NOFO - NEA Regional EOD Operations Questions.docx

Project Title: Regional Explosive Ordnance Disposal Operations in the Near East

NOFO: DFOP0018683

Questions Received & Proposed Responses

Question 1: I am having trouble accessing this grant solicitation. I am able to login to the MyGrants system, but it says there is no such solicitation. I am very interested in this opportunity. Could you please send me the grant documents?

Answer: Please refer to the MyGrants helpdesk for assistance.

Question 2: DAGER Technology, LLC (DAGER) is interested in submitting an application for the referenced effort. I have created a profile; however, am not able to link to the DAGER. Please provide instruction and/or assistance to accomplish this task.

Answer: Please refer to the MyGrants helpdesk for assistance.

Question 3: Will program personnel be provided security and reside in secure compounds or will there be security details?

Answer: Program implementers will be responsible for security arrangements.

Question 4: Will interpreters be provided by the Government or will grantee be responsible for identifying and providing interpreter services?

Answer: Program implementers will be responsible for identifying and providing interpretive services.

Question 5: What support will be provided for the importation, exportation, transportation, storage, and accountability of explosives, demolition materials, and training aids?

Answer: Program implementers are responsible for import, export, transport, storage, and accountability of all equipment necessary to conduct program activities. CT Bureau/U.S. Embassy in country may provide assistance or support as needed on a case-by-case basis.

Question 6: Since sponsor is Department of State, does the government anticipate that grantee will be training both military and civilian bomb technicians in the countries listed in the NOFO?

Answer: Training should be designed to benefit civilian law enforcement. Military participants may be included on a case-by-case basis, subject to approval from the Department of State, for example in situations where military personnel conduct a civilian law enforcement function or military participation is necessary to further civilian law enforcement objectives.

Question 7: Page 6, Regional Coordination, cites “Regional information-sharing platforms.” Is there an existing platform in use, and will the implementer have access?

Answer: Program implementer will be expected to work through and with the CT Bureau and/or U.S. Embassy in country to facilitate information sharing. Implementer access to information sharing mechanisms will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Question 8: Page 7, Regional Coordination, “Joint training exercises to promote interoperability”, and Page 8, Performance Indicators, “…US-endorsed or other international standards.” Which standards to the beneficiary states use currently?

Answer: Program implementers, as part of initial assessment, will be expected to determine the current standards of each recipient country.

Question 9: Which standards does the CT Bureau want beneficiaries to be trained to, or is there a choice?

Answer: Program implementers will be expected to train recipient countries to U.S. or equivalent international EOD standards.

Question 10: What agreements, if any, have the beneficiary states made on adoption of standards?

Answer: Program implementers, with support from CT Bureau and in-country Embassy as needed, will be expected to determine what, if any, agreements each recipient country has made and/or is willing to accept.

Question 11: What agreements, if any, have been made on the use of training schools for joint exercises?

Answer: Program implementers, with support from CT Bureau and in-country Embassy as needed, will be expected to determine what, if any, agreements each recipient country has made and/or is willing to accept.

Question 12: There may be a need for a regional baseline needs assessment (standards, equipment, capacity, facilities etc.) to establish course content, equipment provision needs and other information. Could this form part of the initial project stages?

Answer: Yes.

Question 13: Does CT anticipate an embedded mentor/advisor presence at beneficiary units, or episodic mobile training teams?

Answer: Applicants should propose activities and an implementation model they believe best achieves program objectives.

Question 14: Please confirm whether the scope of this award is limited to training activities (using inert and/or live ordnance in controlled training settings), or whether applicant personnel may also be expected to accompany, advise, or support host-nation EOD teams during actual real-world UXO/IED incident response in the field as part of program delivery.

Answer: This program is limited to training and mentorship only.

Question 15: How many students do you anticipate the program to train per country?

Answer: Applicants should propose the number of students based on in-country conditions, needs, and level of support from recipient country.

Question 16: Given the requirement for a baseline to be established—so that programs can be tailored to the specific needs and capabilities of participating units in each country—will CT provide information about the existing capacity of beneficiary units, or should applicants plan and budget for conducting a rapid assessment once beneficiary units are approved?

Answer: Applicants should plan and budget for conducting a rapid assessment once beneficiary units are approved.

Question 17: Equipment procurement scope (Section C): The NOFO states applicants "may propose limited equipment procurement if necessary to achieve program objectives" but does not specify a cap or percentage threshold. Is there a general guideline (e.g., percentage of total budget) CT expects equipment costs to remain within?

Answer: CT does not have a percentage guideline. Applicants should propose the activities, equipment procurements, if needed, and related budget they believe best achieves program objectives.

