FY2025 NOFO Q&A May 28- June 3.docx

FY 2025 Food for Peace Notice of Funding Opportunity Questions and Answers June 1- June 3, 2026

1. Q: How can we make functional/use button function to access the online application platform?

A: Please see Section 5. Submission Requirements and Deadlines in the NOFO. Concept Papers should be submitted via email, not via grants.gov. The concept paper should be submitted to foodforpeace@usda.gov by the deadline.

2. Q: 22 CFR 216 requires the conduct of an Initial environmental Examination (IEE), which will include a Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan or PERSUAP for fumigation of stored commodities as well as annual Environmental Status Report (ESR) and Environment Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (EMMP). Will USDA require awardees to implement these environmental requirements as part of our Food for Peace proposals?

A: No, USDA will not require awardees to implement these environmental requirements at this time. These were requirements in the USAID regulations. Please refer to Section 4.2.4 (c) Transportation and Storage for information on what information is required as to the safe storage of commodities. Applicants should “… demonstrate ability to handle the requested commodities without undue spoilage or waste, and address warehouse security, safety, storage, and commodity handling practices, as well as fire prevention and protection.”

3. Q: Would USDA please confirm that applicants are permitted to submit a streamlined MS word budget narrative that explains the composition of the line items in accordance with the instructions provided in Section 4.2.g.3 (p. 21), but without having to recreate all tabled with cost per item, other numerical data etc.?

A: Please refer to the NOFO guidance in Section 4.5. ii Budget Narrative for guidance on the level of detail Applicants must provide in the Budget Narrative: “For every line-item request reflected in the Detailed Budget, only the total of that request needs to be included in the Budget Narrative; rates, calculations, and cost escalations should be presented in the Detailed Budget. Applicants should refer to Appendix B, Budget Narrative, and provide a similar cost categorization structure and level of detail in their application’s Budget Narrative.” Please note, the Budget Summary, Narrative, and Detailed Budget are requirements in the Full Application package. Only the Budget Overview (1 page) is required in first (Concept Paper) phase of the application process. Please see Section 4. Application Contents and Format.

4. Q: For purposes of the 50% commodity and freight requirement, would USDA please confirm if this threshold should be calculated strictly as a share of total Federal funding excluding cost share, or the total estimated cost (direct cost + indirect cost+ cost share)?

A: Please see the table in the NOFO Section 4.1.3. Budget Overview: The budget must propose at a minimum 50% of the requested funds allocated for U.S. commodity and freight funds, excluding cost share.

5. Q: Can subrecipients participate in multiple consortia in one given country?

A: A subrecipient may be proposed by multiple Applicants provided they are eligible, i.e. have an active UEI (Unique Entity Identification) and SAM.gov registration.

6. Q: How many PPRs are required per application?

A: At least one Past Performance Review or Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) is required for each application. Please see detailed guidance in Section 4.1 Technical Application Format in the NOFO: “Applicants must identify points of contact for at least one, and no more than two, grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts implemented by the organization within the previous three years. For projects without a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) on CPARS.gov, each point of contact must complete a Past Performance Review form (see Appendix D) and submit it to foodforpeace@usda.gov by the closing date of this announcement.

7. Q: Does the one-to-two-page limit apply to Part 1 only, or to the PPR in its entirety?

A: Please see Section 4.1 Technical Application Format in the NOFO. “A Concept Paper submission package must include the following to be considered complete: 6) Past Performance (1-2 pages).” Please ensure each past performance review is no more than 2 pages, including all sections, Part I through Part III.

8. Q: In Ethiopia, are beneficiaries of the Food for Peace Resilience Food Security Activities (specifically the Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Program clients) eligible to receive food assistance under this proposed project?

A: This is not explicitly prohibited in the NOFO. USDA expects Applicants to propose a project design in their concept paper which addresses famine, food crises, and acute food insecurity in which at least one of the three criteria in Section 3 Program Description are met.

9. Q: We understand that, under the ongoing JEOP food assistance program in Ethiopia, sorghum was introduced to replace wheat following the U.S. Government’s decision after the food diversion incidents in Ethiopia in 2023. Could you please clarify whether the provision of sorghum instead of wheat remains a mandatory requirement, or whether wheat can now be considered under proposed program arrangements in Ethiopia?

