Food for Progress Q & A week of March 7 2022.pdf

Food for Progress FY2022 Notice of Funding Opportunity

Questions and Answers

Week of March 7, 2022, through March 24 Public Meeting

NOTE: Questions are answered in the order received. FFPr recommends using the document “Find Text” function to find specific items.

1. Q: Why is there a “grace period” mentioned?

A: The grace period is intended to provide Applicants a last opportunity to submit missing documents.

2. Q: What is the page limit for the Budget Narrative? Page 17 of the NOFO says 25 pages while page 29 says 20 pages.

A: The Budget Narrative page limit is 25 pages.

3. Q: In terms of the 70% cost-recovery target will USDA account for significant differences in distance of ocean freight? For example, it will be cheaper to transport to close-by Jamaica compared to distant Thailand

A: Distance is not the sole determination in freight costs. Freight budgets were made based on number of tranches considered and possibility for consolidation with other monetization sales.

The requirement for 70% cost recovery has to be examined regardless of location. Although 70% is a target rather than a legal requirement, it is a barometer for a monetization plan to reach the project’s funding goal. Secondly, issues such as discharge rates and port capacity can also influence freight costs. This too is a key component of the operations plans for the commodity management section.

4. Q: On pages 79 and 80 of the NOFO under the Peru Country Guidance Food for Progress indicates that to protect and preserve Peru’s natural biomes while improving practices to address resiliency that this "...could possibly be accomplished through measures that support spices production with integrated agroforestry systems, farm intensification and diversification, including intercropping practices where appropriate”. Can you please confirm that in addition to looking at other spices the project may look at ALL complimentary crops that can be implemented in an agroforestry system alongside ginger, turmeric, and oregano

A: The proposal may include any market-based complimentary crops that can be implemented in an agroforestry system alongside listed priority spices to promote diversification.

5. Q: I found that the government of an emerging agricultural country is eligible for this program. Therefore, I am wondering is NECTEC eligible for this program? Since it is a government agency of Thailand, but I am not certain that Thailand is counted as one of your emerging agricultural countries or not? Please clarify about this matter because our researchers are now working on research related to climate change and smart agriculture and very interested in applying to this program.

A: Eligible entities under the Food for Progress NOFO Section C.1:

• The government of an emerging agricultural country

• Intergovernmental organizations

• Private voluntary organizations

• Nonprofit agricultural organizations or cooperatives

• Nongovernmental organizations

• Colleges or universities

• Any other private entity

If NECTEC wants to apply as the government of Thailand, they must state and provide evidence that they represent the Government of Thailand.

6. Q: The content guidance for the Plan of Operation and Activities (page 19) includes the following statement: "Create Economies of Scale – Activities should highlight how economies of scale in both input purchases and sales can be achieved for individual smallholder farmers, such as through farmer organizations, to create more broad-based growth. Explain how chosen interventions create efficiencies in the priority sector(s) that benefit smallholders." Please clarify if the reference to input purchases and sales for individual smallholder farmers is intended as an example of what is meant by creating economies of scale, or if all proposals must include an explanation of how each activity will contribute to economies of scale for smallholder farmers' input purchases and sales?

A: This is an example and not a required result. Creating economies of scale should be integrated in the most contextually appropriate way.

7. Q: Annex B.2 includes “Component 4 – Climate Smart Farm Level Value Chains” (page 55), yet the environmental impacts of poor postharvest handling and the waste created from such practices is not included. Would USDA consider including the reduction of postharvest waste as an important part of a comprehensive CSA strategy?

A: Postharvest handling and reducing waste can be considered part of a comprehensive CSA strategy. Applicants may propose any activity that they deem relevant to a CSA strategy so long as such proposed activities are justified and explained in the proposal.

8. Q: Annex B.2, page 54, states “The project is expected to collaborate with the Departments of Plant Heath and Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture to support national initiatives and specific preclearance programs, export certifications, and establish an up-to-date online database for import and export requirements for perishable agricultural and animal products”. Can USDA please confirm that this project is expected to work with animal products.

A: The project is focused on high value horticulture value chains; however SPS capacity building activities may include animal products derived from livestock.