Question 18: Equipment type and scale (Section C): Beyond the general categories described in the NOFO, can CT provide further guidance on the types of equipment anticipated under this award and an approximate number of units or beneficiary units CT expects to be supported, to help applicants scope a realistic and appropriately calibrated budget within the award ceiling?

Answer: Applicants should propose equipment and training activites for recipient countries.

Question 19: Beyond the American Security Drone Act prohibition, are there other prohibited or restricted equipment categories?

Answer: Implementers should comply with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations, to include the American Security Drone Act, ITAR, and EUM restrictions.

Question 20: Live ordnance training exercises (Section C): The NOFO references "practical exercises using inert training ordnance and live ordnance disposal (where appropriate and safe)." Please clarify: (a) whether live ordnance/training materials are to be sourced by the applicant or provided by host-nation governments; and (b) what safety, insurance, and liability protocols CT expects to govern activities involving live ordnance.

Answer: All training materials, live or inert, are to be sourced by the applicant. CT expects applicants to comply with all laws and regulations governing the safe import, export, and handling of live explosives and hazardous materials.

Question 21: Do inert representative ordnance items (training replicas, non-explosive) require the same CT pre-approval process as live equipment? Under which ITAR category should replica Iranian-origin ordnance components be classified for export license purposes?

Answer: Inert representative ordnance items (e.g., non-explosive training replicas) are evaluated based on specific characteristics and intended use. The NOFO does not establish a blanket exemption from for inert or replica items. Applicants should identify any such items in their proposal to allow the Department to determine whether CT pre-approval or other applicable reviews are required.

With respect to export controls, the Department cannot provide commodity classifications or legal determinations through the NOFO question-and-answer process. Applicants are responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable U.S. export control laws and regulations, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), as applicable. Whether a particular replica item is subject to the ITAR or EAR, and any applicable licensing requirements, depends on the specific facts, technical characteristics, and origin of the item.

Question 22: Will title to procured equipment transfer to host-nation units, and what are the end-use monitoring expectations?

Answer: The implementer is responsible for obtaining any required documentation for donating equipment. CT is prepared to provide a reasonable level of assistance/facilitation as needed, in support of this project, including permissions for disposition. At the end of the period of performance, equipment procured under this project will be granted to the beneficiary government. The U.S. will retain ongoing end-use monitoring obligations, the specifics of which will be determined post-award.

Question 23: Have the host governments (Iraq, Lebanon, GCC states) been consulted, and have any committed to participate or identified beneficiary units?

Answer: Consultation process is ongoing.

Question 24: Are there existing agreements/MOUs authorizing this assistance, or must they be established during implementation?

Answer: MOUs, if necessary, may be established during implementation.

Question 25: Country selection process (Sections A and C): The NOFO indicates CT will approve participating countries during implementation, with eligible countries spanning Iraq, Lebanon, and six GCC states. The NOFO does not specify whether proposals must address all countries or may propose a prioritized subset. Could you please confirm if:

a) applicants should propose a specific subset of countries with a defined scope and budget;

b) applicants should design a modular program structure that allows CT to select countries post-award; or

c) applicants are expected to design and budget for activities to cover all eligible countries within the provided ceiling?

Answer: Applicants should design a modular, flexible program that allows CT to select countries post-award, able to include or exclude countries based on in-country needs, political will, and conditions on the ground.

Question 26: Who will secure host-nation concurrence and identify beneficiary units — the Bureau/post or the implementer?

Answer: The selected applicant, working in coordination with the Department of State, will secure recipient nation concurrence and identify beneficiary units.

Question 27: For Lebanon, is there a current CT-approved beneficiary unit list that applicants should reference in programme design, or is the approved beneficiary set determined post-award in consultation with U.S. Embassy Beirut?

Answer: Approved beneficiary units will be determined post-award in consultation with CT Bureau and U.S. Embassy Beirut.

Question 28: Are Peshmerga Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs (MoPA) units eligible beneficiaries under this NOFO? If so, does CT require Iraqi federal government approval before Peshmerga participation, or is U.S. Consulate General Erbil approval sufficient? Does Peshmerga inclusion require a separate Leahy vetting pathway through MoPA rather than through Baghdad?

Answer: Approved beneficiary units will be determined post-award in consultation with CT Bureau, U.S. Embassy Baghdad and Consulate General Erbil as applicable.

Question 29: For ITAR/EAR-controlled items, will State/post assist with or expedite export licensing and any Congressional notification, and what timelines should we assume?

Answer: State and Post will assist with ITAR/EAR controls but cannot provide definitive timelines at this time.

Question 30: Can the equipment and explosive training materials be lawfully imported into the host nations, and will post support import permits, customs, and transport authorization?

Answer: State and Post will assist with lawful import and permitting authorization, in accordance with ITAR/EAR controls. Selected implementers will be expected to comply with all U.S. and recipient country laws and regulations.

