SPARK_7200AA24APS00004_Addendum Questions and Responses.pdf

Issue Date: March 5, 2024 Deadline for Question: March 21, 2024, at 12:00 (noon) pm EDT Closing Date: April 8, 2024 Closing Time: 12:00 pm (noon) EDT

Subject: SPARK_7200AA24APS00004_Addendum Questions and Responses

Program Title: Strategic Partnerships for Advancing Research and Knowledge

(SPARK)

CFDA #: 98.012 - USAID Development Partnerships for University Cooperation and Development

Please note that some questions received by USAID were edited to remove identifying information or for clarity. In addition, it is recommended that potential Applicants read the responses to all questions.

1. Can we submit a concept note here for a global health project? We have a variety of focal areas such as mental health, gender-based violence, universal health coverage, primary healthcare, non-communicable disease, and sexual and reproductive health that could be relevant here.

Response: Thank you for your interest in the SPARK Addendum. As you will see in the materials listed at https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/352824, the SPARK Addendum seeks a Prime Applicant partner that will manage the process Award and as such be able to solicit, issue, and support subawards for a wide array of research technical sectors (that could include health), provide capacity strengthening, and support partnerships. While future research subaward requests for application calls may restrict eligibility to particular geographic or technical sectors, USAID envisions that there will also be broadly open research subaward opportunities in the future once the SPARK Prime Awardee is selected. At this time, through the SPARK Addendum, USAID is seeking to identify strong potential SPARK Prime Applicants who will manage the overall research solicitation, selection, and award process.

2. Can you tell me whether research groups in Greenland would be eligible to apply?

https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/352824

Response: Thank you for your interest in the SPARK Addendum. The SPARK Addendum lists the geographic code envisioned for the research subawards to be 937 - which includes the U.S., the cooperating/recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources. However, a wider geographic code may potentially be permissible with a waiver or in partnership with an entity which would meet the 937 geographic code.

3. Can you please best advise on the project size and budget range of which USAID's latest SPARK award is preparing to fund? We are currently only aware of the total budget of 75MM over 5 years for up to 2 cooperative agreements.

Response: Thank you for your interest in the SPARK Addendum. As you will see in the materials listed at https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/352824, the SPARK Addendum seeks a Prime Applicant partner that will be able to solicit, issue, and support subawards for a wide array of research technical sectors (including health, environment, and energy), provide capacity strengthening, and partnership connections. At this time, through the SPARK Addendum, USAID is seeking to identify up to two strong potential SPARK Prime Applicants with a potential, subject to the availability of funds, total budget of $75M. USAID anticipates obligating up to $2.5M in the initial obligation for Year 1 of this Award, contingent on the availability of funds, please see the SPARK Addendum for more information. Individual research subawards are envisioned to be more numerous and of smaller size, with opportunities released once the SPARK Prime award has been created and is operational.

4. Can you tell me whether a proposed research partnership with partners in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and the United Kingdom would be eligible to apply?

Response: Thank you for your interest in the SPARK Addendum. The SPARK Addendum lists the geographic code envisioned for the research subawards to be 937 - which includes the U.S., the cooperating/recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources. However, a wider geographic code may be permissible via a waiver or in partnership with an entity which would meet the 937 geographic code, meaning if the Prime Applicant or subaward lead was located in a developing country (meeting geographic code 937) they would be considered eligible.

5. It is clearly explained in pages 4, 14, 24 and 31 that ITR/R anticipates obligating up to $2.5M for Year 1 of this award to cover both core operational costs and pilot subawards. After which, additional funds, up to $75M over five years for two new Cooperative Agreements, may be obligated from ITR and other USAID Missions and Bureaus to co-create with the Prime specific research calls. And on page 31, it is stated that ITR/R anticipates that the opportunities provided under this APS will be of high interest and, therefore, may result in a high number of

Concept Note submissions. The following, therefore, is not as clear and needs further explanation:

a. Will the $2.5M be obligated to each of the successful Concept Notes/Applications, hence, the budget submitted in the Concept Note should not exceed $2.5M.

Response: The SPARK Concept Note budget for Year 1 should not exceed $2.5 million.

Subsequent years should estimate a rough budget for administrative purposes and rough estimates for research subawards as, from their experience and expertise, they best see fit. Exact budget information is not needed for Years 2-5, but rough estimates of operational/administrative costs and allocations to research subawards and other activities, as applicable, should be generally estimated. Should a Concept Note be invited to co-creation, additional budget information will be provided by USAID.

b. Is the duration for the expenditure of this $2.5M only one year or could it extend beyond this period, if successful, under the Cooperative Agreement.

Response: The SPARK Cooperative Agreement has a five-year duration, for the first year the planned budget should not exceed $2.5 million, for Years 2-5 the budget should identify the amount needed for operations and administrative expenses and the amount proposed for research subawards and other programmatic costs.

c. What is the process of selecting the two Primes for the two new five years Cooperative Agreements totaling $75M from the high number of Concept Notes submissions.

