Regional Centers NOFO Q & A Version 3 May 6 2024.docx

Regional Centers for Public Health Preparedness and Response Opportunity number: CDC-RFA-TU-24-0142 Questions, Answers and Points of Clarification Contents

NEW QUESTIONS

STRATEGIES QUESTIONS

Data collection and evaluation. “CDC will help with choosing performance measures.” What does that actually mean? Does this mean that CDC will tell us what to evaluate? (page 47)

· No. CDC will work with recipients to establish measures for the overall performance of their centers (per the Cooperative Agreement Workplan) to determine if the work is meeting the overall objectives of the NOFO and if the work is on time and on task.

For Component E, strategy 11, on pages 15-16, the NOFO states that, besides applicants from regions 4, 8 or 10, applicants “need to propose the development of ecosystem models in collaboration with working groups, in addition to pilot testing plans and processes supporting the regional data ecosystem model”. However, on page 11 it states that only regions “with a regional data ecosystem model” are eligible for this strategy. Can you please clarify which regions are eligible to apply for this strategy. And if regions other than 4, 8, and 10 are eligible to apply, do applicants need to utilize one of the ecosystems models previously developed in regions 4, 8, and 10?

· In your application you may indicate that you will use one of the data ecosystems developed under contract in FY2023 or propose developing a new regional data ecosystem model. Regions may also have existing data ecosystem models not developed under contract with CDC in FY2023 that they may pilot through the center. In addition, regions may develop data ecosystem models in preparation for this NOFO. All funded data ecosystems will be approved by the project officers prior to initiation.

Is Component E strictly for regions previously awarded this subcomponent (8,9,10)? It seems to be the case, but that is not explicitly stated.

· No. All regions are eligible to apply for Component E if they have an existing plan. Regions may develop plans in preparation for this NOFO.

Is Strategy 8 relating to a declared “response” or should we write to this strategy as though it is under normal circumstances?

· The broader work under this strategy may be designed to enhance the PHPR science workforce at any time. The training may occur under normal circumstances, but preparations to deploy scientists should also be included. However, the strategy must include deployment of PHPR scientists to support real-time training in the event of an active locally and/or federally declared public health emergency.

Should we be integrating all of these sets of guidance as we draft our project narratives? Can you speak in a bit more detail about how to approach Component D, given that we may not be applying for a specific project so much as providing a list of capabilities and expertise available for future needs?

· For Component D we are interested in knowing if your center can conceptualize projects that consider indicators in the logic model and incorporate a range of capabilities that may be needed to fulfill the needs of future funding.

Per Pg 25 of the NOFO (discussing Activity 3 of Strategy 2, Components A and B) reads: “Work with the Steering Committee to obtain input, review of, and support for Strategies 3, 4, and 5.”

- Strategy 5 is Component C, the national coordination center opportunity. Will the regional center’s Steering Committee therefore be expected to provide oversight and input on national coordinating center activities, where that project is awarded? This will be helpful to know as we develop organizational charts.

· The NOFO does not require the Steering Committee to provide oversight of any strategies or activities or the coordination center.

Would you please clarify the difference between Strategy 6 in Component D and Strategy 10 within Component E? Is Component E strictly for regions previously awarded this subcomponent (8,9,10)? It seems to be the case, but that is not explicitly stated.

· No. Component E is open to all regions. Regions may have existing data ecosystem models or Regional Work Plans for tribal, rural or frontier communities not developed under contract with CDC in FY2023. In addition, regions may develop data ecosystem models or Regional Work Plans for tribal, rural or frontier communities in preparation for this NOFO or propose developing a new regional data ecosystem models as part of their application.

· Component D provides an opportunity to fund a regional work plan and activities to address needs of an underserved population and implementing and evaluating those activities if funds become available. The populations may be defined by a range of characteristics.

Can we invite legislative bodies such as state house committees working on emergency preparedness to be part of the coordinating body? or do coordinating bodies need to exclude legislative offices?

The NOFO states that the Coordinating Body is composed of members from “applicable STLT health departments and officials; health care facilities and health care coalitions; academic, public, and private partners; and individuals who have experience working with underserved populations, including tribal communities.” (See Page 22 of the NOFO). While the NOFO does not expressly prohibit inclusion of legislative entities from participation on the coordinating body, activities funded under the NOFO must comply with Federal grant regulations and DHHS and CDC policies concerning unallowable costs and anti-lobbying restrictions. Please see pp. 57-58 of the NOFO, which reference guidance on Anti-Lobbying Restrictions for CDC Grantees (available at https://www.cdc.gov/grants/documents/Anti-Lobbying_Restrictions_for_CDC_Grantees_July_2012.pdf). Please consider whether the benefit of including legislators on the Coordinating Body outweighs the significant risk in doing so. Engaging with legislators in this capacity could easily lead to inadvertent violations of applicable anti-lobbying restrictions, including grassroots lobbying. Please note that CDC anti-lobbying guidance has potentially different implications for applicants from public versus private institutions.