A: Any commodity from the eligible list in Appendix C: Eligible Commodities may be proposed for any country under this NOFO. USDA expects Applicants to propose a commodity basket which is culturally appropriate, nutritious, and does not pose a disruption to the local market.

10. Q: Could USDA please confirm that applicants (not USDA) should request that reference organizations complete Parts II and III of the form and email ppded@usda.gov?

A: USDA expects reference organizations (not USDA nor the Applicant) to submit the past performance reviews to ppded@usda.gov or foodforpeace@usda.gov.

11. Q: Could USDA please provide the deadline for reference organizations to send completed past performance forms to USDA?

A: The deadline is June 12, 2026 at 5:00:00 PM EST

12. Q: As it is required to procure 100% of commodities in the US, is it mandatory to partner or to demonstrate ties with a US based organization at the concept submission stage?

A: No, it is not mandatory to demonstrate ties with a U.S. based organization. Commodities will be procured through subsequent openly competitive processes post-award.

13. Q: We know of about eight provinces in the DRC affected by the acute food insecurity or nutrition crisis, and the severity of current and projected household-level food insecurity. Should the application include all provinces or some?

A: USDA expects applicants to justify a focused geographic scope based on severity, unmet needs, feasibility, and operational capacity.

14. Q: Can USDA clarify its envisioned award structure and proposal positioning within and across countries—specifically, whether multiple complementary awards within a country are anticipated, how complementary versus comprehensive proposals will be evaluated, and whether multi-country or consortium approaches are encouraged?

A: USDA anticipates independent, country‑specific awards.

15. Q: Are NGOs and suppliers able to submit joint, end-to-end proposals under this NOFO (e.g., combining program implementation with commodity or supply chain expertise)?

A: No, per section 2.1 of the NOFO and 7 U.S.C. § 1722, commodity suppliers are not eligible applicants.

16. Q: Can USDA confirm the division of responsibilities for commodity procurement versus ocean freight contracting, including whether these are centrally managed by USDA or require partner contracting?

A: Both commodity and freight contracts will be centrally managed by USDA. Commodity contracts will be held between USDA and the supplier. Freight contracts will be held between the recipient organization and the supplier.

17. Q: While the NOFO outlines expectations for internal transportation, storage, and handling (ITSH), could USDA clarify the specific points of responsibility transfer (e.g., foreign port, inland warehouse) and any standard assumptions applicants should use when designing commodity pipelines and estimating costs?

A: USDA’s practice under Title II is that responsibility (title) transfers to the implementing organization at the U.S. port, meaning USDA manages commodity procurement delivery to the U.S. port, and the implementing organization assumes responsibility after departure from the U.S. port. Our primary ports include Houston and Norfolk but are not limited to those locations for emergency operations.

18. Q: To what extent are prime applicants expected to directly manage the commodity pipeline versus leveraging partners or third-party logistics providers, and how will USDA/FAS assess applicants’ capacity and readiness in this area—particularly regarding (i) existing in-country warehousing and logistics systems at the concept note stage, and (ii) prior experience managing different types of commodities (e.g., bulk versus specialized nutrition products)?

A: Within a Concept Paper, each Applicant must show the capability to move commodities within the country. No two countries are the same when it comes to storage or commodity logistics.

19. Q: At the concept note stage, how detailed should applicants be regarding partnerships and the division of responsibilities across implementing partners?

A: At the Concept Paper stage, USDA expects clear identification of proposed subrecipients and a high‑level description of their roles.

20. Q: In insecure or access-constrained contexts, how does USDA view flexible or decentralized distribution models?

A: Please refer to Section 6 Application Review Information for information on how USDA will evaluate concept papers and full applications.

21. Q: Is monetization permitted or expected under this funding opportunity? If not, are there alternative mechanisms for supporting local market engagement or cost recovery?

A: While the principle objective of the Food for Peace program and this NOFO is to provide immediate emergency directly-distributed food assistance using U.S. agricultural commodities, Applicants are encouraged to explore the full authority governing the use of U.S.‑provided commodities as outlined in Chapter 41, Section 1722 (c) in order to propose an effective and efficient program design.

22. Q: Can USDA/FAS clarify whether standardized reference tools or datasets are available to estimate commodity and ocean freight costs (e.g., cost per MT) at the concept note stage? If not, should applicants rely on market-rates or third-party logistics providers, and what level of detail is expected?

