: The recording of the March 24, 2022 Public Meeting will be published as soon as editing and formatting are complete. We hope to publish it in early April.

2. Q: the budget language within “Country Specific Guidance” is different from previous years. Country-Specific Guidance now refers to “Project Award Value” instead of “Budget”.

For example:

NEW: FY22 Country Specific Guidance for Country X says: "Project Award Value: Up to $28 Million:"

As explained during the webinar, this invites applicants to submit a plan for $28M (Activities + Admin + Freight)

OLD: FY20 Country Specific Guidance for Country Y said: "Budget: $23 Million:"

This invited applicants to submit a plan for $23M (Activities + Admin), EXCLUSIVE of freight. Applicants were asked to estimate freight, but it was not connected to this “Budget” amount listed in the Country Specific Guidance.

Given this change, applicants with prior experience may incorrectly allocate 100% of the “Project Award Value” solely to “Activities & Admin” (and anticipate additional freight funds). To avoid confusion, USDA might consider listing this on page 3 of the NOFO under “New in FY22”.

A: The NOFO has been updated to provide additional clarity regarding this question.

3. Q: Would USDA please confirm that the List of Standard Activities on pages 28-29 of the FY2015 Food Aid Proposal Guidance is the latest edition?

A: Please refer to the FY2022 Country Guidance sections for specific details on the components to be included as proposed activities.

4. If so, would USDA please confirm that adherence to standard indicators under the

FY2015 Food Aid Proposal Guidance is still required?

A: No. The current list of Standard Indicators is linked in the NOFO itself on page 23 under the Performance Indicators paragraph, found on the FAS public website at Guidance on Food Aid Program Standard Indicators | USDA Foreign Agricultural Service and provided on the FAIS Homepage under the Monitoring and Evaluation section in a document titled NEW Food Assistance Indicators and Definitions (UPDATED February 2019)

5. Q: Page 20, Section C. Content Guidance, Sub-section iii Organizational Capacity and Staffing states “Applicants must include an appropriate and adequate organizational chart that identifies Key Personnel positions. Should the application be selected for funding, the information on Key Personnel will be added to the Plan of Operation in the agreement. Applicants should refer to their organization’s internal administrative policies for determining Key Personnel, which may include positions such as the Chief of Party, Country Director, or Program Manager.”

The first part of the statement above refers to Key Personnel positions (plural), while the second part seems to imply only the person ultimately responsible for the program (Chief of Party, Country Director, or Program Manager) should be identified. Would USDA please clarify how many key personnel positions applicants are expected to pre-identify at the application stage?

A: Chief of Party, Country Director, or Program Manager are merely illustrative titles for head of the proposed project, this position is identified as Key Personnel for all Applicants by default. Any additional Key Personnel positions the Applicant deems appropriate for the project’s functioning should be identified as such in the organizational chart, the number of which is up to the Applicant.

6. Page 29, Section D, Application and Submission Information, Sub-Section 3.c.iv Budget, Budget Narrative states “include a one-page summary table that lists the total proposed budget amount (monetization proceeds + CCC admin funds + expected interest), cost share (if applicable), and then provides the project budget breakdown in three ways: 1) by activity; 2) by project partner; and 3) by activity and subrecipient.”

Would USDA please confirm that the budget breakdown 2) by project partner should provide a breakdown according to project partner(s) alone, whereas the breakdown by 3) activity and subrecipient should provide a breakdown of activities and names the subrecipient responsible for those activities, if applicable?

A: A sample table was provided in FY2022 FFPr NOFO Amendment 1 .pdf uploaded to Grants.gov on March 28. The breakdown by project partner(s) should clearly show the budget https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/resources/guidance-food-aid-program-standard-indicators https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/resources/guidance-food-aid-program-standard-indicators allocations for each partner proposed, as applicable. All proposed work may be allocated to one, single organization (the applicant) or include one or more subrecipient (partner) organizations. The breakdown by activity and subrecipient should show the budget by activity with allocations to each proposed organization. This may be one, single organization (the Applicant) or include one or more subrecipient (partner) organizations.

7. Q: Page 30, Section D, Application and Submission Information, Sub-Section 4, Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM) states “each subrecipient organization must also have an active SAM registration before the subaward is signed, unless the organization has an exemption approved by FAS under 2 CFR Section 25.110(d).”