Question 31: Does CT prefer U.S.-origin equipment, or is third-country/host-nation procurement acceptable?

Answer: Applicants should propose equipment and procurement processes they believe best achieves the program objectives.

Question 32: Are there known unit-level constraints we should anticipate for Leahy vetting with host-nation law enforcement/police units — e.g., Lebanese ISF and Iraqi Federal Police EOD units? Are there any known units in the host nations that cannot be cleared?

Answer: Selected implementer should expect to coordinate with relevant Bureaus and Embassies to determine targeted units, including any unit-level constraints. Successful completion of Leahy vetting is required for all training and procurement activities.

Question 33: NOFO p.7, Compliance and Vetting Requirements, requests that “applicants must provide participant information in the format and timeline specified by the Department of State for vetting purposes” and further “applicants must maintain appropriate [ITAR and EAR] registrations and obtain necessary export licenses.” Please confirm that these requirements are applicable to the recipient post award only and not to applicants responding to the NOFO prior to award.

Answer: These requirements are applicable to the recipient post award.

Question 34: U.S. Mission Iraq has been on ordered departure since March 2026 with a Level 4 Do Not Travel advisory current as of the submission date. Does CT expect Baghdad to be accessible as a program delivery location by the proposed September 2026 start date, or does CT expect Iraq delivery to be conducted from Erbil under Consulate General Erbil CoM protocols? Should proposals designate Erbil rather than Baghdad as the primary Iraq Forward Operating Location?

Answer: The selected implementer should work with CT and the relevantU.S. Embassy to determine training locations and security protocols. The implementer will not be expected to operate under CoM protocols but will be responsible for the security of its personnel.

Question 35: Does CT have a defined security threshold below which in-country Iraq delivery would be suspended and activities transferred to an out-of-country fallback location? Is that threshold defined in the cooperative agreement or managed through the substantial involvement mechanism during implementation?

Answer: The selected implementer will be expected to work with CT and the relevant Embassy to determine security protocols and contingency plans, which will be managed through the substantial involvement mechanism during implementation.

Question 36: Does CT have a preference or requirement for the primary program operations base location, or does CT expect applicants to propose and justify their preferred hub? Specifically, would CT consider a GCC-based primary operations base — such as Qatar or the UAE — acceptable given the multi-country geographic scope, cost efficiency considerations, and current Iraq/Lebanon security conditions?

Answer: CT does not have a preference or requirement for the primary program base location. Each applicant should propose and justify their method of implementation, to include a preferred hub.

Question 37: Given the holiday weekend and the requested clarification for the NOFO requirements, could CT please extend the due date to July 17, 2026?

Answer: CT will not be extending the due date of this funding opportunity.

Question 38: Is it acceptable to provide training outside of the countries where trainees are based, provided there are sufficient facilities, equipment, and live range capacity available to allow for a high-quality training experience; travel to the proposed location is not prohibitive for the trainees; and it fits within the scope of the allowable budget?

Answer: Yes.

Question 39: Has a Training Needs Analysis (TNA) been conducted for each of the beneficiary countries units? And alongside this, has an Equipment Needs Analysis (ENA) also been done? If not, would these be expected to be undertaken by the implementing organization as part of the program activities?

Answer: Program implementers will be expected to determine the current baseline training and equipment standards of each recipient country. Applicants may propose an assessment as part of project activities.

Question 40: If a TNA has taken place, do we have a “standard” of competency for each of the beneficiary countries and their units’ level of ability in EOD/IEDD prior to further training being conducted?

Answer: A TNA has not taken place, but more information on unit capabilities may be available via coordination with CT. Program implementers will be expected to establish the current standards of competency of each recipient country.

Question 41: Is there a minimum number of people total you expect to receive training under this program?

Answer: There is no minimum number of people expected to receive training under this program.

Question 42: Do the units to be trained have relevant equipment already or is it necessary that some portion of the funding for this program be used to purchase equipment? If the latter, 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 project?

Answer: Program implementers will be expected to determine the equipment needs of each recipient country. Applicants should propose activities and equipment they beleive best achieves the program objectives.

Question 43: Per the referenced regulation Never Contract with 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 actively 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?

Answer: This funding does not qualify as being in support of a contingency operation in which members of the Armed Forces are actively engaged in hostilities.

Question 44: Outcome 3 commits to “sharing EOD/C-IED-related information and intelligence with U.S. law enforcement,” but no mechanism or counterpart is specified. What channel/frequency is expected? This will affect the PMP indicator design.

Answer: Information-sharing channel/frequency/implementation mechanism will be determined post-award in consultation with CT and relevant regional bureaus and embassies.

Question 45: Can you please clarify whether the Logic Model/Theory of Change and PMP count toward the 12-page proposal limit or as attachments, since they are listed both under the proposal narrative section and the attachments section in the NOFO?