A: USDA/FAS does not provide a standardized reference tool or dataset for estimating commodity or ocean freight costs. Applicants are encouraged to utilize to review the AMS International Commodity Procurement Information page, which provides detailed reports and historical pricing information. You can find it here: https://www.ams.usda.gov/reports/international-commodity-procurement-information.

This resource can help you build more accurate and well supported commodity price estimates for your proposal.

23. Q: The NOFO requires compliance with U.S.-flag vessel requirements for ocean freight. Given the potential premium over commercial freight costs, does USDA have guidance on a standard premium factor or methodology for estimating this cost differential in target countries?

A: USDA does not provide a standard premium factor or formula for estimating the U.S.-flag vessel cost differential.

24. Q: For estimating U.S. Commodity Costs in the Concept Note budget summary, what pricing sources does USDA/FAS recommend, including whether there is a preferred reference such as AMS International Commodity Procurement Division contract data, USDA market reports, or another source?

A: USDA does not require a specific pricing source. However, estimates should be clearly explained and use reliable and well-established data sources.

25. Q: Is USDA interested in proposals that include a research trial aimed at measuring the cost-effectiveness of different emergency nutrition support?

A: The NOFO does not explicitly solicit research trials.

26. Q: Regarding Section 4.b (Commodity Management and Logistics Plan, Page 17), the NOFO requires applicants to provide information on "any reprocessing or repackaging of the requested commodities that would take place prior to the distribution." Additionally, Section 4.1 (Technical Approach, Page 9) allows applicants to propose "specialized nutritious products. "To ensure budget compliance, can USDA confirm that it is permissible for an applicant to select an eligible baseline commodity from Appendix C (such as "Lentils" or “Rice”) and utilize a Subrecipient/Subaward to have a U.S.-based facility reprocess and repackage that raw commodity into a specialized nutritious product prior to export?

A: Applicants are expected to propose commodities from Appendix C as described. These commodities have already been vetted and have approved commodity specifications for food safety, quality, and nutritional content. Additional commodities do not have the required prior approval for programming. A reprocessed commodity would qualify as a new commodity and be required to go through USDA’s vetting process.

27. Q: We are seeking clarification on how to properly structure the Budget Overview for the Concept Paper (Page 10-11) when incorporating a reprocessing and repackaging Subrecipient/Subaward.

A: This modality for reprocessing or repackaging is not allowed. The NOFO outlines budget overview instructions in section 4.1 Technical Application Format.

28. Q: Can FAS please clarify whether applicants are expected to include third-party monitoring or other independent verification mechanisms as part of their proposed accountability approach, particularly in high-risk or restricted-access operating environments? Or is the use of third-party monitoring left to the applicant’s discretion based on its proposed M&E, risk management, and accountability framework?

A: Implementer-managed third‑party monitoring (TPM) is not required but is allowed, and USDA expects Applicants to propose robust, credible, and risk‑appropriate accountability mechanisms.

29. Q: If coordination with UNICEF is permitted, should we document this in our initial application (e.g., MOUs, letters of support)?

A: Coordination with UNICEF is permissible, however it is not required to include MOUs or letters of support in the Concept Paper.

30. Q: For cost share/matching funds (Section 2.7), must we provide third-party verification (e.g., audited statements) of in-kind contributions, or is a narrative description sufficient?

A: A narrative description is sufficient at the Concept Paper stage. Please refer to Section 4.1 Technical Application Format.

31. Q: Will non-mandatory appendices (e.g., a page of acronyms, glossary, or additional maps) be counted against the page limits for the Concept Paper (10–13 pages). Acronyms Page: If we include a 1-page list of acronyms at the beginning of the Concept Paper or Full Application, will this page be exempt from the page limit (as it is not substantive content)? To clarify: Does the map count toward the 10–13-page limit, or is it considered a separate required attachment?

A: Excess pages exceeding the limits will not be considered for review, that includes non-mandatory appendices. Please refer to Section 4.1 for page limits. The map of the proposed target areas is a separate required attachment with a one-page page limit.

32. Q: The NOFO states that extensions are permitted, subject to approval (Section 9.1). Given the complexity of the application (e.g., commodity tables, logistics plans, M&E frameworks): Would USDA consider a short extension (e.g., 48–72 hours) for the Concept Paper deadline (June 12, 2026) if applicants demonstrate a need for additional time to maximize value for money (e.g., refining cost-effectiveness or coordination plans)?