Would USDA please confirm that subrecipients are not required to have an active SAM registration? Per 2 CFR 25 Appendix A.I.B.2, “subrecipients are not required to obtain an active SAM registration but must obtain a Unique Entity Identifier.”

A: Confirmed. Under the new rules, subrecipients – regardless of amount – do not have to be SAM registered, but they must have a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), which can only be obtained through the SAM platform.

8. Q: Page 33, Section E. Application Review Information, Sub-Section 1. Application Evaluation Criteria states “To be considered for bonus points, cost share should be equivalent to 1 percent or more of the total operating budget. Cost share will be evaluated in terms of both dollar value and reasonableness (ability to implement).”

Would USDA please clarify if an applicant will be given the 3 bonus points for proposing any amount at 1 or more percent of the budget? or Will the number of bonus points awarded be calculated on a scale and/or compared to what other applicants propose?

A: Applicants’ proposed cost share will be evaluated according to the language in the NOFO and will be awarded any number from 0 to 3 bonus points. By simply proposing cost share that meets the 1 percent budget threshold, the Applicant is not guaranteed any points. The quality of the proposed cost share must be sufficient and meet the review criteria to be granted bonus points.

9. Q: Page 40, Section H, Additional Information, Sub-Section 3, Budget Revisions states “transfers of funds between direct cost categories in the approved budget when such cumulative transfers among those direct cost categories exceed ten percent of the total budget approved in an agreement will require the prior approval of FAS through an amendment.”

Would USDA please confirm that “direct cost categories” are considered to include categories specified in Appendix C, Budget Summary, such as Administration, Activities, Internal Transport, Storage, and Handling (ITSH), and Indirect Costs, and not line-items within those cost categories?

A: Transfer of funds within line items in direct cost categories are allowable. Transfers of funds between direct cost categories (from one to another) in the approved budget when such cumulative transfers among those direct cost categories exceed ten percent of the total budget approved in an agreement will require the prior approval of FAS through an amendment. (See 7 CFR section 41. 1499.12(h)(1)). The recipient shall obtain prior written approval for any budget revision that would result in the need for additional resources or funds. The recipient is not authorized at any time to transfer an amount budgeted for a direct cost to an indirect cost line item or vice versa, without prior written approval.

10. Q: In the event, there are no proposals submitted for a country, would FFPr consider rebidding?

A: The Food for Progress Notice of Funding Opportunity has historically been a competitive opportunity; thus FAS does not anticipate rebidding the FY2022 NOFO.

11. Q: Can an institution submit more than one proposal? Or is an institution limited to one submission?

A: Institutions may submit more than one proposal, identified by the relevant NOFO number.

Applications will be evaluated in accordance with Section E 1 Page 32 of the NOFO. The merits of each application will be reviewed only against other applications received for the same NOFO Number (See Section A 5).

12. Q: As part of the FY22 Food for Progress Program proposal submission, can

Applicants submit additional relevant information as a generic standalone attachment(s)?

A: Only requested materials identified in the NOFO will be reviewed and scored; additional documents submitted will not be reviewed and scored.

13. Q: USDA suggests an award value within each country specific guidance in Appendix

B. Does this figure reflect the project operating budget (projected monetization proceeds + Commodity Credit Corporation cash) or the anticipated value of the award (projected cost of commodity + freight + Commodity Credit Corporation cash)?

A: Please refer to the “Related Documents” tab of the FFPr NOFO and access the file titled “Food for Progress Q & A week of March 7 2022.pdf” where Question 13 answers this query in full.

