SFOP0008178 QA Part 2 - 2021-06-25.pdf

SFOP0008178

Counterterrorism Legislative Rapid Response Teams

Department of State

Bureau of Counterterrorism

Q&A Part 2 (June 25, 2021)

Question 1. “May the applicant apply for providing services to one region of the world or must the applicant have global capabilities?”

• Response: This NOFO seeks to design and implement a methodology by which the

Department of State, through the successful applicant, can ably respond to opportunities to assist with partner countries' legislative development. Since there is no way to predict which countries will seek assistance through this program, a strong proposal will include the ability to provide services globally. It is not necessary, however, that the applicant already have capabilities or resources established globally.

Question 2. “How will beneficiary states be selected and prioritized? And once selected will the implementer have direct access to the beneficiary state point of contact or will all activities be coordinated through the US embassy in country?”

• Response: Beneficiary countries will be selected based upon a combination of factors, starting with direct requests for assistance, as well as consideration by relevant

Department of State offices, Embassy staff, and other U.S. Government agencies with equities involved. Domestic and Embassy-based Department of State personnel will likely help to facilitate the coordination of activities with the successful applicant to the degree deemed necessary and based upon the circumstances unique to the recipient country.

Question 3. “How will the USG be involved in providing legislative assistance to a given beneficiary state?

• Response: This proposal requires that the successful applicant propose assemble multi-disciplinary teams of individuals with expertise bearing on the crafting of legislation relevant to counterterrorism. Given that the award is a cooperative agreement, which stipulates substantial U.S. Government involvement, the Department of State will work with the successful applicant to identify and agree on explicit areas of cooperation in the final scope of work that may include but are not limited to commenting on and approving the development of written materials, coordinating on the determination of specific focus areas for technical assistance, providing input on host nation engagement, etc.

Question 4. “Does the USG currently have a legislative assistance program in place in the counter terrorism area?”

• Response: The U.S Government provides various forms of technical assistance to assist partner countries in building capacity to counter terrorism. Assistance may involve direct and/or indirect legislative assistance.

Question 5. “What does the proposed funding cover? (e.g. a fee for simply being ‘on call’ to provide services; or fees are designed to compensate only for services provided? Or fees are designed just to cover travel without a stipend?)”

• Response: How the funds are proposed to be allocated is inherent to the applicant’s proposal process and therefore is left to the applicant’s discretion.

Question 6. “Does the recipient of the funding have the option to accept or deny the request to provide legislative assistance to a given state? Would the USG have veto power over any expert selected by the implementer?”

• Response: By entering into an award, the successful applicant will agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the award, which include responsive implementation of the program objectives for any partner country requested by the Department of State. This program will be a cooperative agreement, which requires substantial U.S. Government involvement. The Department of State will therefore be involved in the program to the degree agreed upon in the final scope of work with the successful applicant, which may include review of experts proposed for deployments under this award.

Question 7. “Will CT Bureau handle issues such as ensuring Chief of Mission support for working in-country prior to the arrival of the teams?”

• Response: CT will not ask the implementer to conduct work in any country without the respective Chief of Mission’s support for the engagement.

Question 8. “Does the NOFO contemplate a focus on terrorism finance legislation?”

• Response: The focus of the NOFO is countering terrorism through directly or indirectly related legislation. Countering terrorism financing is included under the umbrella of counterterrorism.

Question 9. “The NOFO does not identify, as stakeholders, the institutions and staff focused on using the relevant statutes such as the police or prosecutors developing criminal terrorism cases in court? Are they excluded from this work?”

• Response: The focus of the NOFO is countering terrorism through directly or indirectly related legislation. The Department of State welcomes the consideration of proposals that identify key stakeholders relative to the nature of the legislative concern, including in-country institutions and staff focused on using the statutes.

Question 10. “Does the NOFO contemplate reviewing legislation and drafting in English or the domestic language for the participating countries?”

• Response: Applicants should factor in translation-related costs for translation into their respect budgets such that English- and domestic language translations are available for review and use.