A: No, the June 12, 2026, 5:00:00 PM EST, deadline is firm. Section 9.1 of the NOFO refers to extensions of an award’s period of performance, not the NOFO application deadline.

33. Q: The NOFO states: “Applicants should assume… up to 90 days for containerized commodities to arrive at U.S. port… and up to 45 days for bulk commodities to be available at U.S. port for export.” Question: Will USDA issue call-forwards, or must the awardee initiate call-forwards? What is the expected sequencing between award signature, call-forward authorization, and shipment scheduling?

A: Awardees will initiate call forwards based on the schedule outlined in their agreement. Awardees may begin the call forward procurement process as soon as an award is signed and funds are obligated. Shipment scheduling will occur during the procurement process.

34. Q: The NOFO states: “Applicants must provide at least one letter of commitment per Subrecipient.” Question: Are letters of commitment required at the Concept Paper stage, or only for the Full Application?

A: Letters of commitment are not required at the Concept Paper stage; they are required during the Full Application stage. They are only required if an applicant is invited to submit a Full Application.

35. Q: Scoring of annexes and attachments The NOFO states that USDA “will not consider any additional, non-required materials.” Does this extend to letters of support, log frames or organizational charts?

A: Yes, the NOFO’s instruction that USDA “will not consider any additional, non‑required materials” does apply to letters of support, log frames, organizational charts, and any other unrequested attachments. These items will not be reviewed or scored, so Applicants should not include them.

36. Q: The NOFO does not appear to explicitly address whether WASH, livelihood, nutritional education of caretakers, or other sectors. Would USDA please advise about what it prefers, expects or requires about the applicants’ existing and more multi-sector, integrated activities?

A: USDA does not require or prioritize WASH, livelihoods, or other multi‑sector activities in this NOFO – the NOFO allows complementary activities only when they directly support food and nutrition security. Applicants must keep programming firmly within emergency food and nutrition objectives, ensuring any integrated elements are clearly tied to those outcomes.

37. Q: Would USDA please address the scope of emergencies that it envisions programming be about, including natural disasters, short-onset hazards, and civil conflict?

A: The NOFO defines the scope of emergencies that qualify for Food for Peace Title II assistance. Please refer to Section 3 Program Description.

38. Q: To what extent does USDA seek or welcome language in the first phase submissions of applicants about program adaption, ability to shift resources and targeting during the two-year period of implementation, as local needs shift?

A: USDA expects applicants to address adaptation and risk‑responsive adjustments in the Concept Paper, but the NOFO does not invite open‑ended flexibility.

39. Q: Does USDA invite, welcome, or allow targeting of U.S. commodities under this NOFO for the treatment of at-risk vulnerable peoples currently suffering from TB and/or HIV/AIDS with foods such as RUTF?

A: The program addresses individuals in emergency situations where nutrition support is required.

40. Q: The NOFO discusses application of foods to refugee camps. Will this be a component that the refugee office of the Department of State would score or be involved in?

A: While USDA does coordinate with the Department of State for overall Food for Peace coordination, USDA will be the sole decision maker in making awards under this NOFO.

41. Q: If UNICEF and Ministries discourage or block import of food supplies outside their supervision or control, would the USG help to resolve roadblocks?

A: Applicants should plan for coordination challenges and demonstrate credible mitigation strategies.

42. Q: If applicants are responsible, should we include freight costs in our budget (as part of the 50% minimum allocation for commodities + freight), or are these costs covered separately by USDA? At this first stage how precise should transport costs be?

A: Freight Costs are required in an Applicant’s budget, per the mandate to propose a Concept Note which allocates, at a minimum, 50 percent to U.S. commodity and freight, plus the dedicated line for freight in the budget overview. Applicants are encouraged to work with freight forwarders to develop their proposed transportation costs.

43. Q: Are applicants expected or prohibited from partnering with UNICEF for: Import/clearance of commodities (e.g., duty-free entry, customs coordination), Distribution of specialty nutrition products (e.g., RUTF, fortified blended foods), or overall country-level coordination of food assistance?

A: USDA does not prescribe subrecipient partners, rather it expects Applicants to propose subrecipient partners that are qualified to conduct the work being proposed in the project design and to work in the proposed locations.

