Kenya NOFO Submitted Questions & Responses.docx

Project Title: Reinforcing Protection of the Kenya Border shared with Somalia

NOFO: DFOP0018074

Questions Received & Proposed Responses

1. While recognizing OPSEC constraints, can CT confirm whether "the unit" is a single named APS formation (e.g., Border Police Unit, Rapid Deployment Unit, or an APS specialized unit), or will the specific unit be designated post-award? If the latter, can CT provide an indicative size range for proposal scoping?

a. The target unit of this award will be a single unit within APS. The identity of the specific unit, and its attributes will be shared with the selected implementing organization post-award. CT does not expect all of the unit officers to benefit from this assistance, rather, a specific number will be strategically selected. Therefore, CT requests prospective applicants to consider the project outcomes, suggested activities, equipment procurement, and the available budget and provide an estimate of the number of officers this assistance could potentially benefit.

2. Approximately how many personnel are within the target unit's specialized tactical teams that will receive training and equipment under this program?

a. Please refer to answer provided to question one regarding number of personnel. While this unit has some of the described equipment already, CT expects the selected implementing organization to conduct an assessment of equipment inventory post-award to determine the quantity and type of equipment needed to procure to appropriately outfit the number of officers who will receive training under this project. CT recommends applicants budget for enough personal equipment for the number of officers it estimates the available funding of this award can cover, and for shared items, such as UAS platforms and EOD/C-IED field kits, approximately one per ten officers of the total number estimated by the applicant the award funding can cover for the training and individual equipment issuance.

3. What is the rank/billet composition CT expects to be trained (officers, NCOs, operators)? Are there any prerequisite skills already in place (e.g., basic tactical training, marksmanship qualification)?

a. Per the response to question one, the specific attributes of the unit officers will be shared with the selected implementing organization post-award. Applicants should take note, however, the officers selected to benefit from this project have already completed basic tactical training and marksmanship qualification. Training delivered through this project should focus on upskilling officers with advanced knowledge, skills, and abilities related to conducting effective ground operations near the border of Somalia against terrorist threats/incursions.

4. Does the unit currently possess any night-vision devices? If yes, what generation, quantity, and condition? Are they integrated with weapon-mounted IR lasers or aiming devices?

a. The unit does possess some low and night-vision devices, and a number of officers have already been trained on the equipment and are using it in the field. The purpose of this project is to expand this capability to additional officers within the unit. As stated in the response to the second question, CT expects the selected implementing organization to conduct an assessment of the existing equipment to determine quality, quantity, and condition. We are aware the following types technology has been provided to this unit through a legacy project we funded, but quantity and condition are not known: PVS-14 Night Vision Devices, Rhino-mount and J-arms for helmets, Steiner D-BALi2 Lasers, EOTECH Rifle Sights, Surefire Rifle Lights, and Surefire M600V Flashlights with IR flood capability.

5. Does the unit currently operate any UAS platforms? If yes, what platforms and quantities? Are any of them potentially FASC-prohibited and requiring replacement?

a. Yes, the unit currently operates a limited number of UAS platforms (we are tracking some Skydio and Maverick UAS platforms have been provided), but the condition and quantity are not known and will need to be determined by the selected implementing organization through an inventory assessment. We believe there may be a few legacy FASC-prohibited systems that will need to be replaced.

6. Are any current unit members FAA Part 107–equivalent or Kenya Civil Aviation Authority–certified UAS pilots, or should the program scope full pilot certification from zero?

a. CT is aware there are at least two certified UAS instructors affiliated with this unit, but the certification type and level, as well as the total number of trained pilots is not known.

7. What is the current EOD-related equipment baseline of the unit (detection, robotics, PPE, disruptors)? Have any unit members previously received EOD training through Kenya's BDU or other CT-funded programming?

a. CT believes the current EOD-related equipment and training provided through previously funded programming has not specifically reached this unit. The DCI BDU has received substantial equipment and training from CT, however, the purpose of this project will be to provide officers deployed to the border with Somalia, with a baseline ability to address a suspected IED identified in the field without interrupting the operational tempo or timeline to wait for the arrival of a DCI BDU or KDF bomb technician to a remote area.