Response: USAID will convene a Technical Evaluation Committee to review all eligible concept notes against the published criteria and invite the apparently successful applicants to submit a Full Proposal. Ultimately up to two Primes may be selected, contingent on the availability of funds.

d. On page 13, it is stated that organizations are encouraged to consider providing reasonable cost sharing, leverage, or other exchange of resource arrangements, and are encouraged to suggest creative approaches to resourcing projects if/as appropriate. And on page 33, SECTION E: APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION 1. Criteria, the cost sharing is not mentioned under any criterion. The language used for the cost sharing, hence, does not seem to be mandatory because it is not considered in the evaluation criteria. Please clarify how one organization may be favored over others due to their cost sharing and its value.

Response: While USAID does not require cost-share, it is seen as favorable. As noted on page 25 of the SPARK Addendum, “Organizations are encouraged to consider providing reasonable cost sharing, leverage, or other exchange of resource arrangements, and are encouraged to suggest creative approaches to resourcing projects if and as appropriate.” As noted on page 30 of the SPARK Addendum, “an accompanying Cost

Application (Budget and Narrative, plus any supporting documentation; additional details and templates provided if invited to the Full Application stage) will be reviewed for completeness, reasonableness, allowability, and allocability in order to determine a best value to the government.”

e. On page 10, it is stated that LMIC research institutions often have the insights and talent to take on crucial challenges (related to food security, education, energy, climate change, and other topics) but may require access to technology, training, and experience more readily available at U.S. higher education institutions. Is it required or preferred that the Prime and/or the LMIC research institution be an HEI.

Response: The Prime Applicant can be any type of organization or entity but is expected to have strong administrative/grant and contract management (sub-award) experience and expertise working with a wide array of partners across geographic and entity type, including higher education institutions and researchers. In addition, and as noted on page 12 of the SPARK Addendum, USAID anticipates that the successful Applicant(s) will demonstrate, “Dedication to collaborating with multiple external partners (i.e., with researchers, research institutions, faculty, academic departments, governments, and others as appropriate) to achieve priorities; this includes building new relationships, as well as further-developing existing ones, for the purpose of achieving the stated priorities. The types of institutions and the nature of collaborations will ultimately depend on the specific technical and geographical area(s) of focus and research needs being targeted, but collaborators may include individuals, public or private research and higher education institutions, private sector organizations, nongovernmental organizations and/or civil society organizations.”

6. Can you please help with the following questions?:

a. Can European or other non LMIC universities be part of research partnerships?

Response: The Prime Applicant can be any type of organization or entity within Geographic Code 937 but is expected to have strong administrative/grant and contract management (sub-award) experience and expertise working with a wide array of partners across geographic and entity type. Research partnerships, as supported under the envisioned research subawards, may have differing geographic requirements which will be posted when each research subaward opportunity is released.

b. What is the MB limit for the electronic submission?

Response: While there is no precise size limit for the electronic submissions, large files, including .zip files may not be accepted by USAID’s servers, as stated on page 26 of the SPARK Addendum. Further, as stated on page 25, “Concept Notes should be submitted as a single PDF file with an accompanying spreadsheet file for the budget information. In cases where a single PDF file is not feasible, Applicants are permitted to submit up to three (3) separate PDF files. Microsoft Word documents will be accepted only as necessary.”

c. Maximum funding amount is noted as up to $75 million over 5 years in various places of the APS Addendum (pages 4, 14, 24, and 31), however references to the funding amount on pages 4 and 31 indicate up to 2 awards. Can USAID please clarify the number of awards expected and the maximum funding per award?

Response: Subject to the availability of funding, USAID/IPI/ITR may support up to two new Cooperative Agreements of up to $75M total over the course of five years. Up to $2.5M will be obligated for up to two SPARK awards in the current fiscal year. Concept Note budgets should estimate costs needed for the envisioned work and approach and should not exceed $75M and may be adjusted during the co-creation phase if Applicants are invited to participate.

d. The language in the Addendum notes: “The Budget, at the time of Concept Note submission, should be built at a high level; approximations and estimates are acceptable, though such approximations and estimates should be explained in the corresponding Notes (column) or Budget Narrative (tab) of the template, as needed.”

However, just above this, the Addendum notes: “Applicants are required to prepare a budget, with accompanying budget narrative, using the required Budget Template (see Appendix II), and to follow all instructions set forth within.” And, just below that it notes: “Applicants should only provide the information and materials requested in the Budget Template; additional information will not be read and may adversely affect the Applicant’s review.”

The format of the template provided seems to require more detailed inputs (for example: name of staff, LOE, unit cost, quantity, sub-categories, activities planned, detailed sub budgets, etc.). Can USAID further clarify the level of detail required for this budget submission at the concept note stage?