The simplest and recommended course of action for engaging legislative entities for input into funded activities is for awardees to work with and through members of your coordinating body who serve in formal state executive branch roles, via those members’ standard communications, policymaking, and administrative processes within normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships.

If an applicant chooses to propose inclusion of representatives from legislative entities on the coordinating body, the applicant must ensure representation by equivalent legislative entities from each state in their HHS region. Recipients may not use awarded funds to compensate either legislative staff or elected officials for any purpose.

The applicant must first confirm that the inclusion of legislative bodies does not violate CDC anti-lobbying restrictions. If the applicant cannot confirm that violations of anti-lobbying restriction will be prevented, the remaining following points are irrelevant.

Once the applicant confirms that the inclusion of legislative bodies does not violate CDC anti-lobbying restrictions, they must:

1. confirm that compensation will not be made to legislative entities (i.e., legislative staff or elected officials) with awarded funds;

2. think through the implications and risks of including legislative entities in project activities, whether through representation on the coordinating body or otherwise;

3. address in their application the benefits and carefully consider challenges related to engagement with legislative entities;

4. clearly describe and carefully limit the involvement and role(s) (e.g., providing nonbinding input as a Coordinating Body contributor) of legislative entities for the proposed project, and consider whether this limitation hinders the overall role of the Coordinating Body;

5. agree to work closely with the award’s CDC project officer to ensure activities funded by the award are in continuous compliance with allowable cost and anti-lobbying regulation and policy. Recipients must confirm that costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable with OGS;

6. make clear that the inclusion of legislative entities does not violate either Federal regulations concerning allowable grant costs or Federal anti-lobbying restrictions on grant activities.

NARRATIVE LENGTH

Given the page limits for each project narrative, will CDC consider allowing the submission of the required CAWP workplans as an appendix instead of including them in the project narrative? (duplicate)

· Applicants may submit the CAWP as an appendix.

Is the organization chart expected to count toward the 12-page narrative? If so, can this organization chart be reduced in font size?

· The organization chart may be submitted as an appendix.

BUDGET QUESTIONS

Can you please confirm - All Component D funding will need to be competed for at a later date if funding becomes available?

· Yes. All Component D funding will need to be competed for at a later date if funding becomes available.

If you plan to apply to Component A and Component D and A does not involve research activities but D does involve research activities, could you use two different indirect rates per component?

· Component D does not require a budget. Applicants should only provide example narratives so the merit review panel can better understand their capabilities and overall ability to support work in a strategy area. The proposed projects will not be funded. Future funding will be dependent up availability of funds and requests for proposals that are released associated with available funds. If research is submitted, a full sf424 submission package will be required.

In the first Q&A posted on the website for this NOFO under “Budget Questions” it is noted that applicants should only submit component budgets for year 1. Should we be submitting some kind of budget for years 2 through 5? If so, is there a format/categories we should be using or is it just a total for direct and indirect costs?

· Because this is annual funding, recipients will be required to complete a budget for years 2 – 5 during each non-competing continuation budget period. The budget must be itemized and contain the applicable categories of salaries, fringe benefits, consultant costs, supplies, travel, other categories, contractual costs, total direct costs, and total indirect costs. The indirect cost category must breakout the calculations to show how you arrived at the total. The acceptable formats are Excel and Word. You are not required to submit a budget or total amounts for years 2 – 5 during the initial application period. If you are awarded, a budget will be required during the non-competing continuation budget periods for years 2 - 5.

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

Are there limits on the number of letters of support?

· No Our organization is reviewing CDC-RFA-TU-24-014 and we hoped to confirm if a System to System method, such as Cayuse, might be acceptable for this submission. We see on page 88 of the guidelines that only Grants.gov is listed, but we hoped to verify as we have the ability to create a Grants.gov proposal for this opportunity number in Cayuse.

· Applicants must use the systems we have outlined in the NOFO for submission of applications. To avoid possible disqualification, applicants should not deviate from the instructions outlined in the NOFO.

We are a national organization that has been approached by organizations in different regions for letter of support and/or letter of commitment for different components of the Regional Centers for Public Health Preparedness and Response. We are located in Region 6 and are planning on collaborating in one Region 6 application. Can we still offer letters of support or commitment?