8. What command/control, ISR data link, and ground station capabilities currently exist that the proposed UAS program should be interoperable with?

a. This will need to be determined by the selected implementing organization post-award through an equipment assessment.

10. Beyond Manda Bay/Lamu County and the vicinity, will training and operational support extend into Garissa, Wajir, or Mandera Counties? If so, in what proportion?

a. CT does not necessarily expect training to be delivered in the field, unless it is determined post-award this is appropriate and/or a compelling need is identified. Rather, the purpose of this project is to provide training to officers who are or will soon be deployed to a duty location within Lamu county. Following the selection process, CT and the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi will engage in discussions with the Government of Kenya to determine the optimal locations for mentors and trainers based on operational requirements, security considerations, and host nation preferences.

11. Will training be conducted exclusively in Kenya, or are third-country or U.S.-based training events permissible (e.g., advanced UAS or EOD courses at U.S. schools)?

a. CT expects the training will be conducted exclusively in Kenya unless the selected implementing organization identifies post-award, a compelling need for limited training to take place elsewhere.

12. Does CT envision in-country mobile training teams traveling to forward operating locations, or centralized training at a fixed APS facility?

a. Please refer to responses to questions ten and 11.

13. The NOFO requires "at least one experienced mentor" embedded with the unit. Does CT envision a single full-period embed, a phased rotation of multiple subject-matter experts, or both? Is there an expected minimum length of embed?

a. CT envisions at least a single full-time embed and is open to the consideration of a phased rotation of an additional or multiple SMEs, if a compelling need is identified. CT will consider applications that incorporate either full-time or part-time mentorship models. If an applicant chooses to pursue a part-time mentorship approach, CT expects the use of a consistent mentor over the life of the award. Building strong, trust-based relationships with Kenyan law enforcement is essential to the success of this program, and continuity in mentorship personnel is critical to achieving this objective.

14. Are there required qualifications or experience thresholds for the mentor (e.g., U.S. military SOF, federal law enforcement tactical, prior CT-funded mentor experience)?

a. CT will rely on the expertise and judgement of the selected implementing organization to determine the employment qualifications of the selected mentor, but recommends the candidate has prior experience working with Kenyan law enforcement and therefore has established knowledge of police operations in the country and understands the unique cultural nuances. The mentor must be fluent in English.

15. Must the mentor(s) be U.S. citizens? Are there clearance requirements?

a. No, the mentors do not have to be U.S. citizens. It is not anticipated a clearance will be required at this time; however, CT will confirm with the selected implementer following selection if this condition changes. Applicants should be aware of ITAR considerations regarding foreign nationals delivering defense services (see related export control questions below).

16. Will mentor housing, transportation, and security be provided by the U.S. Embassy / U.S. Dept of Defense at Manda Bay / Government of Kenya, or are those costs to be borne by the recipient?

a. Mentor housing, transportation and security will be the responsibility of the selected implementing organization.

17. Has a Memorandum of Understanding or letter of intent been executed with the Government of Kenya confirming the in-kind contributions listed (training venues, instructors, transportation, lodging, food, per diem, operational costs)? If so, can it be made available to applicants?

a. The nature and general tenets of any agreements made between the governments of the United States and Kenya regarding expectations of in-kind contributions related to this project will be shared in some form at the post-award stage with the selected implementing organization.

18. Will GoK provide live-fire ranges, urban training facilities, and EOD demolition ranges, or should those be sourced/built by the recipient?

a. Yes, live-fire ranges and demolition ranges as well as appropriate training facilities will be provided by the Government of Kenya.