Response: USAID apologizes if the instructions seemed contradictory. USAID requests that Applicants prepare a budget, with accompanying budget narrative, using the required Budget Template (see Appendix II), and to follow all instructions set forth within. It is not required to name individual key personnel that are proposed at this time (though if they are known, applicants may include that information.) Of note, the Year 1 budget estimate should be planned not to exceed $2.5M and should include needed administrative/operations costs plus pilot research subawards. For Years 2-5 the budget should identify the amount needed for operations and administrative expenses and the amount proposed for research subawards and other programmatic costs at a generally high estimated level. Total Concept Note budgets should estimate costs needed for the envisioned work and approach and should not exceed $75M and may be adjusted during the co-creation phase if Applicants are invited to participate. Overall, please ensure reasonableness, allowability, and allocability when proposing costs.

e. Can you please help with the following questions on the Appendix II - Budget Template?:

i. Prime Budget Tab: Can the Applicant add rows within a category and in the indirect cost section to allow for application of different rates to respect our NICRA (for example, ODCs and Participant Support Costs - PSC)? Or should we just add a PSC category to the template in both sections (direct costs and indirect costs)?

Response: Yes, Applicants may add rows, subsections, or other minor modifications (please do not change the overall cost categories - personnel, fringe, travel, etc.- unless absolutely necessary) to the SPARK Budget Template as best needed to represent the costs associated with their proposed technical work and organizational structures and processes. In particular, on the indirect rate cost category the Budget Template provides the following instructions “Depending on your organization's policies, there may be different rates (NICRAs, F&A, overhead, etc.) that apply to different cost categories or locations of work under this project. Please use the section to calculate the Indirect Costs for the project. Please add any additional categories or sub-categories as needed.” It would be helpful to USAID if the Applicant provides notes (in either the notes column or in the budget narrative tab) to explain any more substantive modifications made in their submission.

ii. Can USAID please advise where applicants should include Consultant costs and Allowances? Is it possible to add new categories for each in both sections? If not, please advise where these costs should be included.

Response: Consultant costs and allowances are typically listed under Other Direct Costs, but the Applicant is welcome to decide where best to represent these costs. The Applicant can add rows, subsections (under the stated cost categories), or other minor modifications to the template to best represent their technical approach and organizational budget structure and processes.

iii. Sub-Awards – note in row 43 requests detailed sub budgets from subs to be included in the Sub-Award budget tabs. Can USAID please confirm this is not required at this concept note stage?

Response: The subaward budgets requested at the Concept Note submission stage are referring to any (if applicable) subawards to the Prime that are proposed to help with overall management of the SPARK project. Detailed draft subaward research project budgets are not required at the Concept

Note stage. The subaward budgets (if applicable because your organization is proposing subawards to support with management or other non-research subaward activities) can be top line budgets (total amounts/year only) that indicate how you intend to partner and allocate resources overall. It is anticipated that these budgets would be further refined for any Applicants that move forward to the co-creation stage. In addition, Applicants should indicate what dollar value of their overall budget they are proposing to reserve for research subawards so that USAID can understand the proposed breakout of costs between the Prime, any management related Subawardees, and future grantee research award winners.

7. Can you please help with the following questions?:

a. NOFO Page 1: The closing date for concept note submission is April 8, 2024.

Given the holidays during this time period, could applicants have a one-week extension?

Response: USAID included additional dates in the original Concept Note window to help mitigate around the various holidays during this time period and cannot further extend the dates. USAID apologizes for the tight turn-around but does not have further flexibility to move the dates.

b. NOFO Page 4: The NOFO states that “ITR/R anticipates obligating up to $2.5M in the initial obligation for Year 1” and that this “initial obligation is envisioned to cover both core operational costs for Year 1 as well as costs for pilot subawards under the initial Research Call(s) under SPARK.” Does USAID have a preference for the value and number of the initial pilot sub-awards?

Response: USAID is looking for potential Prime Applicants at this Concept Note stage to bring their own knowledge and expertise and also apply best practices and research findings published in literature and through other means (please see page 12 under the Cross-Cutting Considerations section), to propose an initial plan for the research subawards. USAID does not have a pre-identified value or number of initial pilot sub-awards in mind and is eager to read applications on this topic, and then work with a select group of applicants to further refine approaches if/when we proceed to the co-creation phase.

c. NOFO Page 4: USAID notes that after the initial obligation, additional funds may be obligated directly into SPARK ‘directly from ITR/R and other Missions and Bureaus to develop specific research calls.’ Could USAID explain how funding beyond Year 1 will be allocated?

Response: SPARK funding beyond Year 1 will be contingent on availability of funds. As such, USAID funds could include additional ITR/R funds as well as specific funds from other Missions and Bureaus across the Agency who have interest in partnering the

SPARK program to co-create research subaward calls/opportunities/requests for applications with the SPARK Prime. USAID anticipates that the number and size of obligations may vary across years and a successful Prime will need to be able to adaptively manage this aspect of the work.

8. Can you please help with the following questions on the Concept Note Template Page 3?:

Under “Support Information,” there is a request for a 1-page implementation timeline.

a. Can USAID confirm that the implementation timeline is for Year 1?

Response: The SPARK one page implementation plan will encompass a 12-month period.

b. If using a Gantt chart, can applicants use size 10 Calibri font?

Response: Yes, as stated in the SPARK Addendum charts and graphs can use a size 10 font.

c. Is there a preferred template?

Response: There is no preferred template for the implementation timeline.

9. What would be the audience of the sub-grants? Will these be only universities? Or universities and individual researchers as well? And will local and US-based NGOs also be eligible for sub-grants? Secondly, can multiple sub-grants be awarded to different researchers from one organization / entity / university?

Response: Research grantees may potentially be any type of organization or entity; specific eligibility requirements will be determined at the time of each new research subaward call, collaboratively with USAID. USAID does not envision that there would be a limit to the number or type of research subaward applications that an entity (organization or individual) could submit for consideration unless otherwise stated for a particular research subaward opportunity posted under SPARK.

10. Can you please help with the following questions on the Addendum, page 14 – Section B:

Federal Award Information? It is mentioned that 02 (two) cooperative agreements and ITR/R anticipates obligating up to US$ 2.5 Million in the initial obligation for year 1. In the subsequent 5 years, USAID will obligate additional funds up to US$ 75 Million.

a. Will US$ 2.5M will be obligated to each of the two cooperative agreements (means US$ 5 Million in total) or US$ 2.5 Million will be equally distributed between two initial cooperative agreements (means US$ 1.25Million each)?

Response: Applicants should plan on a Year 1 budget of $2.5M.

b. Will additional & subsequent obligations be made to same shortlisted bidders/ IPs as continuation of cooperative agreements OR USAID will make fresh hiring of services for subsequent awards?

Response: As noted on page 31 of the SPARK Addendum, “As stated in the EXPLORE APS, strong Concept Notes may be placed in an eligible pool of Applicants for the life of the EXPLORE APS, which USAID may wish to engage in further discussion should additional funds or opportunities arise.”

c. Will the grants be awarded periodically in grants cycle OR these will be on rolling basis throughout project life? Solicited or unsolicited calls?

Response: SPARK grant solicitation calls will be advertised in a full and open competition via a series of grant cycles. USAID welcomes applicants’ fresh thinking on the timing and staging of various calls and also anticipates working closely with the Prime(s) during both the co-creation and implementation periods to further refine timing and approach for grant cycles.

d. What will be the maximum/ minimum duration of the sub-grants?

Response: USAID does not have a prescribed maximum/minimum duration for the sub-grants. Rather, it is likely the maximum/minimum subgrant periods may vary based on the complexity and needs of each individual research call. The final subgrant must conclude prior to the end date of the overall SPARK Prime award.

e. In case sub-grants are to be awarded in periodic cycles, who will make the solicitations/ Research Calls? The USAID/SPARK programme or the Principal Grantee organization on behalf of SPARK?

Response: USAID anticipates that the Prime Recipient organization(s), who has been selected to manage the SPARK Award, will advertise all future calls.

11. Can you please help with the following questions on Addendum, page 14 – Estimate of funds available and number of awards contemplated?

a. Is there any limit or preferred ratio of operational cost to direct programme cost?

Response: While there is not a preferred ratio of operational cost to direct program cost, USAID prioritizes direct program cost and encourages Applicants to channel the better part of funding to program costs to the maximum extent possible, while also ensuring adequate management support is in place to manage the overall program.

b. For the aspect of Project design requires ‘reasonable’ cost sharing, what is the preferred ratio of cost sharing? - What will be the type of cost sharing? Cash or in kind or Both? - Will the cost sharing be required only in operating cost from the principal awardee organization OR in the research sub-grants as well from sub-grantees?

Response: USAID is not requiring a certain ratio of cost sharing. Rather, as noted on page 25, “Organizations are encouraged to consider providing reasonable cost sharing, leverage, or other exchange of resource arrangements, and are encouraged to suggest creative approaches to resourcing projects if and as appropriate.” This cost-sharing can originate from the Prime or Subaward budgets, or both. Proposed cost-sharing approaches can include cash contributions, in kind contributions, or a combination of both. Finally, USAID recognizes and understands that in many cases cost-sharing at the subaward level may not be reasonable and appropriate.

12. Can you please help with the following questions?:

a. What does USAID expect will be the approximate breakdown of research across scientific disciplines (life sciences, social sciences, mathematics, engineering, public health, and medicine), per page 11?

Response: USAID welcomes all discipline in that the Applicant presents ideas related to evolving and emerging international development research needs, and there is no expected breakdown. SPARK seeks to fund collaborative, scientific (encompassing scientific disciplines, including life sciences, social sciences, mathematics, engineering, public health, and medicine) research sub-grants across technical sectors and geographic regions. While some future research subaward calls may have technical or geographic emphases or requirements, a successful Prime will need to be able to be adaptive.

b. To what extent will the awardee play a thought partnership role with respect to research prioritization, design, and uptake vs. playing a more responsive role in commissioning USAID-driven research agendas? Will demand for this mechanism be generated by USAID only, or will the awardee be in a position to work alongside southern partners to drive southern-led research agendas?

Response: The Prime will collaborate with USAID in developing specific plans for research prioritization, design, and uptake. Research agendas will be responsive both to USAID and important needs identified by researchers, as well as government, civil society, and the private sector, as appropriate.

13. Can you please help with the following questions?:

a. Page 4, “Subject to the availability of funding, USAID/IPI/ITR may support up to two new Cooperative Agreements of up to $75 million total over the course of five years. ITR/R anticipates obligating up to $2.5M in the initial obligation for Year 1 of this Award, contingent on the availability of funds. This initial obligation is envisioned to cover both core operational costs for Year 1 as well as costs for pilot subawards under the initial Research Call(s) under SPARK. After the initial obligation, additional funds (contingent on the availability of funds, and up to the ceiling of $75M over five years) may be obligated into SPARK directly from ITR/R and other Missions and Bureaus to develop specific research calls.”

In the solicitation, it is stated that subject to funding availability, USAID/IPI/ITR may support up to two new Cooperative Agreements with a total of up to $75 million over five years, with an initial obligation of up to $2.5M for the first year. This initial funding is intended to cover both core operational costs and pilot subawards under SPARK. The document later mentions that additional funds may be provided by ITR/R and other Missions and Bureaus for specific research calls.

Given the historical context where USAID’s award structure for an APS often includes a series of Associate Awards, I am seeking clarification on how these future specific research calls relate to the two main Cooperative Agreements mentioned. Will these research calls result in Associate Awards that are separate from, but related to, the two Cooperative Agreements, or are they considered part of the $75 million funding for the Cooperative Agreements?

Response: The proposed SPARK Award(s) is not envisioned to be a Leader with Associates Award. The proposed SPARK Award is envisioned to be a Cooperative Agreement(s). Through the SPARK Addendum, USAID is seeking to identify up to two strong potential SPARK Prime Applicants with a potential total budget of $75M, subject to the availability of funds. USAID anticipates obligating up to $2.5M in the initial obligation for Year 1 of this Award (part of the total award ceiling), contingent on the availability of funds. The research subaward calls anticipated will fall under the overarching SPARK Cooperative Agreement(s) and therefore be a part of the $75M ceiling anticipated, and as ever, contingent on the availability of funds.

b. On page 16 and 17, “NOTE: Additionally, this activity will incorporate an independent, third-party research study investigating the impact of funding collaborative research on relevant outputs and outcomes. Willingness to participate in this third-party research study will be a requirement for any potential Awardee(s) under the SPARK Addendum, as ITR views assessing the impact of our development research programming to be an essential element of our work.”

The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) outlines the requirement for participation in third-party research study to evaluate the impact of funding collaborative research. Can you clarify whether applicants are expected to include the costs associated with this evaluation in their budget proposals, or if these costs will be directly covered by USAID throughout the duration of the project?

Response: The independent, third-party evaluation cost is not to be included in the budget. These costs are separate from the SPARK implementation costs and the costs will not be borne by the SPARK Prime(s).

c. On Pg. 16, “In accordance with ADS 310, code 937 refers to the United States, the recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, but it excludes any country that is a prohibited source. Please see ADS 310 for additional details. The authorized Geographic Code for each award afterward, if any, will be established by USAID.” In the List of Advanced Developing Countries “A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 310, pg. 2 “Advanced developing countries are excluded from USAID Principal Geographic Code 937 except for the procurement of commodities and services when part of any assistance to such country (i.e., where such country is the “cooperating/recipient country” under Code 937).

Considering the policy provided by USAID, could you confirm if organizations from Advanced Developing Countries are permitted to be subcontracted for the procurement of commodities and services as part of the assistance to those countries under the SPARK opportunity?

Response: The SPARK Addendum lists the geographic code envisioned for the research subawards to be 937 - which includes the U.S., the cooperating/recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources. However, a wider geographic code may be permissible with a waiver or in partnership with an entity which would meet the 937 geographic code.

d. On Pg. 20, “The Prime Applicant can be any type of organization or entity but is expected to have strong administrative/grant and contract management (sub-award) experience and expertise working with a wide array of partners across geographic and entity type. (Eligibility for envisioned sub-award opportunities to be issued after the award is created may be restricted.)” Given the open eligibility for prime applicants and the potential for subsequent sub-award opportunities to have restricted eligibility, is it advisable or required to identify and solidify partnerships with sub-awardees prior to the award being issued?

