**FFP Responses to PM2A Guidelines Questions and Comments**

**January 22, 2009**

**[GENERAL QUESTIONS/COMMENTS]{.underline}:**

1.  **Question:** Does Food for Peace (FFP) have an expectation
    regarding the number of children/families to be reached by this
    project LOA?

**Answer:** Targeting numbers need to be based on country specific
context and cost estimates. A very detailed cost analysis of the USAID
Haiti Mission study done in conjunction with the International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Cornell University, Gesellschaft für
Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), World Food Programme (WFP) and World
Vision, is available on the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance
Project-2 (FANTA-2) Web site, which should provide a foundation for
determining cost and numbers of beneficiaries.

2.  **Q:** Is there a possibility of a follow-on program after five
    years or will this be limited to the five-year timeframe mentioned
    in the guidance?

**A:** This grant will be awarded for five years, subject to the
availability of funds. No decisions have been made regarding further
programming.

3.  **Q:** What are FFP's expectations in terms of an exit strategy for
    this program given that that this program focuses specifically on
    health activities and does not include livelihood, community
    organization and other activities that promote sustainability?

**A:** FFP hopes that the program will be complementary to other
activities in the activity area to ensure sustainability. An exit
strategy needs to be based on institutionalization of health activities
and the integration of program activities that focus on food security.

4.  **Q:** The guidance mentions that Multi-Year Assistance Program
    (MYAP) review criteria will be used for PM2A; however, MYAPs fund a
    number of activities not covered under this project (livelihoods,
    early warning, community organization and strengthening, etc.). Will
    review criteria then be limited to those focused specifically on the
    Maternal Child Health Network (MCHN) activities mentioned in the
    guidance?

**A:** The Evaluation Criteria (Annex A1) are not tied to any specific
technical sector or activity, and are thus applicable to this
undertaking. Technical merit, implementation, management and logistics,
past performance and cost effectiveness and cost realism are not linked
to any specific activity.

5.  **Q:** Will there be a set percentage of the total budget dedicated
    to food (purchase, transportation, warehousing, etc.) vs.
    programming?

**A:** No. The amounts in the RFA reflect the total dollar value for all
resources. Food aid commodities, transportation, warehousing, etc. are
all part of the costs of the program.

6.  **Q:** How will this program be funded? Monetization, 202e, other
    funds, or a combination?

**A:** The main component of PM2A is direct distribution of food
commodities; however other costs will be covered in a manner similar to
the funding of other MYAPs as outlined in the FFP Title II Guidelines.

7.  **Q:** Would a consortium-based proposal be considered by FFP/FANTA
    as an advantage or a disadvantage from a research perspective?

**A:** There is neither an advantage nor disadvantage. It is up to the
applicant to submit a viable program design.

8.  **Q:** Children in Guatemala are frequently breastfed until 6 months
    and as long as 24 months. It is important that breastfeeding be
    prolonged, even while supplementary and/or weaning foods are
    introduced. Supplementary foods often lack nutrients required for
    adequate growth between 6 months and 5 years of age.

**A:** FFP expects programs to promote appropriate complementary feeding
practices, which by definition includes exclusive breastfeeding from 0
to 6 months of age, and continued breastfeeding up to at least 24
months, while introducing complementary foods at the right time. FFP
also expects programs to conduct formative research to analyze how
locally available foods can best be prepared and combined to offer a
balanced diet to children 6-24 months.

9.  **Q:** Given the wide range of interventions proposed in the
    guidelines, is the impact limited? Why not target fewer
    interventions?

**A:** Research has shown that the two main determinants of nutritional
status in children under two years of age are health status and diet.
The two interact powerfully: a sick child does not eat well; and a
malnourished child is more often ill. All strategies to improve
nutrition must be inclusive of health aspects\--as PM2A does.

10. **Q:** Is there a particular format that should be followed? If so,
    where is this located?

**A:** As stated in the Guidance, the format should follow the Food for
Peace Act Title II Guidelines for MYAPs in terms of documentation
required for a complete submission. Applicants can reference the
Checklist for FY09 MYAP Proposal Submissions for a complete listing of
necessary documents at
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/fy09_final_guidelines.html

11. **Q:** Please clarify the availability of funding associated with
    this proposal per country. Would an award be up to \$2 million
    dollars per year, per country (\$10/5 per country up to \$2 million
    dollars per year)? When the final figure is clarified, we wish to
    clarify whether this represents a cash award, or does it represents
    a cash value that is generated by monetization proceeds, commodity
    values, and/or cash?