· There are no limitations on external entities regarding letters of support. During the Merit Review process, if we have any concerns regarding an applicant’s capacity to meet the requirements of the NOFO, we will address that with the applicant (so, for example, if one organization is listed as providing the same services to multiple recipients, we may request proof that the capacity exists to provide the support).

MERIT REVIEW

The scoring criteria for each of the components includes a section on “Evaluation and performance measurement” but this section is not included in the required headings and subheadings detailed in the NOFO on pages 67 and 68. Please clarify if applicants should include an Evaluation and Performance Measurement section in the proposal narrative submission for each component.

· The applicant should clearly describe each element noted in the merit review for evaluation and performance measurement (pg.76), which aligns with the following sections in the application contents: strategies and activities, and data management.

OTHER QUESTIONS

Are you able to provide the EBSI inventory? (Related question - Is there a possibility to access all or part of the current list of EBSIs that Cadmus has gathered? Our Eval team has indicated that it would be helpful to review at least some examples in designing our evaluation and monitoring plan.)

· We are working to get the EBSI inventory into a shareable format with plans to post on Grants.gov.

How adaptive can the evaluation plan be from what is described in the NOFO to real life? Or basically what level of change will be seen as acceptable? What we think now and what should be looked at then could be miles apart.

· Evaluation plans will differ by strategy or intervention evaluated. The approach and outcomes should be proposed and discussed with the Project Officer after award when being developed.

List of participants and any information you can provide regarding the Regional Coordinating Body for Region 7

· We cannot share direct contact information for the regional coordinating body members. The Regional Coordinating Body for Region 7 includes representatives from all four states in the region: Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas.

It has 28 members. This includes PHEP Directors or designees from all four states in the region.

It includes local health department staff from all four states in the region.

It includes representative from the following sectors: Healthcare and academe, and members from other Region 7 disaster coordinators like ASPR.

There is representation from rural and urban areas on the coordinating body.

What is the definition of a health care coalition?

· A healthcare coalition (HCC), as defined in the HHS ASPR 2017-2022 Health Care Preparedness and Response Capabilities, is a group of individual healthcare and response organizations (e.g., hospitals, emergency medical services [EMS], emergency management organizations, and public health agencies) in a defined geographic location that play a critical role in developing healthcare system preparedness and response capabilities. HCCs serve as multiagency coordinating groups that support and integrate with ESF-8 activities in jurisdictional incident command systems (ICS).

· Please see the following resources: Healthcare Coalitions | ASPR TRACIE (hhs.gov) and General Overview of Healthcare Coalitions (hhs.gov) Region IV UNC was initially awarded a Regional Center. What was UNC’s charge? (to my knowledge they focused on 1. overall coordination 2. data management). How long was their award? Now there is an additional competitive application process for the region and we are trying to determine the best way to navigate multiple centers request for support.

· We have not funded centers. We funded contracts for one year that will end in September 2024 prior to initiation of the centers.

· Multiple entities competed for a contract to:

· Establish and convene a regional coordinating body of applicable state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments and officials, health care facilities, and health care coalitions, academic, public, and private partners

· Coordinate of relevant activities with the regional coordinating body

· Create a five-year work plan to guide work of the regional centers once they are established

· Disseminate the plan to the members of the regional coordinating body

· Provide the plan and supporting documents used to develop the work plans to CDC for future use

· You can read that solicitation at Establishing Work Plans for Ten Regional Centers to Enhance Public Health Preparedness and Response – Solicitation.

We have read the NOFO “Regional Centers for Public Health Preparedness and Response” (CDC-RFA-TU-24-0142) with interest and consider applying, together with the local public health agencies and other stakeholders. However, it seems in the NOFO, it is required to pivot to priorities outlined in the report of the previous/current group holding this funding, which we cannot find.

· The workplans developed under contract are not drafted yet. They will be available after the awards are made. They will include focus areas, priorities, and objectives designed by Regional Coordinating Bodies. Some may include recommended activities.

Questions posted 4/17/2024

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Can we get a copy of the work for our regions work plan?

· The workplans are not drafted yet. They will be available after the awards are made.

Are the FY23 work plans available now to use in preparing a proposal or only after award?

· The workplans are not drafted yet. They will be available after the awards are made.

How do you get access to the Work Plan for your region if you are an Option B applicant?

· The workplans are not drafted yet. They will be available after the awards are made.

Do you have a Five-Year Regional Work Plan you can send for my region? We are strong on Mental Health and emergencies, but that alone may be too limiting of a focus for the FOA.

· The workplan has not be completed yet.