Specifically, can USAID provide guidance on how changes in strategic sub-award targeting after the prime award may impact pre-established partnerships, and how this may differ between Cooperative Agreements of up to $75 million and the ITR/Mission and Bureau based calls? Furthermore, in the co-creation process, would USAID recommend identifying potential sub-awardees to ensure alignment with any future targeted restrictions?

Response: If appropriate given activity design, Applicants may propose sub partnerships or teaming agreements now as a part of the Prime management structure and include them as part of your Application to provide a detailed, coherent presentation of the intended management team for SPARK, their strengths, networks and past performance. However, any subpartners provided at this stage should primarily be for the core management of SPARK and should not be subpartners targeted to receive future direct research subawards/grants as it is envisioned that those research subawards would be competitively selected (and not targeted for pre-identified partners) in future research calls that are co-created with USAID.

e. On Pg.14, “While the Prime will demonstrate creativity in designing grant processes, facilitating the selection of research projects, and mentoring and training research teams, it is not envisioned that the Prime will take on a primary role in conducting their own research projects under this(ese) potential award(s). However, if applicable, researchers at the Prime’s entity separate from the personnel managing this award, could be eligible to apply for sub-awards under research calls.”

In preparation for potential sub-awards under research calls, should researchers and their respective groups within the prime applicant's organization, such as specific units or departments, be explicitly identified as partners in the concept note and budget submitted with the application? Or should these potential internal sub-award relationships be defined at a later stage of the grant process?

Response: If there are known internal units or departments who are expected to partner on the management and implementation of this award, they should be identified in the concept note and budget provided at this time. For the potential future research subaward opportunities, USAID will be looking for a Prime who can ensure a transparent, fair, and equitable selection process for all researchers submitting applications, with particular controls, to be discussed during co-creation, for any conflicts of interest that may arise.

14. Can you please help with the following questions?:

a. Can you confirm that you are only issuing up to 2 cooperative agreements?

Response: Yes. At this time, through the SPARK Addendum, USAID is seeking to identify up to two strong potential SPARK Prime Applicants for up to two Cooperative Agreements. However, as noted in the SPARK Addendum, USAID will hold onto strong Concept Notes submitted for the duration of the EXPLORE APS in case additional funding or opportunities arise.

b. For what period of time should our proposal budget cover? Are there planned obligation amounts for Y2-Y5 to cover core operational costs?

Response: The Applicant’s proposed budget should provide more detailed cost information for Year 1, with a Year 1 budget planned of $2.5M. For Years 2-5, the Applicant should provide rough estimates for operational/management costs and general estimate of funds reserved for research subawards. Should an Applicant be invited to the co-creation stage, additional budget information will be provided.

c. Will budgets for years 2-5 remain flexible given project scoping with partners, given the project does not exceed the ceiling?

Response: Yes, the budgets for Years 2-5 shall ultimately be flexible, given project scoping with partners. For now, Applicants can estimate the Budget for Years 2-5 (including estimate breakout between core funds and research subawards) as

Applicants deem appropriate, as long as the total budget remains within the projected award ceiling.

d. We understand that the concept note will be evaluated against relevance to Criterion 1, 2, and 3 - with Criterion 1 weighted more. Can you share with more specificity the weightings of each Criterion?

Response: Criterion 1 will remain of most importance, and Criterion 2 and 3 while still important, are secondary to Criterion 1.

15. For Criterion 2, which focuses on collaboration with research and higher education institutions, we understand that the U.S. partners do not necessarily need to be higher education institutions - but could also be research institutes or NGOs. Can you confirm?

Response: Yes, USAID confirms. The Prime Applicant can be any type of organization or entity but is expected to have strong administrative/grant and contract management (sub-award) experience and expertise working with a wide array of partners across geographic and entity type. Proposed U.S collaborations are not limited to higher education institutions.

16. Can you please help with the following questions?:

a. To clarify, existing grant agreements that cover the scope of the proposed research focus can be included in our accounting of cost sharing arrangements?

Response: If cost-share is included, the Applicant is expected to present a cost-share proposal that will specifically serve SPARK for the proposed research activity.

b. Can you confirm that at this point, we are not selecting the research topics - but rather, the research topics are something that we co-develop at a later stage?

Response: Yes, USAID confirms. SPARK research topics will be determined through co-creation processes throughout the duration of the SPARK award. However, if applicants would like to propose approaches to identifying research topics or proposed research collaborations, that is certainly welcomed.

c. Would it be permissible to include an illustrative example of research design and partner?

Response: Yes, USAID would welcome an illustrative example of a research topic, design, and partnering agreement.

d. Do we need to list all of our consortium partners in the concept note at this stage?

