McGovern-DOle QA Responses 5.14-5.20.docx

McGovern-Dole FY2026 Notice of Funding Opportunity Questions and Answers 5/14/26-5/20/26

1. Can USDA please clarify the requirements related to personnel documentation in the NOFO? Specifically: although page 23 states that applicants must attach the CV of the Project Lead, may applicants also include CVs for additional proposed staff (both key personnel and other staff)? Additionally, since the NOFO requires applicants to identify at least two key personnel positions, are applicants required to name the individual and provide a CV for the second key personnel at the proposal stage? Finally, can USDA confirm whether the “Other Attachments” section should include only the Letters of Commitment and the required CV(s), and that no other materials are expected in this section?

A. Applicants are only required, per the NOFO, to submit the CV of the Project Lead. While the staffing plan and organizational chart must identify at least two key personnel positions, applicants are not required at the proposal stage to name the individual or provide a CV for the second key personnel position; the only mandatory CV is that of the Project Lead. The “Other Attachments” section is limited to two items: subrecipient project‑specific commitment letters (if subrecipients are proposed) and the Project Lead’s CV. No other materials are required or expected in this section, and as the NOFO specifies, only items explicitly requested will be reviewed.

2. In Timor-Leste, we acknowledge there are challenges in Manatuto municipality that warrant USDA’s focus under this new award. However, the previous USDA program graduated this municipality in 2024. Please confirm the geographies listed on page 55-56 of the NOFO are in fact the final selected geographies in Timor-Leste for this new program.

A: USDA/FAS confirms that Manatuto is one of the four priority geographies for potential future programming in Timor-Leste (Ainaro, Ermera, Oe‑cusse, and Manatuto). As noted in the NOFO Country Specific Guidance, despite progress– including 16 schools meeting the graduation criteria under the previous McGovern-Dole award—challenges remain in Manatuto that continue to warrant USDA attention and support in this final award cycle.

If an applicant believes that Manatuto no longer requires additional McGovern‑Dole support, they may propose smaller interventions within that area or justify deviation from the Country Specific Guidance by responding to the questions listed under section 4.2.a of the Content Guidance (page 17 of the NOFO).

3. In Appendix E there are Results Frameworks for MGD SO1 and MGD SO2 but no LRP Results Framework. Can USDA please confirm whether the LRP Results Framework is intentionally removed from the NOFO this year?

A: Yes, the USDA LRP Results Framework was intentionally removed from the McGovern-Dole NOFO this year. Applicants should read the Content Guidance in the NOFO carefully, including the Project-level Results Framework section on p. 24 of the NOFO which states that a strong graphical results framework will “Identify desired results of the project’s LRP component and add them where they logically align to the project-level results framework.”

4. When submitting the Content and Forms of the application, submitted as an attachment in FAIS, should applicants select the File type as "Generic" or should we match, to the best of our abilities the file type with available labels available for attachments in the dropdown options on FAIS? For Example, when uploading the section "A - Introduction and Strategic Analysis", should we upload that section to align with that corresponding title or upload it under the Generic Category? For content that does not have an aligned label (such as Plan of Operation and Activities, do we upload it under the "Generic" label?

A: When submitting the Content and Forms in FAIS, applicants should match the file type to the most appropriate label available in the dropdown menu whenever possible. For example, Section A – Introduction and Strategic Analysis should be uploaded under the corresponding or closest matching label. If a corresponding label is not available in the dropdown, applicants should upload those documents under the “Generic” Category.

For the labeling (or naming) of files uploaded in FAIS, please follow the labeling guidance provided in Appendix A (page 48 of the NOFO) section on “CONTENT AND FORMS (SUBMITTED AS ATTACHMENTS IN FAIS)”.

5. USDA provides links to commodity prices/recent purchases but not the cost of transport for those purchases. Is there a site we can go to view ocean freight pricing?

A: For freight estimates, applicants may benefit from working with a freight forwarder who can develop pricing estimates tailored to the applicant’s proposed tonnages, routing, and destination points. Leveraging freight forwarder expertise helps ensure that transportation costs reflect current market conditions and expected logistics requirements.

6. Page 12, Section 4.1.b – Required Content and Forms, limits the Budget Narrative to 25 pages. Based on prior McGovern-Dole application experience, applicants were often requested during clarification stages to provide additional detailed breakdowns of activities, assumptions, calculations, events, and cost justifications that could not reasonably fit within the original page limitation. Given the level of detail currently required to adequately justify and support proposed costs, would USDA/FAS consider either increasing the Budget Narrative page limit or removing the page limitation for the Budget Narrative section altogether?