9. Q: The NOFO quite clearly asks to focus on priority crops within Horticulture sector of the three NT countries in the Purpose section at the start and also in the Goals section following the purpose section and maintains this sectoral/crop focus on horticulture in all the following sections consistently, however in the detailed description on project components 2 and 3 animal health, animal products and livestock have also been mentioned. Would USDA clarify the focus of this project to be exclusively on Horticulture or does it also need to include animal health and animal products within SPS components? (references NT country guidance component 2 “SPS Institutional Capacity Building” and Component 3 “SPS Risk Management Systems and Regional Harmonization”)

A: The project is focused on high value horticulture value chains; however, SPS capacity building activities may include animal products derived from livestock.

10. Q: On page 64, NOFO mentions “USDA intends to support Malawi to address climate vulnerability and low crop yields through crop systems diversification.” Can USDA confirm program support if soybean and rice (two crops favored by changes associated with climate change) are selected as suitable candidates for crop diversification? In other words, can the program work with farmers to produce and market soybean and rice, domestically and regionally?

A: The purpose is to promote crop systems diversification from traditional crops to address shrinking markets and prices. USDA is not prescribing or excluding any crop systems, but wants to see innovation and crop systems with high likelihood of being adopted and adapted into local agricultural activities, with particular focus on high-market-value.

11. Q: On page 14, the NOFO eligibility criteria says “Applicants must include a valid Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) in the organizational unit section of Block 8 of the SF-

424. All subrecipients listed in the proposal must have a current UEI number.” Can USDA please clarify if subrecipients must have an active SAM registration and UEI prior to proposal submission?

A: Per page 30 under section 4. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM), “Each subrecipient organization must also have an active SAM registration before the subaward is signed...” Thus, subrecipients are not required to be registered in SAM by the application deadline but must complete SAM registration by the time an award is signed.

12. Q: On page 21, sub-section Content Guidance, it is stated that “Applicants are encouraged to select references with knowledge of the Applicant’s past performance of projects that are similar in scope and size to the programming in the Applicant’s proposal...” When choosing a reference to complete the Past Performance Review, may Applicants use a current USDA staff for projects that were funded by USDA/Food for Progress?

A: Yes.

13. Q: Can USDA clarify whether the total funding amount is inclusive of freight funds, or excludes freight funds? If inclusive of freight funds, can USDA inform applicants about the total amount of freight funds available for FY2022 funding?

A: The Total FY2022 Food for Progress Funding is $214,865,000.-, which includes $37,720,000.- for transportation, $163,000,000 for Commodities and $14,145,000.- for Administrative Fees.

14. Q: In NOFO Section D. Application & Submission Information, b. Required Content & Forms (page 17), USDA lists "Applicant's most recent Single Audit" twice: once under Organizational Capacity & Staffing and once as its own bullet point. Could USDA please clarify if the two references to the Applicant’s most recent Single Audit is an unintended duplication of a single requirement? If so, could USDA please clarify the preferred location within the application package for this item? If not, could USDA please clarify the difference between these two required items?

A: This is an error. The most recent Single Audit should only be provided as a separate document and not included in the Organizational Capacity & Staffing section.

15. Q: We intend to propose a regional sale. Could you please increase the page limit for the commodity management section from four (4) pages to five (5) pages (to accommodate the additional market and logistics data)?

A: Applicants are allowed three additional pages (seven total) for commodity management when proposing a regional monetization on a single country project proposal and FAS will provide an updated guidance in Grants.gov. For the multi-country regional project El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras under the NOFO Number USDA-FAS-10.606-0700-22-(100), Applicants are automatically given three additional pages per section as stated in Part D 3 a Application Format Page 16 of the NOFO. If proposing a regional monetization for this multi-country project, the page limit for commodity management regional project remains seven.

16. Q: I'd like to know the requirements being outside of the prioritized country and what the approval rate would be?

A: All proposals will be reviewed according to the process and criteria laid out in section E.

Application Review Information.

17. Q: Can the USDA please request that prime applicants do not obligate local, in-country partners to exclusive partnership via exclusive teaming agreements or letters of commitment? Local partners should have the opportunity to join as many consortiums as they would like given the critical role they play in the programs’ success.

A: Letters of Commitment submitted with the Application should not include language on exclusivity. Local partners are key to sustainable results and should be flexible to work with all Applicants.

18. Q: Page 17, “b. Required Content and Forms” and page 42 “Checklist” sections of the NOFO mentions a single audit submission; however, on page 20-21, “iii. Organizational Capacity and Staffing” of the NOFO, it does not mention the single audit for submission. Could you please clarify if a single audit should be submitted at the application stage?