Response: USAID would welcome an illustrative list of research partners in the Concept Note, if such partners/partnerships exist, with as much detail as is available, recognizing that the list may change if/when the applicant proceeds to the co-creation phase.

USAID understands that such a list would demonstrate an Applicant’s understanding and connections across relevant networks and partners but would be further developed both during the initial co-creation phase and throughout the envisioned SPARK award.

e. Are submitted budgets final or will an updated finalized budget be submitted post co-design?

Response: SPARK Applicant’s Concept Note Budget submissions will be discussed during co-creation and updated should a Full Application be requested by USAID to reflect updated decisions, approaches, partners, and other technical aspects. A more detailed budget, with additional information provided by USAID, will be required should an Applicant be invited to the Full Application phase.

17. Can you help with the following questions?

a. Page 24, Section D.3.a, Concept Note Submission: The SPARK Addendum states that Concept Notes should be “single-spaced with one inch page margins and 12 point font (Calibri). 10 point font can be used for graphs and charts.” However, in Appendix I, Concept Note Template, Page 1, USAID states “Ten point (10pt) font can be used for incorporated figures, tables, and legends, where necessary.” Can USAID please confirm that 10 point font can be used for charts, graphs, tables, figures, and legends?

Response: Yes, as stated in the SPARK Addendum charts and graphs can use a size 10 font.

b. Page 33, Section E.1., Criteria: The SPARK Addendum states, “Criteria for the SPARK Addendum will be weighted as follows: Criterion 1 is weighted more heavily than Criteria 2 and 3.” Can USAID kindly confirm whether Criteria 2 and 3 are weighted equally, or if Criterion 2 is weighted more heavily than Criterion 3?

Response: Criterion 1 will remain of most importance, and Criterion 2 and 3 while still important are secondary to Criterion 1.

c. Page 33, Section E.1., Criteria: The SPARK Addendum states that “Concept Notes should demonstrate how they plan to develop and implement a program that will promote the discovery and use of research, as well as plan for its dissemination, communication, and implementation by targeted stakeholders, the wider research and higher education communities, and beyond.” Can USAID please confirm if applicants must develop entirely new programs, or if they can choose to further develop existing programs?

Response: No, Applicants do not need to develop entirely new programs. They may propose expansions or modifications to existing programs provided they are responsive to the SPARK Addendum and SPARK evaluation criterion.

18. Can you help with the following questions?

a. Page 4 mentions “ITR/R anticipates obligating up to $2.5M in the initial obligation for Year 1 of this Award, contingent on the availability of funds. This initial obligation is envisioned to cover both core operational costs for Year 1 as well as costs for pilot subawards under the initial Research Call(s) under SPARK. After the initial obligation, additional funds (contingent on the availability of funds, and up to the ceiling of $75M over five years) may be obligated into SPARK directly from ITR/R and other Missions and Bureaus to develop specific research calls.”

i. Can USAID please confirm that the initial $2.5M in obligation will be from core funds and any additional funding in Year 1 will come from Mission funding?

Response: Yes, the initial $2.5M in obligation is currently anticipated to come from ITR/R core funds, contingent on the availability of funds. It is anticipated that in future years additional obligations may come from a combination of ITR/R funds and Mission and Bureau funding, contingent on research call needs and funding availability.

ii.For the subsequent years, will USAID provide funds to cover core operational costs?

Response: Ultimate funding breakout of the SPARK award will be contingent on co-creation conversations, the availability of funds, and the ultimate Award design. USAID requests that Applicants at the Concept Note stage prepare a budget, with accompanying budget narrative, using the required Budget Template (see Appendix II) for all five years of the projected award.

Greater specificity should be given to the Year 1 budget, with a total cost of $2.5M, while Years 2-5 should have more general budget estimates of operational/management costs and those funds reserved for research subawards and other activities. The budget provided at the Concept Note stage can be highly estimated but should roughly indicate how the proposed technical approach will be supported with the resources needed.

iii. For budgeting purposes, can USAID please provide the number or size of the research calls anticipated from ITR/R and other Missions and Bureaus?

Response: Unfortunately, USAID does not have an estimate of the number or size of likely research calls from ITR/R or other Missions/Bureaus. Applicants may make their best judgment as to how to budget for this activity, given that uncertainty. A successful Prime should demonstrate adaptive capabilities.

iv. Does USAID have a plug figure for grants over the life of project?

Response: USAID requests that Applicants at the Concept Note stage prepare a budget, including all estimated grants for the life of the project and has not pre-determined the size and duration of research subawards but looks to the Applicant to provide their experience and expertise to best design these aspects. However, during future research subaward opportunities co-creation may also shape these aspects.

b. On Page 14, section B, can USAID please clarify the restrictions and requirements on having prime associated researchers apply for grants under the award?