A: The FY 2026 McGovern‑Dole NOFO maintains a 25‑page limit for the Budget Narrative as stated in Section 4.1.b. USDA/FAS is not considering an increase or removal of this page limit.

Applicants are encouraged to provide succinct, targeted explanations in the Budget Narrative that clearly justify costs, assumptions, calculations, and methodologies within the allotted space. If additional details are necessary during the negotiation stage, USDA/FAS will request it at that time.

USDA/FAS appreciates applicants’ continued efforts to provide transparent and well‑supported cost justifications and encourages the use of tables, summaries, and concise explanations to maximize clarity within the existing page limit. Applicants may also opt to summarize line items that appear frequently (such as salaries divided between activities or standardized per diem costs) once and refer briefly back to the first listing of that cost.

7. On page 8, USDA sets a ceiling for the compensation of personal services at GS-15 for employees, consultants and other personnel. Independent consultants, often sole proprietors, are often used for short term technical assistance. Their daily rates are burdened with their overhead. Does this ceiling apply to them as well?

A: As stated in Section 2.5, “Funding Restrictions,” the FY 2026 McGovern‑Dole NOFO establishes a compensation ceiling for all personal services—specifically noting that employees, consultants, or other personnel, including those of subrecipients, and regardless of the method of engagement, may not exceed the pro‑rata equivalent of GS‑15 rates ($164,301 per year; $629.84/day; $78.73/hour).

Because the NOFO explicitly states that this cap applies regardless of the method of engagement, it also applies to independent consultants, including sole proprietors providing short‑term technical assistance. Their fully burdened daily rates (which include their own overhead and operating costs) must remain within the GS‑15 equivalent ceiling.

USDA/FAS recognizes that independent consultants often incorporate overhead into their daily rates. However, the NOFO does not provide exceptions to the compensation limit. Applicants should therefore ensure that consultant rates comply with the GS‑15 ceiling and structure cost proposals accordingly.

8. On page 10, it states that USDA/FAS can consider non-priority countries except countries listed in Proclamation 10998. Can you please clarify if those countries that have a partial suspension are also excluded from consideration?

A: Yes, USDA/FAS will not consider applications from any of the countries listed in Proclamation 10998, including those with partial suspension.

9. Are applicants still expected to list all standard and LRP indicators in their proposal? For any unused indicators, do applicants have to provide justification?

A. Applicants are not required to list all standard McGovern-Dole indicators or all Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) indicators in their proposals, nor does the FY 2026 NOFO require applicants to provide justification for any unused indicators. Instead, as stated in the NOFO, applicants must include only those standard indicators that correspond to the specific results they propose to achieve, and—if proposing LRP—the three required LRP indicators along with any additional LRP indicators relevant to their project. The NOFO makes clear that indicators are required “where appropriate,” meaning applicants need only include indicators aligned with their proposed results and activities, and no justification is needed for indicators that do not apply. Applicants should review the “Performance Indicator Table” guidance on pages 24–26 of the NOFO carefully to ensure they select the appropriate standard and custom indicators for their proposed project.

10. Eligible Applicants (page 7) states that “Other organizations, including Higher Education Institutions” (which has also always included for-profit organizations, among others) are eligible Applicants. Page 13 states that a complete application package must include “Proof of 501(c)(3) status documentation to support eligibility determination.” Can USDA please confirm that proof of 501(c)(3) status is required only as applicable?

A: Applicants should refer to the response provided to a similar question the McGovern-Dole FY2026 Notice of Funding Opportunity Questions and Answers 5/11/26-5/13/26.

11. Page 24 states: “Applicants should not use default activity categories or phrasing in their RF, but rather short descriptions specific to their proposed project that focus on what the project will implement ‘on the ground’ that they believe will contribute to the linked result(s).” Can USDA please clarify what is meant by not using default activity categories or phrasing?

A: In the Activity Descriptions section of the NOFO (page 19), applicants are directed to identify their proposed activities “preferably utilizing the standard activity titles in FAIS”. The results framework guidance on page 24 is intended to discourage the use of these standard activity titles in the results framework, as the titles alone are not detailed enough to clearly represent how a specific project’s activities will contribute to results. Rather, applicants are directed on p. 24 to use “short descriptions [of each activity] specific to their proposed project…” to identify their proposed activities in the results framework.

12. Several Country Specific Guidance Programming Priorities indicate that USDA/FAS expects Applicants to propose a realistic timeline for full graduation to the target country government. Is it expected that all graduation milestones in the proposed Graduation Timeline fall within the 60-months of the award timeline? Or if a realistic timeline for full graduation extends beyond five years, should an Applicant identify that in the application?