· The FOA does not have a specific FOA. Please note the capabilities – The question is does your institution and partners have the capabilities establish and maintain a center and implement a workplan with a range of PHEPR objectives.

Can you tell me who the PI is or which group in our region got the award?

· We have been hesitant to share direct contact information for the contract leads as their current work is not considered relevant to the new centers as they are capability based. We are working on a document that will include the focus areas emerging from the contracted work and hope to share that late next week.

On page 24, under Strategy 2, it indicates that the CDC can provide more information about regional coordinating bodies upon request. Would you be able to provide more with more information regarding these bodies for our Region? The Regional Coordinating Body for Region 6 includes representatives from all four states in the region: Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, and Arkansas.

· It has 14 members. This includes PHEP Directors or designees from three states: LA, AK, and TX. It includes local health department staff from three states: NM, TX, and LA. It includes representative from the following sectors: Healthcare, academe, K-12 education, and epidemiology. There is representation from rural and urban areas on the coordinating body.

I have a question about who in my region can apply. The NOFO seems to indicate that only the organization that received CDC's FY23 award can now submit an application for my region. Is that correct? If so, who got the prior award in my region? I've copied the relevant NOFO text below.

· Any academic institution or non-profit private entity based in a region may apply for this new NOFO. The previous contractors do not have an advantage here because the capabilities differ. Please see table at the end of this document for a list of entities holding FY2023 contracts. The workplans developed under the FY2023 contracts will guide the core work of the newly established centers.

When will the evaluation, workplan, and CAWP templates be provided?

· The CAWP template is included in the NOFO. It may be modified slightly to respond to Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements. All other templates will be provided within a month of contract award.

How are the FY2023 contracts different from the opportunity described in the NOFO?

· The Related Work section on p. 12 of the NOFO provides a high-level description of the seven awarded contracts and notes that the contracts were awarded to create Five-Year Regional Work Plans that address current and anticipated future PHPR needs. Also noted there, you can read that solicitation at Establishing Work Plans for Ten Regional Centers to Enhance Public Health Preparedness and Response – Solicitation.

· Under Component B (p. 14), the Center awardees for 7 regions are expected to develop, implement, and evaluate activities to meet objectives in the Five-Year Regional Work Plan, FY2024 – 2029 provided by CDC to recipients of this cooperative agreement to increase uptake of EBSIs. The Five-Year Regional Work Plans (established under the above FY23 contracts) will include focus areas, partners, roles, and resources needed to accomplish the plan’s objectives.

· Strategy 3 on p. 25-27 of the NOFO describes how awardees are expected to use the work plans, and terms for modifying the work plans.

· FY2023 work currently under contract is to create the Regional workplans, which will be given to the Regional Center awardees to use/implement (in regions 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10).

NARRATIVE LENGTH

For Component narratives, is the 7-page limit for the entire component or for each strategy? (Duplicate question)

· Please include a separate 7-page narrative for each strategy you are applying for under Components D and E.

Does the Narrative page limit include the extensive cooperative workplan agreements? Or are the cooperative workplan agreements counted separately?

· The Cooperative Agreement Work Plan and project narrative are separate documents. CAWP describes the broader activities of the center, not specific activities. The applicants may submit CAWP as appendix.

Given the page limits for each project narrative, will CDC consider allowing the submission of the required CAWP workplans as an appendix instead of including them in the project narrative? The recommended format included in the NOFO is over 4 pages long with no information entered. If utilized as requested the workplan tables will take up a significant number of the allowable pages for each component narrative and reduce the information applicants can provide in response to the other proposal narrative requirements.

· The Cooperative Agreement Work Plan and project narrative are separate documents. CAWP describes the broader activities of the center, not specific activities. The applicants may submit CAWP as appendix.

Is the organization chart expected to count toward the 12-page narrative? If so, can this organization chart be reduced in font size?

· The organizational chart may be submitted as an attachment.

PROJECT NARRATIVE FORMAT

Can applicants submit additional information related to organizational capacity as an appendix to supplement the information required to be included in the project narrative?

· Yes.

CAWP QUESTIONS

CAWP formats/templates are provided for Components A and B in the NOFO. Are there recommended CAWP formats for Components C, D, and E?

· Please consider using the recommended CAWP for components C, D and E.

To format of CAWP should we include the questions and check boxes or just make sure we respond to the questions?

· All questions and respective checkboxes need to completed in the Cooperative Agreement Work Plan Template.

Do we have to include the CAWP and the narrative and is that all included in the 12 pages for part B?

