Q&A's.docx
DOCX document 15 KB Posted
- Opportunity number
- CDC-RFA-CK-26-0221
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document addressing application clarifications for a CDC cooperative agreement opportunity focused on reducing the burden of parasitic infections in the United States. The document clarifies competitiveness factors, component eligibility, and scope determinations for applicants.
Key clarifications include: jurisdiction competitiveness depends on how well proposed activities align with the logic model for each component in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO); independent agencies in the same state may apply separately if activities are not duplicative; Component A targets Chagas disease activities while Component C addresses other parasitic diseases of public health importance; eligible activities within Component A scope include epidemiologist positions to coordinate trainings, webinars, educational resource development, congenital Chagas disease screening program implementation, and capacity strengthening for diagnosis and management; development and dissemination of U.S. clinical practice guidelines for Chagas disease aligns with activity A1.1 and strategy 1.1 of the COAG logic model; and specimen banking for evaluating diagnostic algorithm components as part of program evaluation (not research) falls within scope. The underlying federal grant opportunity is administered by the CDC under CFDA 93.084, Prevention of Disease, Disability, and Death by Infectious Diseases, and utilizes cooperative agreement funding instruments with typical project periods of one to five years.
Q&A's.docx
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| cdc-rfa-ck-26-0221_forPublication.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Question: Can you provide clarification for what jurisdiction characteristics or factors will be considered when determining a jurisdiction competitiveness? Also, will each component’s application be considered independently if applying to multiple components, or should a jurisdiction prioritize a single component when applying?
Answer: Being competitive for the award depends on the proposed activities and how well they fit the logic model for each component in the NOFO. Independent agencies can apply separately, even if they are in the same state. They’d need to describe how the activities they propose are not duplicative. In general, Component A is intended for Chagas disease activities, while component C is for other for other parasitic diseases of public health importance in the US Question: Could a Department of Health apply to request an epidemiologist that would be able to coordinate activities such as conducting trainings and webinars for healthcare providers, developing and disseminating culturally appropriate educational resources for patients and at-risk communities, supporting implementation of congenital Chagas disease screening programs and strengthening capacity for Chagas disease diagnosis and management?
Answer: All these activities would be an appropriate scope for component A in the NOFO
Question: Would developing the US clinical practice guidelines for Chagas disease and disseminating them to US health care providers be considered in scope for this NOFO?
Answer: Yes, these activities would be in line with activities in the COAG logic model for Component A – activity A1.1 and strategy 1.1
Question: Would the CDC consider banking specimens to be “research” and thus out of scope for this NOFO?
Answer: The collection and use of a specimen bank for the evaluation of an existing diagnostic algorithm component of a screening program, as part of program evaluation and not research, would be in scope for this NOFO
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .