Questions & Answers for Funding Opportunity Announcement

Amendment III made on 04/01/2010

Questions & Answers for Funding Opportunity Announcement

CDC-RFA- PS10-1019

1. It’s stated that the grantee is supporting IPs but not necessarily implementing. However, some sections sound like the grantee will implement e.g. developing & finalizing protocols, executing field work including training and supervising data collectors etc. end of Pg 5 extending to page 6
It is possible that the grantee, an IP, or both implement a given study. This may vary for different studies.
2. It’s not clear who will implement the special sub-studies. Is it the grantee or the IPs? Pg 8. Where will the money for sub-studies come from; should we budget for it?
Please see the previous answer regarding implementation of sub-studies. It is anticipated that this award will be funded through evaluation funding, coming from either OGAC central funds, for PHEs, or directly from PEPFAR Uganda country funds, for basic program evaluations. Basic program evaluation funds may also come from IP budgets.
3. It seems from the description that the multi-country PHEs are different from the other evaluations in terms of originating the questions and designing the studies. Who initiates the multi-country PHEs? Can the grantee initiate questions for PHEs or would they just support identified PHEs?
OGAC has not yet released information on the new PHE system, and the procedures for initiating PHEs are therefore unknown.

Amendment made on 03/24/2010

Questions & Answers for Funding Opportunity Announcement

CDC-RFA- PS10-1019

1. Page 32 of the RFA refers to the 8-percent rule that limits single organization to receive no more than 8% of countries FY2010 PEPFAR program funding or $2 million USD, whichever is greater. Can you please specify the amount of the Uganda FY2010 PEPFAR funding so we can calculate the appropriate 8% limit?

Approximately $280 million

1. Our organization has established working relations with one of the departments at Makerere University who assisted us with data collection and management on the two USAID PEPFAR evaluations in-country. We would like to form a partnership with the university to apply for this grant. At the same time, page 12 of the RFA mentions Makerere University as one of potential recipients of the technical assistance. Would our partnership with the Department of Social Work and Social Administration of Makerere University constitute a conflict of interest with some of the goals/tasks under the cooperative agreement described by the RFA? Not only would our colleagues in Makerere be our conduit to the field but we posit that for capacity building to be sustainable, it should be institutionalized.

As stated in the funding opportunity announcement, one of the potential recipients of the technical assistance may be Makerere University. It has not been decided if Makerere University or any of its departments will be a recipient or provider of technical assistance; this was an illustrative example only. Therefore, applicant partnerships with Makerere University or any of its departments will not result in a conflict of interest.

1. Can you please clarify the purpose of this cooperative agreement? There are two main concerns:
2. Page 8 of the RFA mentions that the cooperative agreement is intended for non-research activities, page 6 mentions that a grantee will play supportive rather than investigative role during evaluations. At the same time, the activities mentioned throughout the document refer to the whole range of evaluation activities. Page 5, for example, mentions that the grantee will provide implementing teams for each evaluation. Page 10 also refers to the “research support activities”. Can you confirm that evaluations are the subject of this RFA and not research?
3. This is an non-research funding opportunity announcement. The activities are described in as much detail as possible at this time.Page 4 mentions that the implementation of evaluations will be undertaken by international non-profit organizations and other organizations. Page 16 mentions that either HHS or staff from organizations that have successfully competed for funding under a separate HHS contract will provide technical assistance and training. What is the difference between the tasks performed by these organizations and tasks expected from the grantee under this RFA?

The funding opportunity announcement provides sufficient detail on the activities to be conducted. Flexibility will be required by the grantee, as tasks may differ for different evaluations.

1. Page 4 mentions that the evaluation will be conducted by international NGOs and other organizations. Can you please provide names of international NGOs and other organizations that will implement the evaluations supported by a grantee?

We are unable to provide names of organizations which will implement the evaluations at this time.

1. For the budgeting purposes, we need to know the amount of support that grantee is expected to provide to the evaluators and/or CDC. Can you please provide the expected scope of work under this grant, measured by number of evaluations and number of special sub-studies that grantee is expected to support in year one and following four years of the grant?

This information is not available at this time, and will depend on needs and available resources.

Amendment made on 3.10.10

Questions & Answers for Funding Opportunity Announcement

CDC-RFA- PS10-1019

1. Is there a set number of implementing partners that have been identified by CDCfor the PHEs, if so, how many? Or will implementing partners be brought on-board through RFPs for PHEs on an on-going basis throughout the life of the project?

This will be an ongoing process. As PHEs are approved, they may be brought on board through this RFA.

2. Regarding measurable outcomes outlined in pages 7-9 of the RFA:

a.) Does #2 - training activities -pertain to capacity building for those who are carrying out specific public health evaluation projects?

This would include any trainees who are relevant to the studies which will be included under this award.

b.) Does #7 - capacity building -refer to training/technical assistance for implementing partners and national research institutions outside of particular public health evaluations to build their overall capacity to carry out public health evaluation or to themselves train others? Please help us understand the audience for these particular outcomes

This is also only related to specific studies which will be included under this award.

c.) For #5. Special sub-studies:

- Are these sub-studies that the grantee is expected to carry out as requested by the USG?

- Are they sub-studies that the grantee may be asked to assist with that are being carried out by an implementing partner as a part of ‘public health evaluation’?

- If these are sub-studies that the grantee is expected to carry out, how many per year should be expected and budgeted for?

All studies will be those which have been requested and approved by USG. It is envisioned that this will include work by Implementing Partners. The number of studies per year will depend on what is approved and funded by USG.

Refer to pages: 27 and 33 amended language below

V. Application Content and V.3. Submission Dates and Times

Electronic Submission: Language added

Organizations that encounter technical difficulties in using to submit their application must attempt to overcome those difficulties by contacting the Grants.gov Support Center (1-800-518-4726, ). After consulting with the Grants.gov Support Center, if the technical difficulties remain unresolved and electronic submission is not possible to meet the established deadline, organizations may submit a request prior to the application deadline by email to the PGO TIMS for permission to submit a paper application. An organization's request for permission must: (a) include the Grants.gov case number assigned to the inquiry, (b) describe the difficulties that prevent electronic submission and the efforts taken with the Grants.gov Support Center (c) be submitted to PGO TIMSs at least 3 calendar days prior to the application deadline. Paper applications submitted without prior approval will not be considered.

If a paper application is authorized, the applicant will receive instructions from TIMS to submit the original and two hard copies of the application by mail or express delivery service.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Supporting National HIV/AIDS Evaluation Systems in the Republic of Uganda under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)

I. Authorization of Intent

Announcement Type: New

Funding Opportunity Number: CDC-RFA-PS10-1019

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:93.067

Health Impact Number: 2999

Application Deadline: April 19, 2010

Key Dates:

Note: Application submission is not concluded until successful completion of the validation process.

After submission of your application package, applicants will receive a “submission receipt” email generated by Grants.gov. Grants.gov will then generate a second e-mail message to applicants which will either validate or reject their submitted application package. This validation process may take as long as two (2) business days. Applicants are strongly encouraged check the status of their application to ensure submission of their application package is complete and no submission errors exists. To guarantee that you comply with the application deadline published in the Funding Opportunity Announcement, applicants are also strongly encouraged to allocate additional days prior to the published deadline to file their application. Non-validated applications will not be accepted after the published application deadline date.

In the event that you do not receive a “validation” email within two (2) business days of application submission, please contact Grants.gov. Refer to the email message generated at the time of application submission for instructions on how to track your application or the Application User Guide, Version 3.0 page 57.

Authority:

This program is authorized under Public Law 108-25 (the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003) [22 U.S.C. 7601, et seq.] and Public Law 110-293 (the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008).

Background:

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has called for immediate, comprehensive and evidence based action to turn the tide of global HIV/AIDS. As called for by the PEPFAR Reauthorization Act of 2008, initiative goals over the period of 2009 through 2013 are to treat at least three million HIV infected people with effective combination anti-retroviral therapy (ART); care for twelve million HIV infected and affected persons, including five million orphans and vulnerable children; and prevent twelve million infections worldwide (3,12,12). To meet these goals and build sustainable local capacity, PEPFAR will support training of at least 140,000 new health care workers in HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care. The Emergency Plan Five-Year Strategy for the initial five year period, 2003 - 2008 is available at the following Internet address:

Purpose:

Under the leadership of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, as part of the President's Emergency Plan, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHS/CDC) works with host countries and other key partners to assess the needs of each country and design a customized program of assistance that fits within the host nation's strategic plan.

HHS/CDC focuses primarily on two or three major program areas in each country. Goals and priorities include the following:

• Achieving primary prevention of HIV infection through activities such as expanding confidential counseling and testing programs linked with evidence based behavioral change and building programs to reduce mother-to-child transmission;
• Improving the care and treatment of HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and related opportunistic infections by improving STI management; enhancing laboratory diagnostic capacity and the care and treatment of opportunistic infections; interventions for intercurrent diseases impacting HIV infected patients including tuberculosis (TB); and initiating programs to provide anti-retroviral therapy (ART);
• Strengthening the capacity of countries to collect and use surveillance data and manage national HIV/AIDS programs by expanding HIV/STI/TB surveillance programs and strengthening laboratory support for surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, disease monitoring and HIV screening for blood safety.

In an effort to ensure maximum cost efficiencies and program effectiveness, HHS/CDC also supports coordination with and among partnersand integration of activitiesthat promoteGlobal Health Initiative principles. As such, grantees may be requested to participate in programmatic activities that include the following activities:

• Implement a woman- and girl-centered approach;
• Increase impact through strategic coordination and integration;
• Strengthen and leverage key multilateral organizations, global health partnerships and private sector engagement;
• Encourage country ownership and invest in country-led plans;
• Build sustainability through investments in health systems;
• Improve metrics, monitoringandevaluation; and
• Promote research, developmentand innovation.

The global response to combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic is the largest public health commitment made to date. PEPFAR is one of the major contributors and thus offers a unique opportunity to address global research priority questions, using large scale public health evaluation programs, across multiple countries.