19. Can CT clarify whether the Government of Kenya’s anticipated in-kind contributions listed in the NOFO should be treated as a confirmed planning assumptions at award start or whether applicants should include contingencies in case some of those contributions are delayed or only partially available?

a. The anticipated in-kind contributions outlined in the NOFO from the Government of Kenya reflect CT’s expectations of the host nation but advises applicants to budget a minimal contingency fund in case of unexpected or extenuating circumstances.

20. At end of period of performance, will title to equipment (UAS, NVDs, EOD kit, vehicles, sustainment spares) transfer to the Government of Kenya, remain with the recipient, or revert to the U.S. Government?

a. Purchased equipment will be officially granted to the Government of Kenya and are expected to remain with the recipient unit and officers (unless transferred elsewhere). The award will include language specific to equipment transfer.

21. Who is responsible for customs clearance, importation, and end-use monitoring of equipment delivered into Kenya? Will Embassy Nairobi assist?

a. The selected implementer is responsible for customs clearance, importation, and end-use monitoring but CT and the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi is prepared to provide a reasonable level of assistance/facilitation as needed, in support of this project

22. Should applicants assume the FASC-compliant Blue UAS list is the operative platform universe for UAS procurement, or will CT consider waivers/exceptions for capabilities not on the list?

a. Applicants should assume any UAS systems procured under this project are FASC-compliant. A more detailed discussion may be held following the selection of the implementing organization, if necessary.

23. What level of consumables and spares (e.g., NVD batteries, UAS propellers/payloads, EOD render-safe consumables) does CT expect to be funded for sustained operations beyond the period of performance?

a. CT expects this project to provide limited amounts of consumables and spare parts to sustain operations beyond the project’s period of performance with the majority of the fiscal responsibility for procuring these items transitioning to the Government of Kenya following project conclusion.

24. Are there any U.S.-source preference thresholds beyond the general "Buy America" guidance in 2 CFR 200.322 that applicants should plan against?

a. CT does not have a source preference for procurement under this project, but applicants should ensure procurement is compliant with U.S. laws regarding specific manufacturers or origins of specific technologies.

25. Can CT provide any additional planning assumptions for the UAS line of effort, including a) whether the target unit already operates any approved systems and b) should the applicant budget for planned procurement of a FASC compliant system?

a. Please refer to response provided to question five and 22.

25. The NOFO references "review and approval of one stage of work before another can begin." Can CT clarify the anticipated stages or phase gates? Are these tied to payment release?

a. Stages or phase gates will be defined by CT during the post-award negotiation phase with the selected implementing organization. Payment release will not necessarily be tied to stage or phase completion.

26. What is the anticipated review/approval turnaround time CT will commit to between stages, for the purpose of building a realistic schedule?

a. CT commits to a swift review and approval turnaround time to ensure uninterrupted delivery of project activities, unless any issues are identified requiring mitigation. CT expects to have at least biweekly calls with the selected implementer during which decision points and anticipated timeline of activity delivery will be discussed regularly.

27. Will the Grants Officer's Representative be embassy-based in Nairobi or Washington-based?

a. The Grants Officer Representative (GOR) will be based in Washington, DC, however, CT maintains an East Africa Regional Advisor at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi to support project implementation and oversight. This advisor is not a certified GOR so close coordination between the GOR and advisor is expected by the selected implementer.

28. Who is responsible for assembling and submitting the vetting candidate list — the recipient, U.S. Embassy Nairobi, or APS? What is the expected lead time for vetting clearance?

a. The selected implementer will be responsible for assembling and submitting list for required Leahy Vetting to the U.S. Embassy and will work in close coordination with APS, RSO, and the East Africa Regional CT Advisor on the identification of appropriate candidates. A six-week lead time is standard for Leahy Vetting submissions.

29. Will a pre-vetted candidate pool of unit members be provided at award, or is initial vetting an early program activity?

a. The selected implementer should expect Leahy Vetting will be an early program activity. The unit has successfully passed vetting before, but the individual officer and unit status will be or will be close to expiration by the time this project begins.