44. Q: Will the payment be structured on a results-based basis?

A: According to Section 3.2 – Type of Assistance Instrument of the FY25 Food USDA/FAS will issue grant agreements, noting that “the recipient is expected to implement the project autonomously,” which confirms that the award is not structured as a results‑based payment mechanism.

45. Q: Are awardees expected to pre-finance activities, or will funds be transferred at the outset of the project?

A: Awardees may seek cash advances or reimbursements as outlined in 2 CFR 200.305.

46. Q: In current USDA program periods, there is a 90-day closeout period which must be contemplated within the active period of implementation (i.e. in this case, within the 18-24 months of the proposed project). However, in previous Food for Peace programming, when housed under the former USAID, food distribution activities could happen throughout the end of active implementation range, with a closeout period to follow that included a final program evaluation (as applicable). Could you please clarify if closeout will occur within or following the 18–24-month period, and the duration of the closeout period?

A: All activities of a Food for Peace award must occur during the period of performance, which is stated as “18 to 24 months,” in Section 1.9 – Estimated Period of Performance. Regulations regarding allowable closeout costs and the dates during which those can be incurred are found in 2 CFR 200.472 (b) and will apply to awards made to applicable implementing organizations.

47. Q: In previous years, when it came to Therapeutic Foods—specifically RUTF and RUSF—USAID was responsible for holding the contracts with suppliers. Our team would simply submit requests for these commodities to USAID, and then the suppliers themselves would take charge of arranging and managing all aspects of the marine transportation. Could you clarify what the USDA’s process will be for ordering and arranging marine transportation for these products?

A: Please see response to question 16 above regarding division of responsibility for commodity and freight contracting, which is also applicable to RUF commodities.

48. Q: Given the externally influenced and evolving nature of the assumptions used by implementing partners to estimate commodity and freight costs for the Food for Peace NOFO, does USDA anticipate allowing adjustments once actual costs are realized? Specifically, would Awardees have the flexibility to reprogram amounts budgeted for commodity and freight to other budget categories and vice-versa, including adjusting call-forward quantities to reflect these cost variances?

A: The FY25 Food for Peace NOFO does not explicitly plan for adjusting budgets once actual commodity or freight costs are realized. To accommodate that estimates are based on external market conditions, USDA evaluates them for “reasonableness, allowability, and allocability,” but the NOFO does not commit to post‑award cost adjustments. Any changes to costs during implementation would therefore be managed through USDA’s standard grant oversight processes rather than through a formal adjustment mechanism described in the NOFO.

49. Q: Under Type of Assistance Instrument, the NOFO states that: USDA/FAS anticipates that Grant Agreements will be funded pursuant to this funding opportunity. In this type of agreement, the recipient is expected to implement the project autonomously with little programmatic involvement from USDA/FAS. However, USDA/FAS maintains an oversight role, and the recipient must ensure that USDA/FAS is kept apprised of challenges, obstacles, and progress under the project. Is the assistant instrument aligned with requiring applicants to designate key personnel? If the applicant is successful how would USDA manage changes in key personnel during implementation of the grant?

A: Yes. Section 3.2 (Type of Assistance Instrument) makes clear that USDA/FAS maintains an oversight role even under a grant, which aligns with requiring applicants to designate key personnel so that USDA remains informed of who is responsible for project leadership and compliance. USDA would remain appraised of changes at the project management level during implementation.

50. Q: For RUTF and RUSF specifically, does the requirement that commodities be “U.S. grown and produced” apply to: The origin of the agricultural raw materials; The location of final manufacturing and processing; or Both the agricultural raw materials and the location of final manufacturing and processing? More specifically, would RUTF or RUSF manufactured in a target country using 100% U.S. origin agricultural commodities satisfy the requirements of this NOFO?

A: The NOFO requires that specialized nutritious products be both made from 100% U.S.–origin agricultural commodities and produced in the United States, as reflected in the requirement in Section 1.1 Executive Summary which states “all food provided under this program should be U.S.-grown and produced”. Accordingly, RUTF or RUSF manufactured in a target country, even if made entirely from U.S.-origin ingredients, would not meet the NOFO’s requirement because the final manufacturing must also occur in the United States.