**A:** This program activity is meant to last for five years in each
country with a program value of up to \$10 million per country per year,
subject to the availability of funds.

12. **Q:** Does this program involve the provision of food ration
    distributions?

**A:** Yes, food distribution is the main component of PM2A.

13. **Q:** How many awards per country are envisioned?

**A:** FFP envisions one award per country.

**[RESEARCH COMPONENT:]{.underline}**

14. **Q:** Does the \$10 million include Academy for Educational
    Development (AED) -FANTA costs, or are those expenses paid for
    through a separate budget?

**A:** No, the AED-FANTA costs are funded under a different mechanism.

15. **Q:** The PM2A guidelines make clear the program will be paired for
    operations research with AED in FANTA-2 Cooperative Agreement.
    Can/will a more detailed description of the FANTA-2 operations
    research goals, objectives and interests be released?

**A:** Yes, FANTA-2 is preparing Technical Reference Materials for PM2A
that will be available prior to the time of program implementation.
Also, extensive materials are already available on the FANTA-2 website
(http://www.fantaproject.org/index.shtml) that describes the USAID Haiti
Mission study on which the PM2A reference materials will be based.

16. **Q:** How should the research partnership be incorporated into the
    proposal? Should the proposal include the proposed research
    component of the project or should just a strategy be presented,
    followed by the development of the research piece post award?

**A:** The research partnership is funded under a different mechanism.
Proposals should only present their implementation strategy. Modalities
of the research partnership will be established after the awards are
made.

17. **Q:** The Instituto de Nutrición de Centro America y Panama (INCAP)
    in Guatemala has done many studies on nutrition and needs to be
    consulted, if not to be a part of the Guatemalan component. AED
    through the FANTA-2 needs that relationship, and proposals for
    Guatemala should address this when treating research design.

**A:** FFP, Title II partners, FANTA-2, and INCAP already have a working
relationship.

**[COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMMING:]{.underline}**

18. **Q:** In Guatemala, the Ministry of Health (MOH) is responsible for
    the distribution of vitamin A supplementation, deworming, etc.
    Should PVOs plan on distributing these supplements directly, or
    coordinate this activity with the MOH, or would the MOH receive a
    portion of the funding for this?

**A:** The applicant should work in coordination with the MOH and/or any
other pertinent organization. As in the case of any other MYAP, Title II
resources are provided to the applicant partner. It is recommended that
applicants approach the MOH and/or other organizations early in the
development of the program proposal as inputs from various sources are
key factors in a holistically designed program.

19. **Q:** The guidance seems to indicate that the applicant would be
    responsible for purchasing and administering vitamin supplements,
    deworming supplements, and immunizations, which are prohibited
    according to USAID regulations. Please provide additional details
    about how FFP envisions this "core component" being implemented.

**A:** Admissible expenses are the same as those listed in the Food for
Peace Act Title II Guidance. FFP expects programs to leverage resources
from third parties to complement the resources provided for the PM2A
that cannot be purchased using Title II resources by linking with
existing health services. Please review the new FFPIB 08-03: Eligible
Uses of Section 202e and ITSH funding budget matrix found at
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/fy09_final_guidelines.html

20. **Q:** Are PM2A activities expected to be tied to on-going MYAP
    programs, or to be stand alone activities? *(For efficiency and
    effectiveness purposes, we would suggest that this project be
    incorporated within existing MYAPs. Most existing MYAPs already have
    MCH food activities targeting children 3 and under; so it would be
    easier and more economical to pull out the under 2 children within
    the MYAP and create control groups than to look for new areas where
    there are children under 2. Additionally, by not coordinating with
    an existing MYAP project, there will likely not be any or sufficient
    complementary resources for critical related activities to support
    livelihoods, agriculture, wat/san, etc. Activities implemented
    outside of a MYAP area would most likely be more purely food-based
    since resources will be limited to complement the nutrition activity
    and it would require a vast geographic coverage to find enough under
    2 children. This would result in an increased need for staffing,
    transportation costs, as well as additional local partners, whereas,
    if we keep it under the MYAP there would be slightly less costs.)*

**A:** Proposals will be submitted and evaluated as stand-alone
programs. However, if feasible, applicants should seek to link with any
other program that will support successful implementation of the PM2A
program.