A: Applicants are expected to propose a realistic and context‑appropriate graduation timeline, but the FY 2026 McGovern‑Dole NOFO does not require that all graduation milestones occur within the 60‑month award period. The NOFO instructs applicants to include a “contextually appropriate and feasible plan and timeline for graduation” and to outline measurable progress toward graduation during the life of the project, with clear milestones and assumptions. It does not state that full graduation must be achieved within five years, nor does it require all milestones to fall within the award period. Instead, applicants should present the milestones that can realistically be achieved within the 60‑month cooperative agreement, while also identifying—when appropriate—that full government ownership may extend beyond the project period. Applicants should use the Graduation Timeline to show both the steps that will occur during the award and the longer‑term trajectory toward full national ownership, if that will reasonably take more time than the five‑year implementation period.

13. Does USDA have a preferred order for the performance indicator table in the proposal—for example, numerical order by MGD/LRP/Custom indicator number versus organization by Results Framework linkage and activities?

A: USDA/FAS does not prescribe a preferred order for how applicants must organize the Performance Indicator Table. The FY 2026 NOFO explains what the table must contain—standard and custom indicators, baseline values (when possible), annual targets, and life‑of‑project targets—but it does not specify the order in which indicators must be presented. Applicants may therefore organize the table in whichever structure best supports clarity and coherence, whether that is numerical order (MGD, LRP, Custom), grouping by Results Framework linkages, or aligning indicators with specific activities. What matters is that the Performance Indicator Table clearly links each indicator to its corresponding result, includes all required standard indicators where applicable, and remains within the five‑page limit.

14. Appendix A (page 48) lists the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations Report as a requirement. Where/how should this be included in FAIS? For example, should it be uploaded as a separate attachment?

A: Applicants may, but are not required, to upload the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations Report (from SAM.gov) as its own attachment in FAIS. If uploaded in FAIS, it should be uploaded consistent with how other required documents that lack a dedicated upload field are handled. The Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations Report is an applicant requirement (along with active SAM.gov registration and UEI numbers for proposed subrecipient), but not part of the required documents under the Content and Forms list of items to be submitted as attachments in FAIS.

15. On p.50 of the NOFO, the link to 7 CFR 1599.9(a) does not work. Could USDA please provide an updated link?

A: Here is the updated link to 7 CFR 1599.9(a) referenced on page 50 of the NOFO:

· https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/section-1599.9

16. Page 23 of the NOFO states: “Applicants should include the Subrecipient’s UEI in the description of responsibilities.” If a planned subrecipient is unable to obtain a UEI prior to application submission, would it be acceptable to confirm that the subrecipient has initiated the UEI registration process during the application phase and will secure a UEI prior to a potential award?

A: Yes. If a planned subrecipient does not yet have a UEI at the time of application, it is acceptable for the applicant to state in the proposal that the subrecipient has initiated the UEI registration process and will obtain the UEI prior to award, should the application be selected.

The NOFO states on page 23 that applicants “should include the Subrecipient’s UEI in the description of responsibilities,” but it does not require that all subrecipients must already have an active UEI at the time of submission. What is required is that any subrecipient included in a final award must have an active UEI and be fully compliant with SAM.gov–related requirements before funds can be obligated.

17. Can USDA confirm that the Project-Level Results Framework is the only place in the application where a graphical representation is required to demonstrate the project’s theory of change?

A: Yes. USDA/FAS confirms that the Project‑Level Results Framework (RF) is the only required location in the application where a graphical representation must be provided to demonstrate the project’s theory of change. In the FY 2026 NOFO, the requirement for a graphical depiction appears only in the Monitoring and Evaluation section, which specifies that the RF “should be a graphical representation of the project’s theory of change,” with a suggested length of 2–3 pages. No other section of the NOFO—including the Introduction and Strategic Analysis or the Plan of Operation—requires or requests a graphic. Applicants may include additional visualizations if they find them helpful and if they remain within page limits, but these are entirely optional.

18. Could you please share the U.S. flag rates for the following ports: Conakry, Guayaquil, Matarani, Monrovia, Puerto Cortez, and Tibar Bay?”

A: The U.S. flag rates for the requested ports are as follows: Conakry is $390 per metric ton, Guayaquil is $400 per metric ton, Matarani is also $400 per metric ton, Monrovia is $390 per metric ton, Puerto Cortez is $300 per metric ton, and Tibar Bay is $340 per metric ton. For freight estimates, Applicants may benefit from working with a freight forwarder who can develop pricing estimates tailored to the applicant’s proposed tonnages, routing, and destination points. Leveraging freight forwarder expertise helps ensure that transportation costs reflect current market conditions and expected logistics requirements.