In the context of PEPFAR, the United States Government (USG) in Uganda is establishing an agenda for program monitoring and evaluation and operations research, or Public Health Evaluations (herein these together are referred to as evaluations). The implementation of these evaluations will be undertaken by international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local NGOs, universities, USG implementing partners, and other research organizations in close collaboration with USG and the host governments. The findings from these evaluations should guide program implementation, enhance the quality of current activities, and influence policy decisions related to HIV/AIDS.

The purpose of this announcement is to support PEPFAR’s public health evaluation activities in achieving high quality and timely outputs. The grantee should, where appropriate, incorporate capacity building into their activities to enhance the future implementation of research activities locally. The role of the grantee will be to provide technical assistance (TA) to the evaluations, thus implementing teams for each evaluation. The technical assistance would support the implementing partner, either by performing a task or supporting the implementing partner to be able to complete tasks themselves. In general, the technical assistance (TA) provided to the evaluation implementing teams will be varied in scope. TA could include, but is not limited to, facilitating meetings, training, quality data management, quality assurance in implementation of evaluation and adherence to multi-country standardized protocols, data analysis, special substudies, report writing. Organizations can apply as consortia or describe potential subcontracts to specialized partners to respond to all needs described in the FOA.

The grantee will work closely with each evaluation implementing team and the USG to identify the areas where TA is most needed. In some cases, a rapid assessment of the capacity of the evaluation implementing team may be needed to identify areas in need of support. The role of the grantee will not necessarily be to directly implement the evaluation, but rather to support the implementation of the evaluation with the USG and implementing partner(s). The grantee will be playing a supportive rather than investigator role and would therefore not necessarily expect authorship rights unless, judged on a case by case basis, their role warranted this.

The USG team will guide the scientific direction of the studies and will facilitate coordination and collaboration across countries as needed. The USG team will be overseeing the work of the evaluation implementing team to ensure goals are met and, where possible, will be closely involved with aspects of fielding and reporting. The host government will guide the direction and implementation of the studies, as well as the dissemination of results. This will facilitate use of the results in policy and practice. It will also heighten ownership of the results. The successful applicant of this annoucement will be responsible for: finalizing protocols; planning and executing the fieldwork; and reporting on the studies results in collaboration with other stakeholders. All those involved in the study will be required to build capacity in country for operational research in the process of carrying out the study. Grantees will need to demonstrate excellent skills in diplomacy, facilitation, and negotiation to be able to deliver effectively within complex collaborations involving multiple countries, and multiple partners, Government of Uganda, and other stakeholders to ensure that research outcomes are well disseminated and incorporated into policy and practice.

Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the following performance goal(s) for the Emergency Plan:

Measurable outcomes will vary depending on which activities are required. Outcomes can be divided into those relating to meeting facilitation, literature reviews, tool refinement, training activities, data management, quality assurance, special sub-studies, report writing and other activities.

1. Meeting facilitation (may range from stake-holder meetings, steering committees, data analysis workshops, dissemination meetings and other): - Conduct at least four meetings in the first 12 months with 100% of meetings requested implemented on time, with appropriate and effective participation and high (>75%) levels of satisfaction from attendees for venue, logistics, facilitation.
2. Training activities (for example: data collection and quality assurance): - Conduct at least one evaluation-relatedtraining in the first 12 months with 100% of trainees that can demonstrate excellent knowledge and skills, familiarity with research goals and working knowledge of ethical research practices. Trainees should report high (>75%) levels of satisfaction with training workshop (see above for elements assessed).
3. Data Management: data entry meets HHS/CDC standards of completeness, accuracy, and timeliness. Data cleaning meets HHS/CDC standards. Database development is conducted with reference, where necessary, to multi-country collaboration, and has 100% compatibility with central database strategy. Data at all sites is monitored on a frequent (as stipulated) basis and the data quality assurance cycle is completed regularly (as stipulated) to ensure that quality is maintained, at least once for each evaluation in the first 12 months. Data encryption and confidentiality agreements are 100% adhered to. Any lapses are reported and dealt with to HHS/CDC standards.
4. Quality assurance across evaluation implementation and adherence to multi-country standardized protocols: quality assurance standard operating procedures are enacted and the quality assurance cycle is completed on a regular (as stipulated) basis and quality is maintained using predefined standards, at least once for each evaluation in the first 12 months. Appropriate levels of supervision (as stipulated) are established and maintained in relevant areas (e.g. laboratory services, data collection, data entry and other).
5. Special sub-studies (e.g. time and motion studies, baseline surveys, qualitative studies) are completed to a high standard, in timely fashion with reports and agreed goals reached 100% of the time.
6. Report writing: 100% of final reports are drafted within three months of item completion: at least one report for each evaluation is completed within the first 12 months.
7. Capacity building: at least one specific capacity building activity is conducted within the first 12 months. Activities should build capacity to facilitate local management of similar activities in the future.
8. Any report writing or data analysis: at least one evaluation-related workshop is conducted within the first 12 months to share skills in these activities.

This announcement is intended for non-research activities supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within HHS (HHS/CDC). If an applicant proposes research activities, HHS/CDC will not review the application. For the definition of “research,” please see the HHS/CDC Web site at the following Internet address: