Ukraine QUESTIONS FROM PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS.pdf

QUESTIONS FROM PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS

Ukraine – IDP

Are there different levels of partners possible under this Funding Opportunity (e.g two lateral Partners with sub-grantees to establish a Consortium) or is it only Prime recipient and sub-recipients only?

--> ANSWER: Only one prime applicant is eligible to apply. The prime may partner with one or multiple sub-recipients. An organization can only apply once as a prime, but they can be included in other applications as a sub (and this does not count as multiple applications).

There is information in eligibility section that one Organization can submit only one Application, does this apply to downstream partners (sub-grantees) as well?

--> ANSWER: If your application includes a sub-grantee, the prime application should include a copy of the subaward budget and detailed narrative describing the proposed subaward activities. This should not be submitted as a separate application.

Geographic coverage: do you plan to finalize the locations after you receive Proposals and does it mean that we can suggest and justify another locations besides those that have been already mentioned?

--> ANSWER: Yes. NOFO indicates a list of likely geographic locations, and the final list will be agreed with the selected implementer.

Proposed activities: do we need to stick to the listed activities only? Can we suggest other activities?

--> ANSWER: The NOFO acts as a guideline, but you surely can suggest other activities outside the NOFO.

We are looking to the prospective implementers for their expertise and input in how to best address the issues.

For NGOs operating in Ukraine with a humanitarian mandate, the use of a neutral terminology such as

“non-government-controlled areas” (instead of “Russian-controlled areas”), “the conflict in eastern

Ukraine” (instead of “Moscow’s aggression”), “de facto authorities” (instead of “Russia’s proxies”) is recommended by the Humanitarian Country Team and the United Nations when referring to the situation in eastern Ukraine to guarantee that these NGOs are perceived as neutral and impartial by all parties to the conflict. This is also to follow the do-no-harm principle and guarantee the safety and security of the organizations’ participants and beneficiaries, especially for those organizations that operate or provide assistance both in government-controlled and non-government-controlled areas. Will these considerations be followed/accepted by US CSO in the language used in the Cooperative Agreement and in communication activities and publications linked to the project?

--> ANSWER: The language in the NOFO reflects State's agreed language on the conflict. That said, due to the do-no-harm principle this language may vary between State and the NGO. As you have presented it, this neutral language would be acceptable in the Scope of Work document guiding the cooperative agreement. For communication activities and publications for the program, the implementing NGO will use its own wording to describe the conflict except when this requires approval from State. Approval will generally be required when correspondence directly refers to State's participation or endorsement, however, these approval requirements will be defined in a branding guide drafted by the implementer and approved by State at the beginning of the program.

The NOFO indicates, page 7, as an illustrative activity: “Convene workshops between an Embassy Kyiv-approved Ukraine stakeholder and group of globally representative IDPs displaced by Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine”. Would you please specify what is considered as an “Embassy Kyiv-approved stakeholder” and if it requires any procedures which are additional to the standard Federal requirements on vetting of the individuals and entities?

--> ANSWER: "Embassy-approved stakeholder" means that for certain activities in the field, such as a workshop, State/CSO will need embassy approval before moving forward with the activity. Approval is a simple process of inquiring with an Embassy representative to ensure there are no concerns with a particular party.

The NOFO indicates, page 9: “this cooperative agreement will include substantial involvement by CSO”.

Can you please elaborate on what is envisaged as ‘substantial involvement’ particularly for this opportunity?

--> ANSWER: NOFO is listing specific examples of the substantial CSO involvement: advise on revisions to the theory-of-change (TOC), design, indicators, data collection instruments, sharing information with CSO, development of documentation and reporting plan, consultations with CSO, Embassy Kyiv, EUR/ACE, and

Host Nation authorities as appropriate. In general, the implementer will meet regularly with CSO, and the implementer may need to obtain State/CSO's approval before moving forward with certain decisions related to the program through its duration. These requirements will be articulated in the Scope of Work document drafted at the beginning of the program by the implementer and approved by State/CSO.

Regarding the NOFO section on Project Objectives & Activities (pages 5-8): Would CSO kindly clarify to what degree the proposed project should align with the precise wording of the illustrative activities and sub-populations?

--> ANSWER: The NOFO acts as a guideline, but the prospective applicant can suggest other activities outside the NOFO. We are looking to the prospective implementers for their expertise and input in how to best address the issues.

Regarding the NOFO section on Coordination and partnerships, specifically the sentence “The implementing partner must demonstrate extensive contacts within Ukrainian civil society and throughout

Ukraine, to include communities in the Russia-controlled areas of eastern Ukraine and in Crimea” (page

8): Would CSO please clarify if this requirement is to demonstrate proven capacity of the applicant to implement across the breadth of the Ukrainian context, or if this is implying potential geographic targeting for the project activities in non-government controlled areas? The section on Geographic Focus (page 8), notes that “Likely locations include Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovs'ka oblasts, the locations west of the Line of Contact…”

--> ANSWER: There is no specific requirement to demonstrate this capacity. Strong applicants will clearly be able to operate in Ukraine, have a strong understanding of its context, and be able to identify and work with appropriate stakeholders on the ground. Please note that NOFO indicates a list of likely geographic locations, and the final list will be agreed with the selected implementer.

Regarding the NOFO section on Coordination and partnerships, specifically the sentence “Applicants should partner with local organizations as sub-grantees.” (page 8): Would CSO kindly clarify if the value of submitted proposal would also increase if it included a consortium with other international organizations seeking to work in the same space?

--> ANSWER: Implementers are encouraged to coordinate with other stakeholders in this space. Should working in conjunction with a consortium strengthen an implementer's effectiveness, this would be valuable.

Considering the recent escalation of Russian and Ukrainian military activity, would CSO kindly comment on the level of flexibility and adaptability of the project to account for rapidly changing contexts?

--> ANSWER: Context monitoring is an important component of the program, and programs should adapt with the changing circumstances. The do no harm clause also means that the safety of the program implementers and participants are a primary concern.

Regarding the NOFO section on Project Objectives & Activities (pages 5-8): Given the uncertainty of current and future COVID-19 restrictions, would CSO please comment on whether the applicant should approach the proposal and budget assuming an operational modality aligning with current restrictions or if the applicant should assume a future scenario where all restrictions on in-person activities are lifted?

--> ANSWER: NOFO provides illustrative examples of activities. It acts as a guideline, but you surely can suggest activities outside the NOFO or suggest your own approaches. We are looking to the prospective implementers for their expertise and input in how to best address the issues. Successful applicants in this situation have described program activities in an ideal non-pandemic context and noted how these will be adapted should the pandemic continue. Note also that the program proposal should include an understanding of timeline and how the pandemic may affect this. Some activities at the beginning of the program will undoubtedly need to be implemented while risk of COVID-19 remains high, while others later on may be feasible in person or not depending on how the pandemic develops.

Regarding the NOFO section on Project Objectives & Activities, the sub-section for Objective 3a-c, Activity

3.1, specifically the sentence “Convene workshops between an Embassy Kyiv-approved Ukraine stakeholder and groups of globally representative IDPs displaced by Moscow's aggression in Ukraine.“

(page 7): Would CSO kindly clarify what is meant by an Embassy Kyiv-approved Ukraine stakeholder, as well as groups of globally representative IDPs?

--> ANSWER: "Embassy-approved stakeholder" means that for certain activities in the field, such as a workshop, State/CSO will need embassy approval before moving forward with the activity. Approval is a simple process of inquiring with Embassy representative to ensure there are no concerns with a particular party.

Given the NOFO’s emphasis on more rigorous monitoring, evaluation and learning, will the applicant have the autonomy to allocate sufficient resources to meet CSO’s expectations?

--> ANSWER: CSO will work closely with the implementer to understand how its program budget and resources can adequately meet CSO's MEL expectations.

Since a conflict analysis should always serve as the foundation for any conflict resolution intervention, will

CSO allow the applicant to carry out a more in-depth analysis post-award?

--> ANSWER: Implementers are encouraged to have a comprehensive understanding of the conflict. That said, similar programs have included surveys at the beginning of the program to understand how to best tailor interventions. Please include reference to this in the proposal (e.g. in activities, budget, etc.)

To what extent have State/CSO and US Embassy/Kyiv coordinated with USAID/Kyiv in the design of this

NOFO to harmonize their programs’ respective interventions and maximize the potential synergies?

--> ANSWER: the design of the program was coordinated between State/CSO and Embassy/Kyiv.

USAID/Kyiv provided recommendations on refining the program.

More specifically, how do State/CSO and US Embassy/Kyiv differentiate this NOFO from the USAID/Kyiv

UNITY program in terms of scope, approaches, intended results and targeted populations?

--> ANSWER: This program and UNITY program have different age focus, ministry partners and different targeted populations. This program focuses on IDP reintegration while UNITY focuses on youth in general.

The front page of the solicitation indicates the estimated Program Start Date is July 30. 2021, while on

Page 9, under federal award information, the NOFO states “the period of performance is 24 months with an anticipated start date of June 30, 20201. Would CSO please confirm the anticipated start date of the program?

--> ANSWER: An estimated program start date is 30 July 2021. The official start date will be determined after the implementer has been selected.

Can CSO please confirm that the “Gender Analysis of Conflict” mentioned in the Proposal Narrative section of the NOFO on page 12 can be submitted as a separate attachment and is not included in the 10-page limitation?

--> ANSWER: Gender Analysis of Conflict is part of the Proposal Narrative, which should not exceed 10-page limitation. The list of additional documents that are not part of the proposal narrative and do not count as part of the 10-page limit are listed on page 16.

On SAMS Domestic, under the “Additional Documents Checklists”, there is space for the applicant to upload 3 separate budget items:

NOFO Line-Item Budget Template

Budget Narrative

Budget Template and Guidance

All three of these items are listed as required for submission and therefore the portal will not let applicants submit an application without uploading a file for each requirement. Can CSO please confirm what should be submitted into each of these three required attachments and/or update the submission portal to only require the Budget and the Budget Narrative?

--> ANSWER: Only the NOFO Line Item Budget Template and Budget Narrative are required. CSO will try to remedy this. If the three items are still showing at the time you’re submitting your application, please resubmit one of your budget documents on the “Budget Template and Guidance” line.

On page 12 of the NOFO it states that the Proposal Narrative “should be organized into the following five components:”. Following that header, there are only four sub-headers that are bolded and not underlined:

Approach and Methodology

Implementation Plan

Institutional Capabilities and Past Performance

Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Can CSO please confirm the five components that should be included in the Proposal Narrative?

--> ANSWER: This is a typo. Proposal Narrative should be organized into four components: Approach and

Methodology, Implementation Plan, Institutional Capabilities and Past Performance, Performance

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.