· The Cooperative Agreement Work Plan and project narrative are separate documents. CAWP describes the broader activities of the center, not specific activities. The applicants may submit CAWP as appendix.

BUDGET QUESTIONS

What is Angel Winter’s email? She is the person budget questions should be directed to, correct?

· JVR1@cdc.gov Is a separate budget required for Component D at the time of proposal? If so, how would you like us to provide this information (i.e., should totals be combined in the budget form for Components B and D or should a second form be submitted)?

· Component D does not require a proposed budget. Applicants should only provide example narratives so the merit review panel can better understand their capabilities and overall ability to support work in a strategy area. The proposed projects will not be funded. Future funding will be dependent up availability of funds and requests for proposals that are released associated with available funds.

Are the indirects part of the contract total?

· Yes.

My understanding from FOA is that we will need to provide separate budgets for each component if we are applying for more than one component. May I know how we should present 5-year budget in SF424a form for multiple components (3-4 components) as there are only 4 column available in the section B-Budget Categories of online form? Please advise.

· Only one SF-424A is required. Section B of the SF-424A has 4 columns which allows applicants to enter the budget for each component.

For Component D, there are four optional strategies that applicants can submit for, and two optional strategies under Component E. The NOFO on page 7 indicates a floor of $500,000 and a floor of $1,000,000 for Component D and between $100,000 and $200,000 for Component E. Given that each strategy in these components will be assessed and funded separately, should applicants consider the budget floor/ceiling to be applicable to each strategy or is the indicated ceiling the total potentially available for all four strategies in Component D and for both strategies in Component E.

For example, if an applicant submits for two strategies in Component D, should the total for both strategies be equal to or less than the ceiling of $1,000,000? Or can applicants propose between $500,000 and $1,000,000 per strategy?

· Component D does not require a proposed budget. Applicants should only provide example narratives so the merit review panel can better understand their capabilities and overall ability to support work in a strategy area. The proposed projects will not be funded. Future funding will be dependent up availability of funds and requests for proposals that are released associated with available funds.

· The cap for E is for each strategy separately.

Regarding the non-construction or research, if there is a component that is research, how should Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs be handled if there is a research component? Would a blended rate be applicable in such cases?

· The applicant must explain the multiple usage of rates (i.e., is the usage of the rate due to contracts, multiple locations, etc.)

If you plan to apply to Component A and Component D and A does not involve research activities but D does involve research activities, could you use two different indirect rates per component?

· Component D does not require a budget.

It looks like there is just one Budget Narrative attachment in the application checklist. Should we make separate budget justification documents for each Component, and then compile them into a single document?

· Yes, this is acceptable. A budget can also be developed in excel, and one tab can be used for each budget. If submitting a Word Doc, one budget is required for each component, but can be combined as one document.

If proposing both research and non-research activities, do you use a single indirect rate or do you need to distinguish within your budget?

· Multiple rates can be used, but the applicant must distinguish why that rate is being used and must include a breakout of how they arrived at total amount for IDC.

When applying for multiple components, can you clarify the structure of the budget in grants.gov/Cayuse? Is it necessary to combine the budgets for all components?

· The budgets must be broken out per component. Applicants may use excel tabs for each component of the budget.

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

I see that a NOFO has been released for this opportunity, but also noted that another entity had received an award to create one of seven regional PHEPRs. Is the opportunity for open to other entities in the regions to apply? (DUPLICATE)

· The opportunity is open to any and all eligible institutions in each region: institutions of higher education, including accredited schools of public health; and nonprofit private entities.

For Component C – if we choose to apply for this component, would it be acceptable if we partnered with (through a subaward) a non-region partner under our primary leadership?

· If needed, you may partner with a non-region partner. The primary award recipient must be from the region awarded.

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

Can we please a list of other mandatory forms? We did not see a request for facilities and other resources in the RFA?

· There is not a list of other mandatory forms listed in the NOFO. There is a form in the Optional Forms section; however, it points back to a document asking to list other mandatory forms. All mandatory forms are listed in the Mandatory Forms section.

Does CDC expect letters to contain detailed, specific plans for activities to be undertaken, or would a more general letter of support and enthusiasm for collaboration be acceptable? Is there a preference here?

· We do not expect letters to contain detailed plans. However, the letter should indicate partners’ commitment to collaborate if an award is made, and ideally will describe partners’ roles and any resource commitments (time, personnel, data, etc.) or other arrangements partners intend to agree to (e.g., MOUs). Secondly, the letter should confirm that the partner has any capabilities the applicant intends to make use of, as described in the application (see p. 39, “Additional capabilities”).

We are instructed to provide at least six letters of support. Is this six letters of support total, or six letters of support per Component/Strategy?