51. Q: Technical Approach, Activities, Oversight (p. 11): The NOFO states, “Internal Transportation, Storage and Handling (ITSH): ITSH is used to cover costs directly associated with moving Title II food commodities from designated ports or points of entry abroad to storage and distribution sites in the target country, storing food aid commodities, and distributing food aid commodities.” It is our understanding that ITSH only involves moving, storing and handling food only WITHIN the recipient country and ocean freight or INLAND TRANSPORTATION deals with moving food from the ports to the selected country. Could USDA clarify how it will pay for movement of food from ports for countries that are landlocked?

A: The NOFO defines ITSH as costs incurred within the recipient country, stating it covers movement “from designated ports or points of entry abroad to storage and distribution sites in the target country”. For landlocked countries, the movement of commodities from the coastal port to the destination country’s border would therefore fall under inland transportation, not ITSH. The Applicant should account for inland freight costs in the freight budget and must differentiate between ocean and inland freight costs.

52. Q: Can USDA provide any additional information on the basis for selecting the initial seven countries under the FY25 NOFO, what criteria will guide country eligibility for FY26 and FY27, and whether future funding cycles may expand beyond the initial seven countries—including the potential timeline and process for adding additional high‑need countries?

A: USDA has not published additional criteria beyond what appears in the FY25 NOFO, which limits eligibility to seven countries experiencing acute food insecurity defined by meeting at least one of the three criteria outlined in Section 3.1 Program Description. USDA’s future programmatic plans are beyond the scope of this present Notice of Funding Opportunity.

53. Q: Should applicants submit one proposal per country or are multi-country/regional proposals acceptable? Under what circumstances would a regional approach be preferred?

A: Please refer to question 37 published in the May 21-27 Question and Answers document. No, single countries only. Per Section 1.1 Executive Summary of the Notice of Funding Opportunity, USDA/FAS will only accept concept papers for programs in the following countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, and Rwanda. A regional approach is not permitted.

54. Q: How does USDA intend to handle nutrition-specific commodities (RUTF/RUSF/LNS) that are currently grouped with bulk food commodities? Will separate nutrition-focused awards be possible?

A: USDA does not indicate in the FY25 NOFO that nutrition‑specific commodities (RUTF, RUSF, LNS) will be handled through separate awards. USDA encourages applicants to propose a project design that meets the identified needs of the targeted population. The applicant is able to select any of the commodities listed in the NOFO, which can include specialized nutritious foods or bulk commodities or a combination. The selected commodities should be appropriate to meet the beneficiaries’ needs, as laid out in the narrative sections of the proposal.

55. Q: Are consortium or sub-recipient arrangements acceptable, and is there guidance on how lead applicant responsibilities should be structured?

A: Consortium and sub‑recipient arrangements are supported by the NOFO, and the relevant guidance appears in Section 4.1 – Technical Approach, Activities, and Oversight.

56. Q: Will this award subject to PHFFA restrictions?

A: The FY25 NOFO does not state that awards under this solicitation are subject to PHFFA (the Protecting Humanitarian Food Assistance Act) restrictions.

57. Q: How should applicants interpret the NOFO's requirement to reduce aid dependence when Title II remains commodities-driven and may require importing U.S. manufactured nutrition commodities into countries with local production capacity?

A: USDA’s requirement to “reduce long‑term dependency on foreign aid” must be interpreted within the constraints of Title II’s statutory mandate.

58. Q: The NoFO requires that all USDA-funded commodities be 100% US origin. Where applicants intend to use complementary donor funding to source locally produced commodities alongside US-imported products, is this permissible? If so, should locally procured commodities funded by other donors be captured as cost share, as a separate activity budget line, or another way?

A: Per section 1.1 of the NOFO, all food procured under this program should be U.S.-grown and produced. While U.S. commodities remain the primary focus, USDA would consider locally procured commodities as a cost share provided they are proposed as complementary to U.S. commodities. Cost share must meet the requirements in Section 6.2 Application Review Information. .

59. Q: How will USDA/FAS handle situations that don't meet the formal emergency criteria but involve clear humanitarian need such as refugee care and maintenance caseloads that are ongoing rather than acute?

A: USDA/FAS will only consider concept papers that meet the emergency criteria as described in Section 3.1 Program Description. .

60. Q: The NOFO references complementary activities supporting "early post-acute recovery.” What is USDA/FAS's expectation for how applicants transition programming from emergency response to resilience and longer-term food security. Will this be supported within the same award?