19. In Appendix D, the NOFO states that “all applicants must include costs relating to Internal Transportation, Storage, and Handling (ITSH), including the movement of commodities from designated ports or points of entry to storage and distribution sites, as well as the costs of storing and distributing all commodities.”

If an organization plans to cover ITSH costs for in-kind commodities outside of the project budget as part of the cost share contribution:

· Is it sufficient to indicate that these costs are covered through cost share and therefore excluded from the USDA-funded portion of the budget, while still providing an overall estimated value in the budget summary/narrative under cost share?

· Alternatively, does the NOFO require that ITSH costs be included and funded directly within the USDA budget?

A: The NOFO does not prohibit applicants from using cost share to cover ITSH costs. If an organization chooses to do so, it may indicate in the Budget Summary and Budget Narrative that these ITSH costs are being provided through cost share and therefore excluded from the USDA‑funded portion of the budget, while still providing an estimated value under the cost share section. Applicants should refer to the cost share requirements in the NOFO and to 2 CFR 200.306 to ensure their proposed cost share is allowable. In addition, USDA/FAS will evaluate cost share as part of the review process, so applicants must provide sufficient detail in their budget documents for USDA/FAS to determine that the cost share is feasible, reasonable, appropriate, and fully aligned with the review criteria outlined in Section 6.2.

The requirement in Appendix D means that all applicants must budget for the full range of Internal Transportation, Storage, and Handling (ITSH) costs that will be necessary for their project. This includes the movement of commodities from designated porta or points of entry to storage (e.g. warehouses) and distribution points (e.g. schools), as well as the costs of storing, safeguarding, and distributing all commodities throughout the project lifecycle.

20. Is salt a qualified agricultural commodity that can be included as part of the calculated local and regional procurement component?

A: No. Salt is not considered by USDA/FAS to be a qualified agricultural commodity under McGovern-Dole LRP component. If an applicant is proposing salt as part of a school meal as necessary to preparation and palatability, salt (including iodized salt) is an allowable supply cost or included as part of community contributions.

21. Is rice available to be shipped in 25kg bags?

A: No, at present rice is only available in 50kg bags.

22. Thank you for the information provided in the recent Q&A document of May 13. We would appreciate some clarification regarding the designation of priority regions for Honduras. Specifically, could you kindly confirm whether the regions listed in the Q&A are intended to be the only areas considered as priority, given that these were not explicitly specified in the original NoFO?

A: Applicants should follow the Country Specific Guidance from the NOFO where USDA/FAS encourages applicants to propose target regions that complement active programming in La Paz and Intibucá. Applicants are encouraged to justify proposed target regions and how proposed interventions will complement current McGovern-Dole programming.

While the May 13 Q&A document provided suggested target regions, applicants should focus on providing evidence-based justifications for their proposed target regions and how proposed interventions will complement active programming as requested in the original NOFO. Further general details on the Review Criteria can be found on section pages 35-37, Section 6.2.

23. Q: Can cost share be in cash and/or kind? Would USDA consider government contributions in HR and other support services as cost-share?

A: Yes. Cost share may be provided in either cash or in‑kind form, consistent with the voluntary cost share guidance in Section 2.7 of the NOFO, which encourages but does not require cost share. USDA/FAS may consider host‑government contributions—such as staff time, human resources support, or other services—as allowable cost share, provided they meet the standards in 2 CFR 200.306 and are not unallowable (for example, unrecovered indirect costs, which cannot be counted as cost share). Applicants must ensure that any proposed cost share is fully described in the application so that USDA/FAS can assess its allowability, feasibility, reasonableness, and appropriateness as part of the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 6.2 of the NOFO.

24. Q: The maximum performance time is 5 years. What is the minimum?

A: Section 1.9 of the NOFO states that USDA/FAS estimates the period of performance for FY 2026 awards to be approximately 60 months. The NOFO does not specify a formal minimum performance period in exact months. However, Section 2.2 (Eligibility Threshold Criteria) requires that applicants propose providing assistance on a multiyear basis, meaning a project must span more than one year to be eligible.

While the NOFO does not prohibit applicants from proposing a period of performance shorter than 60 months applicants proposing a shorter timeframe would need to ensure the proposed period still meets the multiyear requirement and is fully justified within the application.

25. Q: Must the Sub Recipient have a SAM and UEI before the submission?

A: No. A Subrecipient does not need to have an active SAM.gov registration or Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) before application submission. The NOFO requires that applicants identify planned Subrecipients in the Staffing section and include each Subrecipient’s UEI if they have one (page 23).

Only the Applicant must have an active SAM.gov registration and UEI at the time of submission, as stated in Section 2.1. If a planned Subrecipient does not yet have a UEI or SAM registration at the time of application, USDA/FAS allows applicants to indicate that the Subrecipient has initiated the registration process. Subrecipients must have an active UEI and SAM registration before an award is finalized, but this may occur during post‑selection negotiations rather than pre‑submission.

26. Q: Is there any change in the USDA activity list?

A: No, there have not been any changes to the standard activity titles available in FAIS. Applicants are encouraged to utilize standard activity titles where they fit the interventions proposed but may use custom activity titles if necessary to capture innovative approaches.

27. Q: With past performance references no longer required at submission, will USDA still evaluate past performance and if so, how? (The FY2026 NOFO indicates past performance reviews are no longer part of the application package (p. 12, section 4.1b Required Content and Forms)

A: Programmatic Capability and Past Performance will continue to be considered by USDA/FAS when making funding recommendations. Applicants should review Section 6.3 of the NOFO (page 37) for detailed information on the factors USDA/FAS reviews.

28. Q: Page 36 of the FY2026 NOFO states that “although there is no cost share or match requirement, Applicants may receive up to 2 additional points for a voluntary cost share contribution.” Can USDA please clarify how will the “up to 2 bonus points for voluntary cost share” be applied? E.g. is it all or nothing, or proportional to the size/ feasibility of the cost share? Clarification on the criteria for earning 1 vs. 2 points will help applicants decide whether and how much cost share to offer.

A: Please see Section 6.2 (to see the review criteria associated with the budget and cost share bonus points (page 32): To be considered for these bonus points, the cost share must be equivalent to one percent or more of the “Total Project Operating Budget” …” If an applicant meets this threshold, USDA/FAS will then determine whether to award up to 2 bonus points by evaluating the reasonableness, appropriateness, and feasibility of the proposed cost share contribution.” Therefore, an applicant could receive 1 or 2 bonus points for cost share.

29. Q: There is no reference to a “Narrative text” accompanying the project level results framework. Can USDA confirm this is no longer required?

A: Correct, there is no narrative text accompanying the graphic results framework identified in section 4.2.e Monitoring and Evaluation. Applicants should read the NOFO carefully and respond to what is identified in this year’s NOFO.

30. We are interested in submitting a proposal for a project in highly marginalized rural areas of southern Mexico. Given that Mexico is a non-priority country under this NOFO, we would appreciate any orientation on the typical or recommended funding range for a five-year project in a context like this.

A: The FY26 NOFO does not provide a separate or recommended funding range for non‑priority countries. As written under Section 1.7 (page 6) of the NOFO, each individual award is anticipated to be in the range of USD $10 million to $35 million for an estimated 60-month project.

Please note, applications will only be reviewed against other applications received for the same priority country. USDA/FAS will accept applications for non-priority countries, except countries listed in Proclamation 10998. However, USDA/FAS rarely funds projects in non-priority countries and USDA/FAS will prioritize funding applications for the identified priority countries.

31. Since a Learning Partner is not required under the NOFO, would USDA view this as an added-value investment or as unnecessary overhead? We would appreciate guidance on whether applicants should budget for this role and, if so, what level of investment USDA would consider appropriate and cost-effective.

A: The FY 2026 McGovern-Dole NOFO does not require or reference a Learning Partner, and USDA/FAS will not provide viewpoints on individual applicants’ project design during the application stage. As with all optional roles, USDA/FAS would assess such a position only in terms of how well it aligns with and supports the requirements in the NOFO. Applicants should therefore rely on the instructions in Section 4.2: Content Guidance and any relevant Country-Specific Guidance in Appendix B.

32. The links to the “USDA Monitoring & Evaluation Policy” and “USDA Indicator Handbook” on pgs. 25 and 26 go to different versions of the documents; some are dated February 2019, and some are dated January 2026. Kindly, which versions should be followed for the FY26 applications?

A: Please use the 2026 versions of both the M&E Policy and the Indicator Handbook, found on USDA’s website and linked here: January 2026 Policy and January 2026 Indicator Handbook. USDA policy states that guidance is only authoritative when released through its guidance portal, which is where the January 2026 versions of the policy and the indicator handbook are uploaded. Note that there are no differences in the M&E content of the two versions of the documents. In both cases, the January 2026 versions were updated to include new standard language on guidance documents at the bottom of every page, with no changes to the M&E content in either document.

33. Q: Is there any plan for adding Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) as an eligible commodity for McGovern-Dole (Appendix H)?

A: There is no current plan to amend the eligible commodities list for McGovern-Dole for FY 2026.