Question 11. “Will CT Bureau assist with identifying the contacts in-country or will it be up to the grant implementer?”

• Response: The Department of State welcomes applicants’ proposed approaches for identifying contacts in country with the overall intent, where feasible, of having the

Bureau of Counterterrorism broker additional introductions, as appropriate, including through the respective Embassy in country.

Question 12. “While a bidder can provide generalized information, could you please provide more details on how gender analysis, on page 6, might be developed and useful given the limited country information, counterparts, and scope of work?”

• Response: CT seeks to support programs that ensure the meaningful participation of women in processes related to and institutions involved in countering terrorism.

Applicants should describe their general approach to ensuring the meaningful contributions and participation of women in the activities they propose to undertake, as well as how they will ensure each country-specific engagement will take gender into account. When conducting a country-specific gender analysis, applicants may consider the following types of questions: Are all genders treated equitably in terrorism-related legislation, policies, and institutions? Are there any terrorism laws or policies that address inequities or discrimination? Is the host nation implementing laws and regulations that support gender parity and inclusivity? How could these impact the work? How will you consult with local women, including female legislators, practitioners, and civil society representatives to ensure the project is inclusive of and responsive to their needs and perspectives? How will you ensure women are included in activities? How will you engage with foreign government leadership to raise these issues? What gendered issues, including the safety, movement, and access of participants and staff, may arise and how will you mitigate and respond to those risks? These questions are illustrative; there may be other dimensions applicants will want to consider. Applicants should include description(s) of how they will incorporate gender analysis throughout their proposed implementation of the program.

Question 13. “The first page of the NOFO first says that advisory teams ‘will be deployed with relatively short notice (four to six weeks) and expected to engage with host country stakeholders consistently over an initial period of seven to fourteen days.’ At the bottom of the same page, it says that the team must be “able to travel worldwide upon short (3-4 week) notice for 7-10 day deployments.” Please clarify the expected timeframes for both notice (3-4 weeks, or 4-6 weeks) and length of deployments (7-10 days each, or 7-14 days each), as that information may impact both team composition and budget.”

• Response: Applicants should assume that the notice for deployment will likely average four to six weeks but may entail a turnaround as short as three weeks. Deployments are generally expected to last seven to 10 days on average. Depending upon the location, however, travel may consume some of that time, extending deployments to an anticipated maximum of 14 days.

Question 14. “Will members of the assessment team be expected to travel to Washington to meet with CT/Programs and other relevant personnel as part of this cooperative agreement? If so, at what frequency?”

• Response: There is no requirement from the Department of State that initial meetings be held in Washington, though we do require formal project kick-off meetings for all new awards. That said, the project kick-off meeting with the successful applicant can be held virtually.

Question 15. “Will the LRRT be able to leverage existing USG knowledge and resources concerning host countries’ existing legal frameworks?”

• Response: Applicants should assume reliance upon open-source information regarding existing legal frameworks.

Question 16. “Will US embassies in host countries provide translation/translator support, if needed?”

• Response: No. U.S. embassies in host countries will not provide translation/translator support. Applicants should factor in the need and budget for translation/translator support into their proposals.

Question 17: “Will US embassies in host countries provide personal security support, to include motor pool, if needed?”

• Response: U.S. embassies in host countries will not provide personal security support, to include motor pool. Applicants would need to budget for and arrange their own transportation and any personal security support.

Question 18: “Activity 6 suggests that assistance to host countries will continue for 4-6 months after completion of the visit, ‘in coordination with advisory teams.’ Does that imply that the

LRRT advisory team sent to a specific country should plan to continue to actively engage with stakeholders for up to six months after the visit, or is it just that the post-trip AAR should

‘facilitate methods in which guidance and assistance can continue in coordination with’ other potential advisors? In other words, should the deployed LRRT members themselves expect to remain engaged with specific countries (and/or relevant USG personnel) after their AAR is completed?”

• Response: Proposals should address how the applicant will facilitate ongoing guidance and assistance between the deployed advisory team and stakeholders from the host country after the initial in-country (or virtual) consultations.