· Each applicant should provide at least six letters of support for the main component A or B. If any of those partners intend to support application for other, optional components, that maybe described in a single letter from the partner, describing any and all components the partner intends to support. Applicants are encouraged to provide additional letters for optional components, particularly if one or more partners play a critical role in the expected implementation and success of any optional components.

We see that component D is referenced as a research component in the RFA and that all components require a project narrative. Elsewhere in the RFA, we see that the full sf424 submission package is required for any research components. Would this mean that Component D would require the project narrative as well as the full sf424 package ((i.e. abstract, 3 sentence narrative, 12 page research plan, specific aims etc...)?

· Applicants should only provide example narratives so the merit review panel can better understand their capabilities and overall ability to support work in a strategy area. The proposed projects will not be funded. Future funding will be dependent up availability of funds and requests for proposals that are released associated with available funds. If research is submitted, a full sf424 submission package will be required.

Does CDC require or expect letters of support to contain any budgetary or financial information?

· If partners are committing financial resources, or intend to be subawardees, ideally the letter will indicate that the partner is in agreement with the applicant’s proposed budget, and plans to commit and/or receive resources, indicating the total amount of financial commitment, as applicable.

The NOFO also says that bio sketches are needed for the project director/PI and anyone who spends over 50% FTE on the project. Does that mean that PI is expected to spend 50% FTE on the project?

· No. The PI is not expected to spend 50% FTE on the project.

What format should resumes be in? NIH Biosketch or ScienCV?

· We have no preference for resume format.

What style of resume is CDC looking for? Traditional biosketches (education, scientific appointments/honors, contributions to science, ongoing research support)?

· We have no preference for resume format.

On page 41, Key Personnel are defined as “any person with more than 50% time committed to the Center” and that CVs are required for all of those individuals. Does that include student research associates, administrative individuals, etc. who may not have required public health/readiness experience expertise?

· Yes. Resumes must be submitted for any person with more than 50% time committed to the Center.

Per pg 8 (and elsewhere) in the NOFO, “Previous experience developing Five-Year-Regional Work Plans and establishing regional coordinating bodies will not be considered in the review process.” Does this mean this work cannot be cited in Project Narratives as evidence of past collaborations or expertise convening multisectoral groups?

· You may cite this work but won’t be considered in the review process.

Per NOFO, pg 67, "Your project narrative must use the following exact headings, subheadings, and order." In many CDC NOFOs and applications, under the Approach section, Outcomes would come before instead of after Strategies and Activities and Focus Populations and Collaborations would be included under the Approach section. Do you anticipate that there will be amendments to the project application format to align with similar CDC solicitations?

· Use the headings, subheadings, and order as mentioned on the NOFO page 67. We do not anticipate amendments to the project application format to align with other CDC solicitations.

Do we upload attachments for each component or just one set of attachments for all components?

· Upload one set of attachments and refer to the attachment included in the narrative text.

· The budgets must be broken out per component. Applicants may use excel tabs for each component budget.

OTHER QUESTIONS

All these eco-system models available for use?

· The regional data ecosystem models are being procured by CDC. They have not been completed. Please contact rsoler@cdc.gov after September 30, 2024 if you would like to receive more information regarding the final regional data ecosystem models.

Can you please clarify the total points in the scoring criteria for Component D – the NOFO states that the total points available for the component is 100, but adding the points available for each of the three scoring subcomponents (1. Approach; 2. Evaluation and performance measurement; and 3. Organizational capacity) results in a total possible score of 110. Moreover, the points available for each of the specific scoring criteria for the Approach add up to 45, instead of the stated 35.

· We appologize for this error. The total points in the scoring criteria for Component D should be 100 with the following breakdown:

1. Approach – 35 points

• Partner engagement approach (5 pts)

• As appropriate for strategies 6-9 (20 pts):

o Approach for developing a Five-Year Regional Work plan to address needs of an underserved population o Implementation approach for strategies and interventions o Approach for enriching education and training of practitioners to enhance the PHPR science workforce.

o Scientific approach such as disciplines and fields of scientific expertise, basic or applied research, evaluation, quantitative or qualitative methods, systems expertise, translation approaches, or dissemination approaches.

• Presents and addresses potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for proposed strategies (5 pts)

• Identifies an approach to working with a range of populations, particularly those that are underserved.