30. Is the recipient responsible for medical evacuation, casualty response, and duty-of-care for U.S. personnel operating in the program area? Should we budget a MEDEVAC retainer?

a. The NOFO requires applicants to "include risk mitigation strategies for operating in a high-threat environment.” Duty of care responsibilities should be addressed in the risk analysis attachment and budgeted appropriately. Standard practice would require the recipient to ensure duty of care for their personnel. It is highly recommended the award recipient should budget for relevant insurance and MEDEVAC retainers for its staff who will be delivering projects in-country, regardless of nationality.

31. Are there any operational tempo or seasonal restrictions (e.g., long rains, Ramadan, election periods) that should be reflected in the schedule and budget?

a. This unit has a consistently high operational tempo, regardless of seasonal weather forecasts and holidays. The applicant should account for potential interruption for a few weeks around the upcoming national presidential election scheduled for August 10, 2027, during which some of this unit’s officers may be temporarily assigned to safeguard election locations or support executive security details.

33. Has the Government of Kenya committed funding to sustain training, equipment maintenance, and consumables after the period of performance? If yes, at what level?

a. Yes. Specifics of these commitments will be shared with the selected implementing organization post-award.

34. Does CT have a target for the number of certified Kenyan instructors that should be produced through train-the-trainer activities?

a. No. Applicant should consider total number of officers who can be trained and equipped under this project with the available funding and then propose a recommended number of certified instructors to be produced from this award to support sustainment activities.

35. Should the proposed training and equipment management system be aligned with an existing APS or Kenyan Police records system, or built fresh?

a. Proposed training and equipment management systems should be aligned with existing APS or Government of Kenya records systems already in place.

36. Can CT identify recent or current CT-funded counterterrorism programs in Kenya (e.g., Bomb Disposal Unit support, prior border security programs) that this opportunity is intended to build upon and avoid duplicating?

a. This information will be provided post-award to the selected implementer. CT does not expect an applicant to speak specifically to previously delivered, CT-funded assistance if the applicant did not implement that assistance.

37. Is CT planning an applicant industry day, pre-bid call, or technical exchange before the June 10 deadline?

b. No, there will not be an applicant industry day, pre-bid call or technical exchange scheduled ahead of the NOFO application deadline of June 10, 2026, by 5:00 p.m. EDT.

38. The NOFO states the tie-breaker is the lower indirect cost rate when scores are equivalent." How is "equivalent" defined — exact tie, or within a defined point band

c. In the event of an exact tie, ie equivalent scores, Department of State may consider the proposal with that is most cost effective with lower indirect costs.

39. Will CT, DDTC, and Embassy Nairobi's Political-Military section pre-coordinate or facilitate a country-team approval framework for ITAR licenses (DSP-5, DSP-83, TAA) and BIS licenses, or is the recipient solely responsible for end-to-end licensing?

d. While CT and the U.S. Embassy Nairobi will provide appropriate support and information resources, ITAR compliance is the responsibility of the recipient, and appropriate authorizations must be obtained for any defense services provided by foreign nationals. This should be addressed in the proposal's compliance planning. All associated costs for licensing must be factored into the proposal. The selected implementer will be ultimately responsible for the procurement and delivery of equipment and for the compliance with any import/export requirements. Applicants are encouraged to review public resources from the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) available here: https://www.state.gov/policy-issues/export-controls/ and submit any specific questions for DDTC through their public portal available here: https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/. If applicants encounter any technical issues with these resources, please reach out to the DDTC Help Desk at 202-663-2838 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EDT.

40. Has a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) with the Government of Kenya already been negotiated for prior CT-funded programs (e.g., the Bomb Disposal Unit support), and if so, can the scope be extended or referenced for this program?

e. There are no active agreements related to the CT-funded assistance delivered to the Government of Kenya; it is not required.