14. Q: What is the USDA definition of “Regional” when proposing a “regional" monetization? Is ‘regional' defined by physical location? Or should all countries involved belong to a shared, formal trade agreement? Can USDA provide additional guidance/parameters when proposing which country/countries could be considered when proposing a ’third-country’ or regional monetization? For example:

a. Only CARICOM members for Jamaica? Would the Dominican Republic (not a CARICOM member) be acceptable for a proposed Jamaica monetization?

b. Only COMESA members of Burundi and Malawi? Would Mozambique (not a COMESA member) be acceptable for a proposed Burundi and/or Malawi monetization?

c. Could all ANDEAN members be considered for Peru? Would the ‘region’ also include any other South American/Central American/Caribbean countries without jeopardy

A: The first option to consider for monetization is always the target country/region where the Food for Progress activity is scheduled or set to take place. If that proves to be a challenge, then third country or regional possibilities can be looked at. From a regional and trade bloc perspective, it makes sense to consider trade blocs that are established as a particular grouping, such as Caricom, Comesa or Andean Community. That is because of the ability to examine intra-regional trade flows so as not to double count reexports. It also allows the plan to consider issues such as common external tariffs and trade policies. If that does not seem workable, then situations of nearby proximity can be looked at as in the case of Mozambique, which borders Malawi. Mozambique is not part of one of the sub-Saharan regional trade blocs. Ultimately, the plan must consider all relevant factors for monetization – cost recovery, market access/trade barriers, ability to fund the project adequately, and potential for disruption to local production and/or commercial trade.

Specific questions for Malawi Climate Smart Agriculture Activity:

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=338482

1. On Page 66 and 69, Appendix B.4. USDA-FAS-10.606-0700-22-(564) the text mentions several crop value chains.

• Would USDA please clarify if it has pre-selected priority crop value chains? If not, is the activity expected to select priority value chains?

A: The USDA identified value chains are strong examples of value chains to consider.

However, Applicants should be able to support through evidence-based analysis for any proposed value chain within the strategic analysis and the plan of operation activities to achieve the desired outcomes.

2. On Page 69, Appendix B.4. USDA-FAS-10.606-0700-22-(564) states “Market development services should be consistent with national policies and the Agricultural Development Program (ADA).”

• Would USDA please clarify if the Agricultural Development Program mentioned refers to the World Bank Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods and Agricultural Development Project OR Agricultural Development Program Support Project?

A: The ADA refers to World Bank funded Malawi-Agricultural Development Support Programme. Please refer to the “Related Documents” tab of the FFPr NOFO and access the file titled “Food for Progress Q & A week of March 7 2022.pdf” where Question 20 answers this query.

3. On Page 69, Appendix B.4. USDA-FAS-10.606-0700-22-(564) states “This should be based on an assessment of existing financing, credit, and investment options in Malawi.”

• Would USDA please confirm that applicants are expected to include an assessment of existing financing, credit, and investment options in the proposal and in the project design?

A: Yes; Applicants should analyze existing finance, credit, and investment options in Malawi in their proposal and project design.

4. On Page 67 Appendix B.4. USDA-FAS-10.606-0700-22-(564) states “The proposal shall evaluate the following practices (but not limited to), to identify and develop trainings on crop systems diversification such as: milpa, intercropping, and perennial crop systems.”

• Would USDA please confirm that applicants are expected to include an analysis of CSA practices in the proposal and in the project design?

A: Yes; Applicants should analyze CSA practices in the proposal and in the project design.

5. On Page 68 Appendix B.4. USDA-FAS-10.606-0700-22-(564) states “Proposals should include the assessment of ecosystem services in the target areas…”

• Would USDA please confirm that applicants are expected to include an analysis of ecosystem services in the proposal and in the project design?

A: Yes; Applicants should include and demonstrate an analysis of ecosystem services in the proposal, as well as in the project design.

6. Under Component 3, the NOFO states "Proposals should include the assessment of ecosystem services in the target areas, using tools such as Integrated Landscape Planning at farm level to maximize land surface utilization".

• Would USDA clarify if applicants should emphasize tools that farmers can use at the farm level? or

• should applicants emphasize larger-scale land planning that could cover a large number of farms for example in one watershed?

A: Applicants should propose interventions that their strategic analysis identifies as most appropriate to achieve the desired outcome.

Specific questions for Nigeria Cacao Activity:

1. Page 71, Appendix B.5. The Nigeria country-specific information contains embedded hyperlinks in light blue font. However, some of those links do not seem to be working.

• Would USDA please revise all embedded hyperlinks, so they are accessible for applicants?

A: Unfortunately, the hyperlinks in question go to a website that has been deactivated by the website host and outside of USDA control. It is USDA’s hope that the website is reactivated by the host. In the meantime, Applicants should simply search for the content referenced independently.