• Shows evidence of understanding and having capabilities to address social determinants of health and health equity relevant to PHPR. Examples may include engaging with partners from communities or organizations representing populations experiencing health disparities. (5 points)

2. Evaluation and performance measurement – 25 points *Scoring breakdowns are as published for this category

3. Organizational Capacity – 40 points

• Provides evidence that the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers are well suited to the strategies the applicant would like to be considered for in the future and have demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s). (15 points)

Describe the capabilities of the center for the following categories:

• Disaster type. (3 points)

• By topic area, using the PHEP domains and capabilities. (3 points)

• By partner engagement approach, including existing partnerships that might enhance capabilities. (3 points)

Depending on the strategy being applied for (10 points)

• By implementation approach, such as direct implementation, training, and TA.

• By scientific approach, such as disciplines and fields of scientific expertise, basic or applied research, evaluation, quantitative or qualitative methods, systems expertise, translation approaches, or dissemination approaches.

• By type of science training.

Describes experience creating translation and dissemination products targeting public health practitioners, non-governmental organizations, and/or decision makers. (3 points)

Describes a project management structure. Clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of project staff like the principal investigator or project director and other leaders, program staff, technical staff, consultants, and partner organizations, including provision of an organizational chart describing roles and responsibilities. (3 points)

Previously Answered Questions

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Two different application submission dates are listed: 5/15 (in the NOFO itself?) and 5/21 (in grants.gov page?). Needs aligned/corrected.

· The correct deadline is May 21st. The NOFO has been updated with the correct date.

Will next Monday's Zoom meeting for NOFO CDC-RFA-TU-0142 be recorded and distributed to registrants?

· The Zoom meeting is being recorded. The recording will be included as an attachment to the NOFO announcement on Grants.gov.

The NOFO seems to indicate that only the organization that received CDC's FY23 award can now submit an application. Is that correct?

· No. This is a new competition. Please see the NOFO for eligibility requirements.

STRATEGIES QUESTIONS

How do we respond to the NOFO if the goal is now implementing a workplan already developed by another grantee?

· This NOFO will fund recipients with the necessary capabilities including subject matter expertise; administrative infrastructure; regional, state, and local partnerships; and management capabilities. Previous experience developing Five-Year Regional Work Plans and establishing regional coordinating bodies will not be considered in the review process.

Is it possible to learn about the content of the workplan so that we can both be responsive to the workplan as well as propose modifications to address the needs of vulnerable rural communities in PA and other surrounding states such as West Virginia?

· The workplans are not complete. Each Regional Coordinating Body that is informing the development of the workplan include rural representation. The NOFO is capability based. It does not request that applicants be responsive to the workplans or that applicants propose modifications to the workplans in their applications.

If the Five-Year Regional Workplan is the roadmap for implementation activities, how best to approach the team that is developing that workplan?

· The Five-Year Regional Work Plans that are currently being developed under contract are not roadmaps for implementation activities. They will include focus areas, priorities, and objectives designed by Regional Coordinating Bodies. Some may include recommended activities.

Can we develop new components including a new workplan ignoring what already exists in Region 3?.i.e, submit an application with all components based on our capabilities without being held to or have to connect to what already exists in region 3?

· This NOFO will fund recipients with the necessary capabilities including subject matter expertise; administrative infrastructure; regional, state, and local partnerships; and management capabilities.

· CDC solicited and reviewed contract proposals to create regional work plans and is paying and overseeing selected vendors to create regional workplans in collaboration with regional coordinating bodies recruited to represent communities in each region and work collectively to identify needs and inform priorities for each awarded region. These workplans are being created to direct the work of each regional center.

· We do not expect the centers to ignore workplans developed by the Regional Coordinating Bodies as these bodies represent the communities involved in the region.

· If, at any time, your regional center wants to modify the focus areas, priorities, or objectives in the Five-Year Regional Work Plan, you must consult with and gain approval from your Steering Committee and CDC project officer.

If you have already approved center with a regional plans, how can any new applicant participate?

· We have not funded centers.

· Multiple entities competed for a contract to do two very specific things: 1) convene a regional coordinating body and 2) use that body to develop a five-year regional workplan.

· The goal of the Regional Centers for Preparedness and Response is multi-fold. The primary and funded goal is to increase implementation of evidence-based interventions based on the plan that was developed using input from the community as represented by the regional coordinating bodies. This is all they have done.

· Implementing plans, including developing and implementing evidence-based strategies, usings a different set of capabilities. In addition, establishing and maintaining a center (a main strategy) and working with a steering committee differs from the current contracted work. The NOFO is seeking entities with the capabilities to do these things.

NARRATIVE LENGTH

We are applying for Components B and C. For each, we must have a separate project narrative: 12-page limit for Component B and 7-page limit for Component C.

· Yes.