41. What is CT's planning assumption for ITAR/EAR license lead time? Should applicants build a pre-execution licensing window into the schedule before in-country activities begin?

a. Per the NOFO instructions, applicants should include realistic timelines and "include a contingency plan to account for delays in implementation." Standard ITAR/EAR licensing can take several months and should be factored into program schedules.

42. For night-vision devices, can CT indicate the highest generation historically authorized for transfer to Kenyan Administrative Police Services, so the budget reflects a realistic cost-per-unit?

a. See response provided to question four.

43. For tactical UAS, can CT confirm whether encrypted data link configurations (ECCN 5A002 controlled) have been authorized to APS, or should the budget assume non-encrypted/EAR99 variants?

a. Please refer to response provided to question eight.

44. Will the program rely exclusively on Direct Commercial Sales, or are any items contemplated to flow via Foreign Military Sales, Section 333 (Building Partner Capacity), Excess Defense Articles, or other USG-to-USG channels that would shift the licensing burden?

a. CT expects the selected implementing organization to rely exclusively on Direct Commercial Sales for equipment procurement; therefore the licensing burden would fall to the implementer.

45. At end of period of performance, will equipment transfer to the Government of Kenya carry full retransfer/re-export rights, or will the U.S. retain reversionary interest and ongoing end-use monitoring obligations?

a. At the end of the period of performance, equipment procured under this project will be granted to the Government of Kenya. The U.S. will retain ongoing end-use monitoring obligations, the specifics of which will be determined post-award.

46. Are foreign nationals on the implementer's team — including locally-engaged staff in Kenya — eligible to deliver training that constitutes a defense service under ITAR? If yes, what authorization pathway is contemplated (e.g., dual-national authorizations on the TAA, deemed-export licensing)?

a. CT has previously funded programming in Kenya in which locally employed staff are hired to support project delivery and activities to include training. CT and the U.S. Embassy Nairobi will consult with the selected implementer post-award to support determination of the appropriate authorization pathway to ensure legal compliance.

47. What level of Blue Lantern / Sentinel end-use monitoring should the recipient expect, and should those compliance and reporting costs be reflected as a direct line in the budget?

a. Recipients should not anticipate standardized or scheduled Blue Lantern monitoring visits that would require a dedicated budget line item. Blue Lantern checks are conducted selectively based on risk assessments. While recipients and end-users should be prepared to cooperate with any Blue Lantern inquiries that may arise, these are not routine occurrences that necessitate specific budgetary allocations for compliance costs.

48. Will CT or Embassy Nairobi's RSO/PolMil designate a single point of contact for export-control facilitation during execution, given the volume of authorizations contemplated?

a. Yes; the primary in-country point of contact for the implementer will be CT’s East Africa Regional Advisor who works out of the embassy in Nairobi.

49. Are there any specific items from the proposed scope (e.g., particular UAS platforms, NVD generations, EOD render-safe tools) that CT has already screened and pre-approved through the country team for Kenya?

a. Yes; please refer to responses provided to questions four and five.

50. Does CT expect the recipient to be an ITAR-registered exporter with DDTC at time of award, or is registration acceptable post-award before any controlled activity?

a. ITAR registration is required before engaging in defense trade activities. Applicants should ensure compliance with all ITAR requirements and may wish to clarify timing expectations with the point of contact. Please refer to information provided in question 39 with any questions about this process.

51. Page 8 – the NOFO asks that applicants "build on past CT Bureau-funded programming in Kenya and avoid duplication of efforts with other donors." Could the USG please provide access to information regarding past CT Bureau-funded programming in Kenya and a list of donors whom the offeror may encounter in order to avoid duplication of effort?

a. Please see response to question 36.

52. Does the USG have an indication how many personnel are there within the target unit?

a. Please refer to the responses provided to questions one and two.

53. Does CT envision equipment being procured for the unit under the NOFO?

a. Yes.