A: USDA/FAS allows “early post‑acute recovery” activities, but only as a limited extension of the emergency response, not as a shift into full resilience or long‑term food security programming, which falls outside the scope of this NOFO. As stated in Section 4.1 (Technical Approach) and reinforced by the emergency‑only mandate in Section 3, any transition activities must remain time‑bound, directly linked to resolving the acute crisis, and completed within the same award, rather than evolving into a multi‑year resilience program.

61. How will USDA ensure quality assurance for RUTF procured under this award? Will the existing interagency working group (UNICEF, WFP, MSF, USDA/AMS) remain the standard for supplier validation?

A: The interagency RUTF supplier‑validation group (UNICEF, WFP, MSF, USDA/AMS) does not apply.

62. Q: What RUTF supplier validation requirements apply to this award, and how will new suppliers be approved?

A: The interagency RUTF supplier‑validation group (UNICEF, WFP, MSF, USDA/AMS) does not apply. No additional supplier validation requirements apply to this NOFO as eligible suppliers have already been audited and approved by AMS.

63. Q: Given the current structure laid out in the NOFO, with separate grants to different organizations in a country (RUTF and RUSF separately), what mechanisms will be put in place to prevent fragmentation or collapse of the existing pipeline and cluster system? How will the program ensure that unnecessary delays in delivering lifesaving therapeutic and supplementary feeding to acutely malnourished children are avoided?

A: USDA will exercise due diligence to select awards for funding in order to mitigate these risks so that U.S.-grown commodities reach their intended beneficiaries and save lives which is of the highest importance to USDA. USDA/FAS together with AMS will draw upon our past implementation experience with other international food assistance programs to implement Food for Peace.

64. Q: How does USDA define 'emergency' for targeting and programming purposes under this NOFO?

A: Per Section 3, Program Description, the principal objective of the Food for Peace, Title II Program is to furnish U.S. agricultural commodities on behalf of the people of the United States to address famine, food crises, and acute food insecurity. in which at least one of the following criteria are met: At least 20 percent of households have significant food consumption gaps or are marginally able to meet minimum food needs only with irreversible coping strategies such as liquidating livelihood assets (i.e. Integrated Phase Classification level 3); Food insecurity is reasonably attributed to sudden-onset or deteriorating conditions, resulting from armed conflict, violence, and hazardous environmental events; or The severity of the crisis exceeds existing local and international capacities to respond and therefore, UNHCR has issued a formal emergency declaration, signaling the need for an urgent and exceptional response.

65. Q: Will USDA/FAS consider an applicant that has not previously held a federal award if they demonstrate strong in-country infrastructure and propose a qualified international NGO subrecipient for commodity logistics and compliance management?

A: Yes, USDA/FAS may consider an Applicant that has not previously held a federal award, provided it meets the eligibility requirements outlined in Section 2.1 Eligible Applicants.

66. Q: Does USDA/FAS provide a pre-approved list of U.S.-based suppliers and freight forwarders from which awardees must source commodities and related transport services? Alternatively, are applicants expected to independently identify and contract these service providers? If neither is the case, could USDA/FAS clarify whether commodities are procured and provided directly by USDA/FAS following award approval, based on the commodity requirements proposed by the applicant?

A: USDA does not have a pre-approved list of Freight Forwarders, applicants are encouraged to conduct their own market research to support their selection. Commodities will be procured through an open USDA-conducted competitive tendering process post-award signing and Applicants are not expected to source commodities prior to award signing.

67. Q: If commodities are provided in-kind by USDA/FAS, will the in-kind value be communicated to applicants for budgeting purposes?

A: Applicants are expected to propose a value for procuring the commodity basket based on analysis and current market rates.

68. Q: Regarding Appendix D – Past Performance Review, could you please clarify what is meant by "Award Number" in Part 1: Award information? Several awards implemented by our organization do not have a specific award number assigned, and we would appreciate guidance on what information should be provided in such cases.

A: Applicants should provide any available identifier for the award being referenced.

69. Q: At the CN stage, is it mandatory to fill in and share the Appendix A – Budget Summary, or does the table included in the narrative section, in section 3 Budget Overview suffices?

A: No, the budget summary is not required until an Applicant is invited to the full application phase.