If we are applying for both Strategy 10 and Strategy 11 in Component E, do we submit a separate 7-page narrative for each? Or is the length limit of 7 pages total, for both?

· Please include a separate 7-page narrative for each strategy you are applying for under Components D and E.

Component D also comprises multiple Strategies (6, 7, 8, 9); should we plan to submit a separate 7-page narrative for every Component D Strategy for which we wish to apply? Or is Component D a single 7-page narrative for all strategies in which we are interested?

· Please include a separate 7-page narrative for each strategy you are applying for under Components D and E.

PROJECT NARRATIVE FORMAT

On pp 39-41 of the NOFO we are provided with “project narrative requirements,” which detail required components of all narratives and then provide specific additional guidance for each component.

Per pp 67-68 in the NOFO, we are provided with specific headings and subheadings to use in our project narratives, in this precise order.

There is additional guidance on project narratives for Component D only on pp 29-30.

Please see additional guidance for Component D on page 40: “For Components C and D, the focus is on finding organizations that can handle a variety of tasks within the specific topic area of each component.”

Should we be integrating all of these sets of guidance as list of capabilities and expertise available for future needs?

· Yes.

On page 40, you provide the following instructions: For Component D, describe available institutional and professional capabilities to support successful planning and conduct of all Strategy 5 activities, with emphasis on your ability to coordinate across centers and regions. Strategy 5 is assigned to Component C; do these instructions apply to Component C and not Component D?

· This applies to Strategy C. This is a typo.

CAWP QUESTIONS

Sample CAWPs are provided for Components A and B. If we are applying for Components C, D, or E, do we also need to include a CAWP as part of these Proposal Narratives?

· Your application must include separate cooperative agreement work plans (CAWP) for each component for which you are applying.

BUDGET QUESTIONS

Should the applicants submit the component budgets for year 1 only, or all 5 years?

· Year 1. Because this is annual funding, the applicant will be required to complete a budget during each non-competing continuation budget period.

On page 69 of the RFP we are instructed: “The budget narrative, separate for the required Components A, B, C, and E, must explain and justify the costs in your budget.”

It looks like there is just one Budget Narrative attachment in the application checklist. Should we make separate budget justification documents for each Component, and then compile them into a single document?

· A budget narrative is required for each Component. Applicants may compile budgets into a single document. An excel spreadsheet will allow applicants to provide a summary tab that includes the line-item budget for all components and individual tabs that are component specific.

Related: Do we need to complete separate SF-424A budget forms for each Component? Or should we compile all budgetary requests onto a single SF-424A budget form?

· Only one SF-424A is required. Section B of the SF-424A has 4 columns which allows applicants to enter the budget for each component.

Does this mean that there is no budget narrative requirement for Component D? Should we also take this to mean that there should be no budgetary request for Component D?

· There is no budget narrative requirement for Component D. If funds become available, narratives will be requested in applications for those funds.

Can proposed budgets include travel?

· Yes. Staff travel must be placed in the Travel category. Travel other than staff must be placed in the Other cost category.

Can proposed budgets include food for Meetings?

· No.

Is the Award Floor Total Costs (Direct & Indirect Costs?) or only Direct Costs?

· Direct & Indirect Costs

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

The application checklist asks for a statement of public health mission, which is not something that most academic institutions will have.

· Please ignore this requirement. It is an error and will be removed from the NOFO.

OTHER QUESTIONS

When I click on attachments in Grants.gov I don’t see anything.

· Grants.gov includes placeholders for future documents. As we add attachments, like the recording for this session and a question-and-answer guide, you will access them through these links.

What if an awarded applicant comes up with one or more research topics in the future that would fit under Components D and E?

· Component D is capability based, not based on the research topics generated by the applicant. We will be funding based on the ability to do future work should funds become available. When funds are available a call for proposals will be sent to those centers with the related capabilities. The work will be dictated by the needs at the time and the parameters of the funding. Centers may or may not be able to propose independent research.

· Component E will be driven by workplans created by working groups in the community. Practice and research activities will stem from these workplans.

Can you clarify which is the appropriate announcement on Grants.gov? The Full Announcement is dated March 28, 2024, but there is an additional undated one.

· The Full Announcement link updated 3/28 is the correct announcement as of 4/2/2024. The 3/28/2024 version includes the correct NOFO due date of May 21, 2024. The announcement may be updated again in the future. Please always refer to the most up-to-date version.

Who holds the Regional Workplan Contract in my region?

· Please see the table below. Please note that all states in each region with a contract are represented in the Regional Coordinating Bodies and all Regional Coordinating Bodies include at least one PHEP Director and representatives from each state health department.