21. **Q:** Is the expectation that this project would be implemented in
    current MYAP communities in Guatemala or is FFP expecting an
    expansion of nutrition activities under the MYAP into new
    communities. In the guidance it states that the proposal should
    consider "the capacity for leveraging with other activities, such as
    food security and/or water and sanitation interventions". It would
    be very helpful to know FFP's expectations with regard to geographic
    coverage.

**A:** See response to question 20.

22. **Q:** In the guidance it states that the proposal should consider
    "the capacity for leveraging with other activities, such as food
    security and/or water and sanitation interventions". Is the
    expectation that the PM2A would be implemented in current MYAP
    communities or is FFP expecting an expansion of nutrition activities
    under the MYAP into new communities? If FFP is expecting an
    expansion of nutrition activities into new communities, is there a
    preference that these communities would be adjacent, or very close
    to MYAP communities, or very distinct?

**A:** See response to question 20.

23. **Q:** INCAP shows that other interventions may be as critical, or
    more so, than supplementary feeding and need to be considered. I am
    referring to parasite prevention, malabsorption of nutrients, and
    protein that can be treated with high protein foods, water, hygiene,
    etc. INCAP has worked with mothers on behavioral changes.

**A:** FFP expects programs to leverage resources from third parties to
complement the resources provided for the PM2A that cannot be purchased
using Title II resources by linking with existing health services.
Please review the new FFPIB 08-03: Eligible Uses of Section 202e and
ITSH funding budget matrix found at
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/fy09_final_guidelines.html

24. **Q:** It is the understanding of the applicant that a MYAP
    typically looks to combine several sectoral interventions in order
    to achieve an integrated approach and greater sustainability. In
    this case it is clear that the main focus is a PM2A intervention. In
    order for comparative research to be carried out as desired, should
    the PM2A activities be the ONLY interventions? In other words,
    should activities such as agriculture, infrastructure, etc. be
    excluded from this proposal?

**A:** The PM2A is viewed as an improved MCHN model. The resources
mobilized for the PM2A program are for health and nutrition activities.
Again, if feasible, applicants should seek to link with any other
program that will support successful implementation of the PM2A program.

**[BELLMON ANALYSIS]{.underline}:**

25. **Q:** Is FFP planning to have an updated Bellmon done by FINTRAC in
    Guatemala for the PM2A or will this be the responsibility of the
    applicant? If FINTRAC will be conducting the Bellmon, when can
    applicant expect the results?

**A:** Yes, FFP will conduct a Bellmon Estimation for Title II (BEST)
analysis for both Guatemala and Burundi. The results are expected to be
made available in April 2009, if not earlier. Due to the timing of
Bellmon Analyses FFP would like to underscore that potential issues tied
to these documents will not affect the PM2A selection process and that
any potential discrepancies will be resolved in the issues letter phase.

However, as noted in FFPIB 09-02: New Procedure to Determine Compliance
of P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid Program Proposals with the Conditions of
the Bellmon Amendment found at
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/fy09_final_guidelines.html,
the FFP BEST Project process will complement, but not substitute, the
applicants' on-going market analyses and surveillance. Such knowledge is
critical to the design of sound development activities as well as to the
effective implementation of monetization and distribution programs. The
applicant will continue to be required to provide considerable
information in its proposal related to the local, national and regional
markets, especially for those markets that could be affected by the
proposed programs. Applicants need to understand their operating
environment in order to formulate appropriate program activities using
food aid distributions and to assure a reasonable, practical
monetization plan (if included in the proposal).

26. **Q:** If a MYAP is already being implemented in a close/adjacent
    site to where PM2A is being proposed (if not the same municipality),
    will the agency need to conduct a new market/food availability
    survey to determine the target area's capacity to absorb the donated
    food or would the assessment that was conducted as part of the MYAP
    be sufficient along with current MYAP program monitoring and survey
    data?

**A:** See response to question 25.