A: a. The audit should be submitted with the application but not as part of the Organizational Capacity and Staffing section. It should be a separate document.

19. Q: Page 17, “b. Required Content and Forms” and page 42 “Checklist” sections of the NOFO requires the SF-LLL form to be submitted; however, on page 29, “vi. Budget” of the NOFO, does not mention the SF-LLL. Could you please confirm that SF-LLL does not need to be submitted unless Applicant is involved in lobbying activities?

A: Correct, the SF-LLL is only required if the Applicant is involved in lobbying activities.

20. Q: Under Appendix B.4, pg 69 states “Market development services should be consistent with national policies in the Agricultural Development Program (ADA).”

Can FAS clarify if the ADA mentioned refers to the 2008 world bank funded ADP-SP or the “Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme?”

A: The ADA refers to World Bank funded Malawi-Agricultural Development Support Programme.

21. Q: Are past monetization assessment reports available? Where can they be accessed?

Can you provide them? Significant USDA funds have been expended to procure these studies and their service, and any potential suggested process improvements, can be incorporated if they are made available

A: FAS is in the process of making the monetization studies available to the public and will provide an update via Grants.gov and FAIS with the final instructions.

22. Q: In previous multi-country/regional projects USDA has called for a regional, rather than a country-specific approach. Does USDA maintain the previous position that multi-country projects be centrally managed from one office covering the whole region?

A: Yes, USDA maintain the position that multi-country projects be centrally managed, while considering cost effective strategies such as sharing office space with local partners and entities.

23. Q: NOFO page 29 includes the following new guidance for the budget narrative:

“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. Each table should show the direct and indirect cost for each line item.” Neither the example budget narrative in the NOFO nor the general budget narrative guidance document on FAIS contain summary tables that match this description. Can USDA provide an example of the format of these tables to ensure bidders provide consistently presented summaries?

A: An example and template will be added to the NOFO on Grants.gov and the budget narrative guidance on FAIS will be replaced to reflect the 2022 NOFOs for each program.

24. Q: On page 23, sub-section "Performance Indicators", recommended columns include Performance Indicator, Standard or Custom, Baseline Value, Year X Target, but leaves out Disaggregation. Can USDA clarify if Disaggregation column is required?

A: No, applicants are not required to identify indicator disaggregates in the proposal's performance indicator table.

25. Q: 1. Is Nigeria among the priority/targeted countries for FY 22 FFPr Grant? 2. If yes, in what value chain? 3. More also, is the Grant proposal open for joint-application from a consortium of potential implementing organizations? Thanks.

A: Yes, Nigeria is on the list of priority countries please see in the FY2022 Food For Progress NOFO Appendix B.5 on page 71 and follow the Eligibility Criteria, Application and Submission Information on page 4 of the NOFO.

26. Q: Proposals should include an analysis demonstrating that the import of the commodities doesn't 'affect the local economy'. This seems very important and potentially hard to prove. How deep does this analysis need to go?

A: For Food for Progress, please review the presentation slides presented today, with the specificity on slide 26 and 27, and the requirements as stated under Section v. Commodity Management on page 26 of the FY2021 Food for Progress NOFO.

27. Q: Could you share an actual list of proposed countries, the map was hard to see, thanks!

A: The slides will be provided after the Town Hall meeting and the actual list of proposed countries will be included in Slide 22 for Food for Progress and can also be found in the FY2022 Food for Progress NOFO on grants.gov.

28. Q: Can you clarify if the target funding mentioned for each country excludes freight?

A: The allocated funding under the FY2022 Food for Progress NOFO of $178 million includes Freight funding.

29. Q: Has the two-step process of Concept Paper first been ruled out permanently? This would have been a good year for that it seems given (a) the NOFO was issued early and

(b) the ongoing pandemic makes gathering data for full proposals more challenging

A: We will continue to explore ways to improve the Food for Progress Notice of Funding Opportunity and as part of that will release a NOFO survey after the close date of this year’s NOFO (May 6) to gather input from all stakeholders, so please stay tuned and provide your feedback, as we do appreciate all of your input.

30. Q: What impact does support (or lack of) from U.S. commodity trade groups have on proposal review? Is a successful award contingent on their support?

A: This falls under the area of the potential for monetization to disrupt U.S. commercial trade.