54. Page 10, section D.3 outlines required items to be included in proposal submissions limited to 12 pages. Could you please confirm that the logic model and the preliminary performance monitoring plan are excluded from the page limit and are to be provided as attachments?

a. Correct, the logic model and PMP are excluded from the proposal page limit and should be provided as attachments.

55. Could you please confirm that any text provided in tables or graphics can be in 10-point font?

a. Correct, text provided in tables or graphics can be in 10-point font, but no smaller.

56. Per the restriction on Providing Funds to the Enemy, does this funding qualify as being “in support of a contingency operation in which members of the Armed Forces are actively engaged in hostilities”? If so, are there particular required or recommended actions to take to ensure a person or entity is not opposing US or coalition forces and to continue to monitor this status through the grant period, besides checking for a prohibited or restricted status in SAM.gov?

a. No, funding for this project is not considered “in support of a contingency operation in which members of the Armed Forces are actively engaging in hostilities.” The applicant should plan to account for the Negroponte Risk (the likelihood the funds, goods, services, or other benefits to be provided could intentionally or inadvertently benefit terrorists or their supporters, including people or organizations who are not specifically designated by the U.S. government but who may nevertheless be linked to terrorist activities.”) CT will also be conducting its own independent risk assessment ahead of selecting the implementer for this project, and if required, will work collaboratively with the implementing organization to put appropriate mitigation strategies in place. Additionally, applicants are encouraged to consult 2 CFR Part 183.

57. Does the training to be conducted on unmanned aerial systems or other tools constitute a controlled technical data transfer under ITAR or EAR?

a. Training on defense articles typically constitutes a defense service under ITAR and requires appropriate authorization. Applicants are responsible for determining the export control classification of their proposed activities and obtaining required authorizations. This should be addressed in the proposal's compliance planning. Please refer to information provided in question 39 with any questions about this process.

58. Are there any specific restrictions or licensing requirements tied to the training content?

a. Beyond ITAR and FASC compliance, CT is not tracking any additional specific restrictions or licensing requirements tied to the training content, but this will be confirmed with the selected implementing organization post-award.

59. On page 5, under Cost Sharing or Matching, does this include operations equipment and related costs?

a. Please refer to response provided to questions four, five, seven, 17, 18 and 19. CT expects there will be some necessary operational equipment to be procured under this project but not for entire unit.

60. Who is responsible for notifying the Government of Kenya under this project, given that they are required to meet obligations under it? This is not listed as one of the areas of support provided by CT as part of its substantial involvement, so it is not clear if the recipient needs to take on this responsibility. If so, at what stage should the government be informed?

a. This is the responsibility of CT, in coordination with the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. All engagement with a foreign government should be through the donor office and relevant diplomatic mission.

61. On page 8, under Program Activities, the NOFO states: “Ensure Kenyan government ownership and commitment to sustainability.” Who is responsible for ensuring this commitment within the project

a. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of CT, in coordination with the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. However, it is expected the selected implementer will work with the beneficiary unit to provide transparent cost estimates for future equipment and consumable procurement and associated maintenance needs. However, this is a requirement for applicants to address in their proposals. Proposals must include a section on "Future Funding or Sustainability" describing "strategies to sustain program outcomes after the period of performance ends." The sustainability criterion accounts for 10 points in the evaluation.

62. Beyond Camp Simba, and as envisioned under Substantial Involvement with Strategic Guidance and Program Direction bullet 4, are there other areas likely to be geographically scoped along the Kenya-Somalia border?

a. Please see responses provided to questions 10, 11, and 12.

63. As far as the in-kind goods and services of the Government of Kenya, can you please provide more detail on the parameters around their expected contribution?

a. Please see responses to questions four, five, seven, 17, 18 and 19.

64. Are these items limited to supporting the participation of their staff in this activity, or will it extend to project implementation and training staff (e.g., do we need to include lodging and food costs for trainers or are these elements provided by the government at no cost to the project?)?

a. The cost of lodging and food for trainers associated with this project should be budgeted for in proposals.