Answer: The Logic Model/Theory of Change and PMP do not count towards the 12-page proposal limit and can be submitted as attachments.

Question 46: Is a line-item budget expected to be provided in addition to the SF-424A? This is not described in the NOFO, but a detailed budget template document is provided. It is also not clear whether the detailed budget or the budget justification counts as part of the 12-page proposal limit or as attachments, if you could please clarify this as well.

Answer: Applicants should submit a detailed budget using the template provided. The detailed budget and the budget justification do not count towards the 12-page proposal limit and can be submitted as attachments.

Question 47: The NOFO indicates that application materials must be submitted through grants.gov or MyGrants, but there does not appear to be a mechanism for submission through grants.gov. Will this be changed, or must we submit only through MyGrants?

Answer: Applications can be submitted through either MyGrants or grants.gov. This notice of funding opportunity is live on both sites. Applicants should refer to the MyGrants helpdesk for assistance. CT is unable to assist applicants submit applications.

Question 48: Is the timeline for Leahy vetting of the participants in this program expected to be that typical of any other program or are there reasons to expect it may take longer?

Answer: Implementers should plan for typical Leahy vetting timelines.

Question 49: The NOFO says CT will approve specific countries for participation “during implementation,” but also asks applicants to address Iraq, Lebanon, and all six GCC states individually under “Country-Specific Considerations.” Given the limited space available for the proposal narrative, should applicants design and cost a program addressing all eight countries in comparable depth, or is a phased/tiered regional design (e.g., a detailed initial set of countries plus a framework for CT-directed expansion) the preferred approach?

Answer: Applicants should design a modular, regional, flexible program that allows CT to select countries post-award, able to include or exclude countries based on in-country needs, political will, and conditions on the ground. Applicants can propose specific countries with justifications for implementation within the parameters set in the NOFO.

Question 50: If the delivery team is mostly non-U.S. nationals, can you please confirm whether ITAR/EAR technical-data-transfer restrictions are understood to apply only to physical equipment transfers, and not to instructor access/training content itself (since the instructors and the training content having no US connection)?

Answer: Applicants must demonstrate compliance with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for any equipment or technical data transfers Question 51: Regarding the provisions of 2 CFR 200.322, for EOD/IEDD equipment, much of the specialized kit in this field (detectors, render-safe tools) is non-U.S.-manufactured. How strictly does the domestic preference apply, and is there a waiver pathway?

Answer: Applicants should propose equipment and procurement process they believe best achieves the program objectives.

Question 52: Will CT identify approved countries and training locations before award, or should applicants develop their approach using notional assumptions for Iraq, Lebanon, and GCC member states, with final countries and locations confirmed during implementation?

Answer: Applicants should develop their approach using notional assumptions for Iraq, Lebanon, and GCC member states, with final countries and locations to be confirmed during implementation.

Question 53: Can CT provide the expected beneficiary units and estimated trainee numbers by country, unit, course type, and training level, or should applicants propose notional trainee throughput based on their recommended technical approach?

Answer: CT cannot provide this information at this time. Applicants should propose notional trainee throughput based on their recommended technical approach.

Question 54: May applicants include an initial training needs assessment or gap analysis as a formal project activity to validate beneficiary capabilities, baseline data, PMP targets, and final logic model assumptions after award?

Answer: Yes.

Question 55: Does CT expect EOD/C-IED/IEDD training to align with specific U.S.-endorsed or international standards, qualification levels, certification requirements, or proficiency benchmarks?

Answer: Yes, CT expects training to align with U.S. and international standards for safe and effective EOD operations.

Question 56: For proposed equipment, should applicants identify specific makes and models in the application, or describe equipment by capability category pending CT review, ITAR/EAR determination, export licensing, and end-use monitoring approval?

Answer: Applicants should describe equipment by capability category pending CT review, ITAR/EAR determination, export licensing, and end-use monitoring approval.

Question 57: Since final countries and training locations may be confirmed during implementation, should applicants price travel, lodging, per diem, local transportation, venue support, security coordination, and life support using notional locations and published U.S. Government allowance rates, with final adjustments subject to CT approval?

Answer: Applicants should propose activities with budget levels and locations that they believe will best achieve the project objectives. CT understands training recipients, locations, and associated budget may change during implementation.

Question 58: The anticipated project timeline and period of performance.

Answer: Please refer to the notice of funding opportunity.

Question 59: The expected number of personnel to be trained.

Answer: Applicants should propose program activities they believe will best achieve the project objectives.

Question 60: The experience level and background of the personnel who will receive the training.

Answer: Applicants should propose program activities they believe will best achieve the project objectives.

Question 61: Any additional information regarding the scope of work, training objectives, and expected deliverables.

1. Answer: Please refer to the notice of funding opportunity.