The plan needs to examine whether it would impact in a deleterious way. Of course, U.S.

commodity trade groups are important stakeholders, but any objections will be addressed on a case-by-case basis in consultation with FAS Posts covering the region/country where the monetization will take place. This is also why each operation plan should consider more than one option, in case an objection arises.

31. Q: In case of any partnership with sub recipient, this one must be notified in the proposal, or it should be recruited after as part of the implementation process?

A: Under the Food for Progress NOFO: Applicants must also identify any subrecipients and provide a description of each subrecipient’s responsibilities and capabilities. (see page 20 of the Food for Progress NOFO). (Subrecipient means an entity that enters into a sub-agreement with the Applicant for the purpose of implementing activities described in an agreement. Such an entity would receive commodities, CCC provided funds, program income, sale proceeds, or other resources from the Applicant to use for this purpose and would be accountable to the Applicant for the use of such commodities, funds, program income, sale proceeds, or resources. The UEI number for each subrecipient must be included in the description. Applicants are encouraged to include U.S. minority and women owned small businesses.)

32. Q: On the Food for Progress NOFO please confirm that the regional program proposals are granted an additional three pages per section (page 16), including the Organizational Capacity and Staffing, Commodity Management, Budget, and Monitoring and Evaluation sections.

A: Yes, all sections are allowed an additional three pages for the multi-country regional project El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras under the NOFO Number USDA-FAS-10.606-0700-22- (100).

33. Q: (Combined) Can you please confirm that PPRs for FFPr can be completed by current IFAD staff, but for McGovern-Dole they cannot be completed by current staff?

A: Correct for McGovern-Dole: Applicants may not request references from current McGovern- Dole branch staff. Past McGovern-Dole branch staff may be contacted to provide a past performance report. Correct for FFPr: Applicants may request references from current IFAD staff and those staff may complete PPR forms.

34. Q: Will IFAD ever return to its former practice of providing indicative FFP countries and sectors for two years into the future?

A: To our knowledge IFAD has not provided FFPr countries and sectors for two years into the future. However, we will post approved priority sectors and countries as soon as these have been confirmed and approved.

35. Q: Does the Project Award Budget up to amount for each country include the CCC+ and monetization costs?

A: Correct, the Project Award Budget should include the Transportation, Commodities and Administration Costs for a full Budget. Please follow the instructions in the sections Appendix C- Budget Summary (page 88) and Appendix D-Budget Narrative (page 89).

36. Q: On page 27, sub-section Content Guidance is missing a description of and instructions for the “Market Structure for Commodity (end use, competitors, and seasonality)” portion of Commodity Management. Can USDA please share this description and/or instructions?

A: Applicants need to explain how the market where the proposed monetization will take place functions with respect to the proposed commodity or commodities. This requires an analysis of their end use (milling/refining/feed stuffs/human consumption), the competitors in the marketplace (foreign and domestic) on the sell side, and the structure of market on the buy side (monopsony/oligopsony/diversified competition) and how this structure may impact pricing of sale, and then are there seasonal trends that will impact all of the aforementioned factors, including shipping and storage (rainy seasons can pose challenges for soybean meal storage in certain parts of the world.) It is not enough to base the proposed commodity for monetization on a simple analysis of production, supply, and distribution (PSD) estimates/forecast/or history.

Growth trends in a market need be contextualized against the realities of the marketplace and explained accordingly. Rigid markets with few buyers can make it difficult to get good cost recovery and ultimately competitive offers, which in turn can impact program budgets.

Alternatively, trade policies by competitors that may restrict their ability to compete in a market where monetization is planned could provide an improved sales opportunity for a specific commodity. For example, Argentina recently restricted the number of registrations for soybean product exports (their high tariffs on soybean oil and soybean meal) will likely reduce their shipments to markets where they compete against U.S. supplies.

37. Q: What does USDA mean by “in-country registration” on page 21 of the NOFO? In many countries, including Nigeria, foreign NGO are not registered in Nigeria but rather legally operate in the country through a three year “Cooperation Agreement” that is executed with the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN). Depending on the performance of the foreign NGO the Cooperation Agreement can be renewed every three years. The legal registration for an American NGO would be in the U.S.A., specifically with the Internal Revenue Service

A: Different countries have differing legal and registration requirements for an entity to operate there. It is up to each Applicant for each proposal to explain their status to fully operate in the respective country for the proposed project to function.