Knowledge SUCCESS APS Q&A.pdf

Knowledge SUCCESS APS Questions & Responses APS No. 7200AA18APS00004

June 26, 2018

1. I gather from the document that any applicant organisation is able to submit only one Concept Note as Prime or as sub. agency for this call. Is my understanding correct? Yes, that understanding is correct.

2. Secondly, if my organisation is sub-ing on a project, does that mean the Prime agency submits a Concept Note and names us as a partner in the consortium, or does it mean the Prime agency as well as all the subs also submit Concept Note? No, another applicant does not need to name proposed partners/subs as partners or potential subawardees in its concept note. Consortia should not be proposed at this stage. Each organization, regardless of potential role, should submit its own Concept Paper. As page 19 of the APS states, “The workshop is also intended to help identify potential consortia and partnerships to support these new or existing solutions and activities. This may result in organizations moving forward with implementation, if an award is made, of the solution(s) based on essential and complementary knowledge, skills, capacities, and networks.” Therefore, any pre-formed proposed consortium may not be the final consortium if an award is made. Partnerships can and should be developed during and after co-creation as needed, depending on the outcomes of co-creation, and will then be proposed—if relevant, and warranted by the Merit Review Committee—during the subsequent Request for Full Applications. Per page 19 of the APS, “Until full applications are submitted, both the applicant and USAID may identify and include potential additional technical partners and/or potential resource partners.” Further, page 20 of the APS states that during the full application stage “USAID will continue to have robust communication with applicants, potential partners, and other key stakeholders regarding the technical substance of the evolving approach, as well as the identity and roles of proposed or additional partners.”

3. If my agency submits a Concept Note as a sub agency, and another Prime agency names my organisation as a partner on their consortium, does that get counted as two submissions, and therefore does that get my agency disqualified? No, that would not make an organization ineligible as the organization itself has only submitted one (1) concept paper; the other concept paper was submitted on behalf of another organization/applicant. It is important to note that potential Prime organizations are not being asked or required to name potential partners at this stage.

4. How important is it to have the consortium already firmed up and named at the

Concept Note stage? Please see the response to Question #2 above. A consortium should not be firmed up at the time of Concept Paper development. Partnerships can and should be developed during and after co-creation as needed, depending on the outcomes of co-creation, and will then be proposed—if relevant, and warranted by the Merit Review Committee—during the subsequent Request for Full Applications.

5. The document outlines PRH IRs, as well as APS Round 1 IRs – am I right in understanding that the Concept Note needs to be aligned to APS Round 1 IR 1, or IR 2 and 3 or IR 1,2,3, rather than the PRH IRs? Yes, the concept should frame and focus on the APS Round 1 IRs. Applicants should consider how their concept supports the PRH results, but specifically addressing the PRH IRs is not required.

6. Are organizations expected to name Key Personnel in the Concept Paper? On p. 10, the APS states: “Approval of Specified Key Personnel - the key personnel positions will be determined during co-creation. But on p. 14, the APS states: The proposed persons for the Key Personnel positions may be included on more than one (1) concept paper.” Please clarify. Key personnel qualifications and positions required for the mechanism(s) that may result from this APS Round will be determined during the co-creation process. Key personnel will be proposed during the final, full application stage.

Key personnel should not be proposed at this time. The APS has been amended to reflect this on page 14.

7. We are a potential prime applicant and we have been talking with potential sub-partners in anticipation of this solicitation. Should each of our potential sub-partners submit a separate concept note, or can we submit a single concept note on behalf of our proposed team? See answers to Question 2, Question 3, and Question 4.

Consortia should not be proposed at this stage. Each organization, regardless of potential role, should submit its own Concept Paper. A consortium should NOT be firmed up at the time of Concept Paper development. Partnerships can and should be developed during and after co-creation as needed, depending on the outcomes of co-creation, and will then be proposed—if relevant, and warranted by the Merit Review Committee—during the subsequent Request for Full Applications.

8. At the full proposal stage will USAID consider allowing the addition of partners who were not invited to the co-creation process if a specific need is identified? Yes.

Specific partners can be added to the full proposal after needs have been identified through co-creation. See answers to Questions 2, 3, 4, and 7. Partnerships can and should be developed during and after co-creation as needed, depending on the outcomes of co-creation, and will then be proposed—if relevant, and warranted by the Merit Review Committee—during the subsequent Request for Full Applications. Per page 19 of the APS, “Until full applications are submitted, both the applicant and USAID may identify and include potential additional technical partners and/or potential resource partners.”

Further, page 20 of the APS states that during the full application stage “USAID will continue to have robust communication with applicants, potential partners, and other key stakeholders regarding the technical substance of the evolving approach, as well as the identity and roles of proposed or additional partners.” All proposed subawardees must be approved by the AO at time of award to be included in the agreement or grant.

9. While we understand that we should not enter into formal partnership arrangements prior to submission of the Concept Paper, would USAID value input from applicants at this stage on partners who may be relevant or complementary?

Relevant or complementary organizations can be mentioned as a component of a technical example or approach within the Concept Paper, but this information is not required.

10. We are appreciative of the cross-cutting focus on incorporating the principles of

USAID’s Collaboration, Learning, and Adaption (CLA) approach. Does the wording of the APS intermediate result 3 “collaboration, learning, and adaptation” mean to suggest a focus on building capacity specifically for the CLA approach or are other collaboration, learning, and adaption processes also being considered for this IR, in addition to CLA? No, the wording does not mean to suggest that applicants should focus only on building capacity specifically for the CLA approach. Other KM approaches, systems, and processes should/could also be included in a discussion around this IR.

11. Could you please define knowledge management as used by the Knowledge SUCCESS (Strengthening Use, Capacity, Collaboration, Exchange, Synthesis, and Sharing) project? Knowledge management is the systematic process of collecting and curating knowledge and information and connecting people to it so they can act more effectively. This definition of knowledge management is exemplified in the APS. Page 7 states, for example, “The FP/RH community needs timely access to relevant, evidence-based, synthesized information, knowledge and expertise, as well as forums and methods for knowledge sharing and exchange, to design, develop, manage, implement, and advocate for effective voluntary family planning programs...The Strategic Objective for the APS and for this Round is to ensure high-quality health information, knowledge, and expertise is exchanged, accessed, and used, and to build capacity in knowledge sharing, collaboration, and learning.”

12. Under Number of Applications, the APS states, “The proposed persons for the Key

Personnel positions may be included on more than one (1) concept paper.”

However, under Approval of Specified Key Personnel, the APS states, “the key personnel positions will be determined during co-creation.” There are also no evaluation criteria that address key personnel. Please clarify instructions regarding Key Personnel. Please see the response to Question #6 above.

13. On page 9 it states: "The ceiling of each award will be determined by the amount of money available and the activities proposed, and the total ceiling of award(s) under this APS will not exceed $35 million USD." and that "FP/RH funds may be used only for activities that impact FP/RH outcomes...funds from non–FP/RH sources must be used to support activities that do not directly affect FP/RH outcomes." Are the full $35 million for APS Round 1 designated FP/RH funds? If not, what amount of the activities and which IRs are expected to also address non FP/RH activities?

No, the full $35million ceiling is not planned to program only FP/RH funds. Depending on availability of funds and priorities of PRH, it is likely that a significant proportion of funds obligated through this award(s) from Round 1 will be FP/RH core funds. The mechanism is designed to program funding from all health elements and Missions, and the award may be obligated funding from any GH operating unit or Mission, depending on the scope of the agreement or grant and the needs of the Agency.