65. What is covered by “all operational costs to support counterterrorism operations”? (This may be better answered by providing more detail or examples of what the project budget is expected to pay for vs what the Kenyan Government will provide.)

a. Please see responses to questions four, five, seven, 17, 18 and 19.

66. Are the instructors provided by the Kenyan Government those that will provide training on the topics outlined in the NOFO or will they be individuals who will serve as trainers to be trained under this program and then provide this instruction to their peers in the future?

a. Instructors provided by the Kenyan Government are expected to provide training on some of the topics outlined in the NOFO, to include: UAS system operation and marksmanship. Following a post-award needs assessment by the implementer, CT envisions this project will train a specific number of individuals in disciplines where more instructors are needed to ensure sustainment of critical perishable skills beyond project conclusion.

67. Beyond what is stated, what other obligations are envisaged under the cost-sharing or matching arrangement (since the language in the NOFO indicates the list of Kenyan Government contributions is “including but not limited to” those items listed)?

a. Please see responses to questions four, five, seven, 17, 18 and 19.

68. How many people are expected to be trained under this program? The NOFO indicates one of Kenya’s advanced tactical law enforcement units will be the focus – how many individuals are in this unit?

a. Please see responses provided to questions one, two and three.

69. Can you explain in more detail the expectations around the involvement of a mentor to be embedded with the APS unit that is the focus of this program? How long do you expect this engagement to last? Is it necessary for that person to be present continuously for an extended stretch of time or could their involvement be intermittent at certain intervals? Would this likely be someone from outside of Kenya? Would they require housing, transportation, or other subsistence provisions to fulfil their duties or are these expenses expected to be among the in-kind contributions of the government?

a. Please see responses to questions 13, 14, 15, and 16.

70. Is there a recommendation on how much of the budget (in dollars or percentages) it would be appropriate to spend on equipment versus other cost categories necessary to carry out the training and support elements of the project?

a. No, CT would like applicants to propose what they feel is most appropriate for the described scope and desired outcomes stated in the NOFO. Applicants should propose budgets that appropriately balance equipment and training based on program needs.

71. Will the implementing partner have access to the Manda Bay Military Base / Camp Simba for any program activities (e.g., equipment storage, training coordination), or is all program activity expected to occur outside the base perimeter at APS/civilian training venues?

a. No, project activity will occur outside the base at civilian law enforcement training venues.

72. For equipment items (NVGs, UAS, EOD tools) with a unit cost exceeding $10,000, will CT Bureau confirm whether title to the equipment transfers to the Government of Kenya upon delivery, or is it held by the implementing partner for the duration of the period of performance? What disposition instructions apply at program close?

a. Title to equipment will be made to Government at the end of the period of performance and the appropriate disposition instructions will be communicated ahead of the project’s conclusion.

73. The NOFO references GOK in-kind contributions, including training venues, certified instructors, transportation, lodging, food, and per diem. For budget and risk planning purposes: (a) does CT Bureau expect applicants to include these contributions as documented cost-share in the SF-424A at the application stage, and if so, what documentation standard is required (e.g., letter of commitment, MOU, diplomatic note)? (b) Are any of these GOK commitments already formalized through embassy-level agreements that the selected implementer can reference upon award?

a. Please see responses to questions four, five, seven, 17, 18 and 19. For the purposes of the application, CT does not expect applicants to document these contributions as cost-share in the SF-424A.

74. The indirect cost preference applies as a tie-breaker in favor of the lower NICRA rate per Executive Order 14332. For organizations without a NICRA that claim the 15% de minimis rate, is the 15% de minimis treated as equivalent to a NICRA rate for tie-breaking purposes?

a. Please see response to question 38.