70. Q: Could USDA clarify the respective responsibilities of USDA and the implementing organization regarding ocean freight arrangements? Specifically, is the implementing organization responsible for organizing and procuring ocean transportation services, including compliance with Cargo Preference requirements, or is the organization only responsible for budgeting and covering freight costs while USDA manages the procurement and selection of carriers, including U.S.-flagged vessels?

A: USDA, not the implementing organization, manages ocean freight procurement, including carrier selection and compliance with Cargo Preference. The implementing organization is responsible for budgeting the freight cost and should plan to utilize the services of a freight forwarder. The eventual shipping contract will be between the implementor and the shipping company.

71. Q: Can you confirm whether the cornmeal to be provided under this opportunity will be white or yellow? Additionally, will it be finely milled (suitable for tortilla production) or a more coarse/granular product?

A: Cornmeal may be yellow or white. Please find commodity specifications on AMS’ website here: https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/international-procurement/commodity-requirements.

72. Q: Will the cost of a through bill of lading extending to primary warehouses in-country be fully classified as freight, or is it required to separate and categorize transportation costs incurred after crossing the country border?

A: No, you cannot classify the entire through bill of lading as “freight.” Yes, USDA requires you to separate and categorize all transportation, storage, and handling costs incurred after the commodity crosses the border as ITSH, even if the carrier issues a single through bill of lading.

73. Q: Is match funding required to be provided exclusively in cash, or can in-kind contributions, such as existing, non-USG-funded programs, be counted toward the match? Additionally, could you please clarify the following statement (NOFO, p. 6): “For example, agreement funds and other support may not be used for matching contributions for other federal grants or cooperative agreements, lobbying, or intervention in federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings.”

A: Cost share funds may be cash or in-kind and non-USG-funded program funds may be eligible to be considered, provided that they meet the requirements of 2 CFR 200.306 and Section 6.2 Review Criteria of the NOFO.

74. Q: At the full proposal stage, would it be acceptable to modify the budget template to include dedicated columns for cost share across the Administration, ITSH, Activity, and Consolidated tabs?

A: The NOFO does not prohibit adding additional columns, and the Detailed Budget explicitly allows Applicants to add tabs or structure as needed, as long as all required information remains intact. The key requirement is that the budget mirrors the Summary and Narrative categories and remains consistent with Appendix A, thus adding cost‑share columns is acceptable if it improves clarity and alignment with your proposal.

75. Q: Is a Single Audit required at the concept paper stage, or only if the applicant is invited to submit a full application package?

A: Please refer to Section 4.1 Technical Application Format for Concept Paper requirements.

76. Q: May an applicant apply the 15% de minimis indirect cost rate under 2 CFR 200.414(f) if they do not hold a current Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), and is this rate applied to the full Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) base including ITSH costs?

A: Per 2 CFR 200.414-part F: Recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 15 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC).

77. Q: May commodity and freight cost estimates be based on USDA/AMS historical pricing at the concept paper stage, with final verified figures confirmed at the full application stage?

A: Yes, at the Concept Paper stage, Applicants should include the estimated costs of U.S. commodities and freight, Internal Transportation Shipping and Handling (ITSH), administration, and activities.

78. Q: Is a subrecipient responsible for commodity warehouse management required to have its own prior USDA commodity experience, or may that experience reside with the prime applicant or another member of the implementing team?

A: Under the FY25 Food for Peace NOFO, while it is recommended that each entity proposed in a Concept Paper should be able to demonstrate individual capacity for their areas of responsibility, a Concept Paper should collectively demonstrate the required capacity, consistent with Section 2.2 – Eligibility Threshold Criteria.

79. Q: Does a Food-for-Work/Food-for-Assets intervention qualify as an eligible activity under this NOFO's definition of "complementary activities that support the early post-acute food insecurity and nutrition emergency recovery phase" as referenced in Section 4.

A: As the principal objective of the Food for Peace, Title II program is to furnish U.S. agricultural commodities on behalf of the people of the United States to address famine, food crises, and acute food insecurity, direct distribution is expected.

80. Q: Should Past Performance Review forms (Appendix D) be submitted simultaneously with the concept paper by June 12, 2026, or may they be submitted separately to foodforpeace@usda.gov prior to that deadline?

A: Yes, Past Performance Review forms must be submitted by the reference organization no later than June 12, 2026 at 5:00:00 PM EST and do not need to be submitted simultaneously with the Concept Paper.