Q & A for Applicants.pdf

Project Title: Countering Foreign Terrorist Organization Use of Illicit Mining

NOFO: DFOP0018686

Questions Received & Proposed Responses

1. Can the logic model and PMP be submitted as separate attachments that do not count toward the 12-page proposal?

a. The Logic Model and Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) can be submitted as separate attachments, however the narrative explaining the documents should be included in the 12-page proposal.

2. If the logic model and PMP cannot be submitted as separate attachments, can applicants use 10-point Times New Roman for these tables?

a. See answer to Question 1.

3. For the PMP, can a more flexible format be used for the layout to better accommodate the detailed data requested, provided all content remains legible and professional?

a. Please refer to the CT PMP Template and How To Guide. Please also refer to the Content of Application guidance for formatting.

1. The proposal clearly addresses the goal(s), objective(s), and CT outcome(s) of this funding opportunity.

1. All documents are in English.

2. All budgets are in U.S. dollars.

3. All pages are numbered.

4. All documents are formatted to 8 ½ x 11 paper.

5. All Microsoft Word documents are single-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, with a minimum of 1-inch margins.

4. Can you please confirm that the "title page" mentioned on NOFO p.10 is the same as the "Summary Page"?

a. The Summary Page (optional) and title page are the same and do not count towards the 12page Proposal requirement.

5. Are activities required to be organized under the NOFO’s four CT

Program Outcomes? Or can applicants organize activities differently but in line with these four CT Program Outcomes?

a. Please reference the Logic Model Template for how applicants can organize and link activities to Inputs, Outputs, CT Outcomes, Objectives and Goals.

6. The NOFO states that final country locations will be determined when developing the statement of work with the successful applicant. Can CT

Bureau share whether it has strong preferences among the named candidates — Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela — or whether country selection is genuinely open to applicant justification?

a. Applicants should propose programming as appropriate in the context of the proposed country/ region based on feasibility as well as organizational capacity. See Review Criteria for more details on how each application will be evaluated. Final locations will be determined when developing the statement of work with the successful applicant.

7. Will a two-country proposal be viewed less favorably than a three-country proposal under the Quality and Feasibility scoring criteria, or is a well-justified two-country scope considered equally competitive?

a. Each application will be evaluated and rated based on the evaluation criteria outlined under the Review Criteria section. Final locations will be determined when developing the statement of work with the successful applicant.

8. Senior advisors who provide both substantive expertise and programmatic direction — such as an intelligence mentor embedded with a host-nation unit — would typically be classified as subrecipients rather than contractors. Can CT Bureau confirm whether senior individual advisors engaged as principal programme contributors should be structured as subrecipients or personal service contractors under this award?

a. The applicant should follow their standard operating procedures on the classification of senior advisors. CT cannot advise on the internal mechanisms of the organization.

9. Can CT Bureau identify which USG programmes — for example, INL, DEA, FinCEN, or Treasury Office of Technical Assistance — are currently active in Colombia and Peru on illicit mining, financial intelligence, or CFT, to allow applicants to position this programme as genuinely complementary rather than duplicative?

a. Through the Substantial Involvement, CT will coordinate with other

U.S. Government agencies to ensure the program is complementary with broader U.S. Government security efforts in the region.

10. The announcement reflects two opportunity numbers, DFOP0018686 on the cover page and DFOP0018675 in Section A.1. Please confirm the correct number for submission via Grants.gov / MyGrants.

a. The NOFO number is DFOP0018686.

11. Has the program been socialized with candidate host governments, or is securing host-nation buy-in the implementer's responsibility? At the candidate-country level, will the relevant U.S. Embassy provide diplomatic clearance, country-team support, and introductions to counterpart agencies, and is host-nation concurrence expected at the application stage or secured following award?

a. Strong applicants will demonstrate past performance and experience in working with host governments, local organizations, and communities. The selected implementer will be responsible for building and strengthening partnerships with relevant host-nation government agencies. CT will work with the selected implementer and U.S. Embassy personnel in country to start coordination and make required connections.