75. CT indicators listed in the PMP How-To Guide are largely oriented toward law enforcement prosecution outcomes. For a capacity-building program focused on tactical skills (NVG proficiency, EOD neutralization, UAS ISR) rather than prosecution, which CT Standard Indicators does the CT Bureau consider most applicable? Is there a preferred methodology for measuring skill acquisition (e.g., pre/post competency testing, operational readiness assessments)

a. Additional indicators are in development and will be shared with the selected implementer post-award as they are finalized. For the purposes of the application, CT welcomes recommendations from applicants on the proposed methodology and indicators for measuring skill acquisition based on past experience of training delivery.

76. The NOFO identifies "one of APS's advanced tactical law enforcement units" without naming the unit. Prior to award, will CT Bureau or U.S. Embassy Nairobi provide the implementing partner with the unit's identity, location, and approximate personnel strength to allow accurate budgeting and programme design? If not, what level of specificity is expected in the proposal's activity design and equipment costing?

a. Please refer to the responses provided to questions one and two.

77. The NOFO lists "advanced marksmanship training in all light conditions" as a potential activity. Does CT Bureau consider this a standalone training objective, or is it expected to be integrated into the NVG/low-light tactical training line? Specifically, does CT expect marksmanship trainers to be separately certified to an identified standard (e.g., FBI, ILEA, KDF)?

a. The CT Bureau envisions these two training objectives to be complementary to one another and looks forward to the recommendations from prospective applicants on how best to deliver the knowledge, skills, and abilities in the training environment. CT expects new training instructors to be certified to the same standards previous CT funding was used to develop an instructor cadre. The specific details of their certifications and capabilities will be shared post-award, as outlined in response to question three.

78. The NOFO categorises items costing ≥$10,000/unit with a useful life of >1 year as "Equipment" and those below $10,000/unit as "Supplies." Given that some NVG devices, UAS platforms, and EOD kits may straddle this threshold depending on configuration and bundling: does CT Bureau expect each individual component to be assessed against the $10,000 threshold, or may a complete operational system (e.g., a UAS platform plus its ground control station and spares) be treated as a single equipment line?

a. A complete operational system that exceeds $10,000 should be treated as a single equipment line.

79. The NOFO references the requirement to "build on past CT Bureau-funded programming in Kenya." Can CT Bureau provide a summary of prior CTB investments in APS or NPS capability relevant to the three lines of effort (NVG, UAS, EOD), in order to avoid duplication and to properly position the additionality of this programme in the proposal narrative?

a. Please see responses to questions four, five, six, and 36.

80. Can the Bureau of Counterterrorism confirm that U.S.-based for-profit entities are eligible to serve as the prime recipient under this NOFO, and whether there are any limitations on profit, fee structures, or subcontracting arrangements for such entities?

a. Yes, for-profit organizations are eligible to apply for this opportunity. The award will be structured as a cooperative agreement, and standard 2 CFR 200 regulations will apply. No specific profit limitations are mentioned in the NOFO beyond standard federal regulations. Profit is not allowed on federal assistance programs only on federal contracts.

81. For equipment and training delivered under this program, will assets be transferred directly to the Government of Kenya, or to the U.S. Government?

a. Please refer to response provided to question 20.

82. If information systems or digital platforms are proposed, what restrictions or approvals will the U.S. Government impose on system administration, data governance, hosting location, and access control by Kenyan authorities?

a. Beyond regulations related to the procurement of specific defense technology already mentioned, data protection, information classification, and safeguard requirements will depend on the nature and sensitivity of the information being shared through the program. The selected implementer will be expected to work closely with CT to establish appropriate protocols that protect sensitive information while enabling effective early warning and response capabilities.

83. Are there any preferred or pre-approved equipment vendors, standards, or interoperability requirements (e.g., for UAS, night vision, EOD tools) that applicants must align with?

a. Please see responses to questions four, five, and six.

84. To what extent should applicants plan for integration with existing U.S.-funded or donor-funded programs in Kenya, and can the Bureau provide guidance on current programs to ensure deconfliction and complementarity?

a. Please see responses to question 36. CT will provide guidance post-award to the selected implementer.