Response: While in some cases, the SPARK awardee, and their consortium partners (if such partners exist) may be eligible applicants for research calls and grants, it is not USAID’s assumption that the Prime will generally be performing research themselves. As noted on page 11 of the Addendum, “USAID seeks to support (a) Prime Entity(ies)/Implementing Partner(s) who, through its/their expertise, convening power, and experience will support local and U.S.-based researchers (primarily in partnership models) to conduct research and promote research utilization on issues important to development.” In general, USAID is looking to award a Prime(s) SPARK Award(s) who has “Grants Management Expertise - The Applicant demonstrates the ability to source/solicit, create, administer, manage, track, and close-out sub-awards across a wide array of awardee types, geographies, technical focus areas, and expectations.”

(page 33). While it is possible that researchers directly associated with the Prime may be interested in applying for unique research calls under SPARK, it should not be assumed that they will have any competitive advantage in doing so, and, further, it will be important to ensure that no apparent conflicts of interest result from any such relationships or research calls. This may be discussed further during the co-creation phase and/or during the implementation period as necessary.

c. Page 24, section D.3.a, states “the Budget, at the time of Concept Note submission, should be built at a high level; approximations and estimates are acceptable.” Can USAID please clarify for any proposed subawards, if approximations and estimates of lump sum numbers are acceptable instead of submitting detailed budget for each subaward by using the budget template?

Response: USAID requests that Applicants at the Concept Note stage to prepare a budget, with accompanying budget narrative, using the required Budget Template (see Appendix II). If any subaward partners are proposed (to help manage the administration or specific activities of SPARK), they should be included in the Concept Note budget to aid USAID’s understanding of the proposed technical approach. It is these management type of subaward partners whose rough budget information should be provided in the second tab for Subawards, if needed. Potential research subawards may only be estimated as an overall “lump sum” within the overall budget numbers provided (Year 1 $2.5M, total cost of the award not more than $75M) as the applicants will be determined through competitive processes after the SPARK award creation.

Budget estimates should be at a high level to demonstrate to USAID how the overall technical approach will be supported through the application of resources.

d. Page 33 states criterion 1 will be evaluated more heavily than criteria 2 & 3. Can USAID please specify how criteria 1 will be evaluated more heavily? Can USAID please provide weight percentages for each criterion?

Response: Criterion 1 will remain of most importance, and Criterion 2 and 3 while still important are secondary to Criterion 1.

e. On Page 34, evaluation criterion 2, focusing on supporting U.S.-local research partnerships. Is there a specific rationale for not explicitly highlighting the supporting of South-to-South research partnerships?

Response: The Applicant can include both U.S. - local research partnerships, as well as, Global South - South research partnerships, or others as deemed appropriate.

19. Can you please help with the following questions?

a. Is USAID expecting SPARK to develop a global research agenda and then issue grant calls? Or is the expectation that applicants will work with missions to establish priority research needs and then issue grants?

Response: The SPARK Applicant may propose a process for developing a global research agenda in their Concept Note, which may inform their proposed approach to initiating the pilot research calls in Year 1 of the Award. However, it is anticipated that the research agenda and approach will ultimately be co-designed by the Prime and ITR/R with a goal towards incorporating Mission research demand and direction and taking into account USAID/Washington research priorities. A successful Prime should demonstrate adaptability.

b. Is SPARK a follow-on to the LASER PULSE project as the principles are very similar? If not, how does USAID differentiate between these projects given LASER PULSE ends in 2028?

Response: SPARK continues USAID’s long tradition of working with researchers, research institutes, and higher education institutions (HEIs) to harness their intellectual, research, community engagement, and capacity building expertise to address some of the world’s most complex development challenges. The SPARK program is not designed to replace LASER PULSE.

c. Appendix II: Budget Template, can USAID please confirm applicants can submit narrative in either corresponding Notes (column) of the detailed budget tab or Budget Narrative (tab) of the template?

Response: Yes, USAID confirms that budget details may be best explained in either the Notes column or the Budget Narrative tab. USAID requests that Applicants at the

Concept Note stage prepare a budget, with accompanying budget narrative, using the required Budget Template (see Appendix II). However, please note that the third tab for Budget Narrative requests an overview and the subsequent sections for each cost category may be more appropriate for broader information concerning the cost approach.

d. Appendix II: Budget Template, Indirect Costs, can USAID please confirm applicants can budget indirect costs according to their standard policies and processes (e.g. having overhead, G&A as line items of this section) instead of breaking down indirect costs on each direct cost line item (e.g. indirect costs on Personnel, Indirect Costs on Other Direct Costs etc.)?

Response: Yes, Applicants can make changes, adaptations, and alterations to the structure of the template to best match their organization’s cost approach - particularly as indicated in the Indirect cost category. USAID would ask that Applicants not change the overall cost categories (personnel, fringe, travel, etc.), unless absolutely needed, but subsections, new rows, and other alterations are allowed.