12. For the mission set described (intelligence, interdiction, financial investigation, and prosecution), does CT or the relevant embassy have preferred host-nation counterpart units in the candidate countries?

Where available, we request a list of units that have previously passed

Leahy vetting. For units not yet vetted, please describe how vetting is initiated and conducted, the expected timeline, and whether completion is a precondition to engagement.

a. Strong proposals will identify host-nation counterpart units as applicable to the theory of change and activities proposed. Any proposed law enforcement units will require Leahy vetting which will be conducted in coordination with CT and the U.S. Embassy in country.

13. Will the relevant U.S. Embassy assist with customs clearance, duty and tax exemption (via diplomatic note or host-nation agreement), and importation of program equipment, and with country clearance and visas for implementer personnel?

a. Yes – If applicable, CT will facilitate coordination between the selected implementer and the U.S. Embassy to assist.

14. For any equipment provided or donated, does State facilitate the required authorizations, or is the implementer expected to obtain ITAR

(DDTC), EAR (BIS), and any OFAC licenses independently? Are any equipment categories disallowed beyond the American Security Drone

Act prohibition, and what are CT's expectations for end-use monitoring and equipment title or disposition at the end of performance?

a. The implementer is responsible for obtaining any required documentation for donated 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.

15. To support the de-confliction plan called for in the evaluation criteria, can CT identify existing U.S. Government efforts (for example

INL/ICITAP, DOJ/OPDAT, DEA, or DoD) and other-donor activity in the candidate countries?

a. CT will not provide a list of existing efforts, however, through

Substantial Involvement, CT will coordinate with U.S. government entities.

16. Does CT anticipate embedded in-country presence and movement in or near extraction sites, and what Regional Security Officer and country-team coordination should the required security plan assume?

a. CT defers to the applicants to propose and justify presence in the country related to the project if necessary. The selected implementer will create a risk plan and will be responsible for their own security.

CT will coordinate communication with the Regional Security Officer to provide any insight or recommendations for security protocol.

17. Given the reopening of Embassy Caracas and the current OFAC general-license framework covering Venezuelan-origin gold, does CT consider Venezuela a priority country for this initiative, and what is the embassy's current capacity to support a new CT assistance program and the importation of program equipment?

a. Currently, there are no foreign assistance restrictions for CT activities in Venezuela. The applicant should provide strong proposals and justifications for each country selected for this project to propose and justify countries for the project.

18. Could the DOS please confirm the correct Funding Opportunity

Number for this application. The cover page lists DFOP0018686, while

Section A lists DFOP0018675.

a. See answer to Question # 12.

19. As noted in the Executive Summary, are Colombia and Mexico considered priority countries, or will other WHA/Amazon/Andean countries be evaluated equally if the FTO/TCO-illicit mining nexus is demonstrated?

a. Applicants should propose and justify country selection in their proposal.

20. Could DOS please confirm tables, textboxes, and graphics can be in 10-point Times New Roman font?

a. All Microsoft Word documents are single-spaced, 12-point Times

New Roman font, with a minimum of 1-inch margins.

21. Could the DOS kindly confirm if proxy indicators are acceptable for outcomes that depend on host-government action, such as arrests, convictions, prosecutions, and financial disruptions?

a. Proxy indicators are acceptable. CT/P will maintain substantial involvement in the development of and any changes to the performance monitoring plan.

22. Could the DOS please confirm whether or not the selected awardee will be required to Leahy vet security forces that will receive assistance under this NOFO?

a. The selected applicant will be required to complete the Leahy vetting process for any relevant security forces receiving assistance from this award in tandem with the embassy where the project is based. Leahy vetting is a precondition to training and equipment, but not to engagement; implementers may communicate with non-vetted units but not train, mentor, or equip them.