Source: http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/PDHRCA-FOA/Pages/FAQ.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-09-17 21:37:45
Document Index: 330599519

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 247', '§ 247', '§ 247', '§ 247', '§ 247', '§ 247', '§ 247', '§ 247', 'art 75', 'art 75', 'art 75']

PHE Home > Preparedness > Planning > Partnership for Disaster Health Response Cooperative Agreement > Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Regional Disaster Health Response System (RDHRS)?
Are applicants required to establish a RDHRS in its entirety?
Does ASPR expect the results of these demonstration projects to be generalizable across the entire United States?
What are the specific goals of this Cooperative Agreement?
Applicant and Partner Eligibility
What types of organizations are eligible to apply for these funds?
If a hospital serves as the primary applicant, is it expected that this hospital provide statewide care?
Are hospital associations eligible applicants?
What is a "political subdivision"?
Can political subdivisions or states serve as the primary applicant for more than one application?
Does the applicant for the demonstration projects have to be a Trauma Center or can the State Health Department be the awardee with all of the partners as outlined?
Does the applicant for the demonstration projects have to be an American College of Surgeons-verified Level 1 trauma center?
Are organizations such as regional advisory councils or health care coalitions eligible applicants?
Are academic medical institutions eligible applicants?
Can Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies apply to be part of the partnership?
Do the required partners for the demonstration projects have to be from the same state?
What is the preferred geographic area served by the partnership?
Are healthcare systems eligible applicants?
If applicants partner with entities across state lines, are letters of support from partnering state entities required as part of the application?
Is the HHS Region the preferred geographic area to be served by the partnership?
Should I focus more heavily on statewide or regional capabilities in my application?
Are federal, state, and local government partners such as VA/DOD hospitals eligible for funding to support RDHRS efforts under this cooperative agreement? New!
Can you please clarify the requirements for statements of assurance? New!
Will only one application per State be accepted?
Who will ensure that each State only submits one application?
What elements must my application contain?
Does the application’s work plan need to address all of the activities and objectives contained in Attachment C: Project Work Plan and Timeline? Can the applicant choose to focus on only one of the capabilities included in the FOA?
How will applications be scored and evaluated?
What level of detail is expected for the Letter of Intent?
Is the Letter of Intent binding?
Will an analysis be provided to both successful and unsuccessful demonstration project candidates displaying the differences in proposals received? Will a “grading” metric be made available to better understand the differences in proposals?
Will application be reviewed in whole by the same reviewers or will it be in sub-divided by sections and have different reviewers?
Following submission of the Letter of Intent, how long until a decision is made, and will only those chosen be notified?
How much emphasis is given on current depth or width of partnerships vs. the development of partnerships through successful award and funding for the project?
Will overhead rates be considered in the application scoring?
I've been advised that VA and DoD facilities in my state are unable to provide letters of support. Can I receive funding priority in another way? New!
What is the role of state entities and any oversight they could have with other awardees?
Can additional (optional) partners be paid for their contribution to this project?
Do the Executive Director and Medical Director have to be from the same entity?
Does the Principal Investigator listed in the Letter of Intent have to also serve as the Executive Director or Medical Director?
What are the required qualifications of the Medical Director? Does the Medical Director need to be credentialed and currently practicing?
What is the role of the State Health Department and any oversight it could have with other awardees?
Who is the fiscal agent for this grant?
What is the suggested time and effort for the Medical Director, Executive Director, and the PI and what is the difference in their roles?
Can there be an associate/assistant medical director?
Can contractors and consultants be considered partners?
Can a Co-PI be named, and if so does s/he have to be part of the awardee entity (as the case with the PI)?
Who is a neutral broker among the partnership members for designating the ED and MD?
How do we mitigate non-performance by a “required” partner in the FOA?
What is the expectation of funded programs to use the demonstration project mechanisms to respond to actual emergencies, should they occur during the project period?
Our proposed PI is “from” the primary applicant, but not employed by the primary applicant and is instead employed by the academic partner of health system. Does this meet the administrative requirement of the principal investigator being “from” the primary applicant? New!
Can you please clarify the length and format requirements for the CVs and Biosketches? New!
HPP, NDMS, & MMRS
What is the role of HPP and PHEP awardees in the grants?
Will this FOA inform the next project period of the Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP)?
What is ASPR doing to ensure this FOA is not duplicative with the HPP?
What is the role of the MMRS?
What is the overlap with HPP and what level of collaboration will be allowed between HPP and this Cooperative Agreement?
Is it acceptable for a current Health Care Coalition Coordinator to assume the position of Executive Director for this Partnership for Disaster Health Response demonstration project?
Will federal ASPR-HPP Regional Field Project Officers have a role in supporting this project? If so, what will their role be?
Can positions be jointly funded between HPP (for HCC work) and this award?
How can the funds from this award be used?
What percentage of funding is meant for management and admin costs?
What percentage of funding is meant for conceptualizing the RDHRS concept versus implementing the five capabilities described in the FOA?
Are personnel costs allowable under this FOA?
What are eligible/reimbursable expenses for Partnership members with MOU (travel, work time – wages/benefits – dedicated to Partnership work plan, work time to participate in planning workshops, training activities, exercise activities, equipment/supplies in support of RDHRS capability needs)?
What are eligible/reimbursable expenses for Partnership members with Letter of Support (travel, work time – wages/benefits – dedicated to Partnership work plan, work time to participate in planning workshops, training activities, exercises activities, equipment/supplies in support of RDHRS capability needs)?
What is the recommended approach to determining what is needed in the budget column for the work plan? Matching work task/objective to the actual funding?
Can funds set for this program be redirected towards emergency response, should one occur in the project period?
Should any of the project funds be protected for actual operational response should one occur in the project period?
How many other positions and/or what total percentage of funds should be devoted to support personnel?
Who pays for site visits?
What compensation range is reasonable for the 0.25 director?
Our system has many federal and salaried workers that are not eligible to be paid from the grant, can new positions be funded?
We would like to compensate non-government facilities/organizations personnel for completing specified tasks. There will be no OT or backfill costs, can that be permitted compensation?
Can admin assistant/support personnel be paid with the grant?
Can funds be used to establish permanent positions for a Steering Committee? New!
Is there a match or cost sharing requirement?
What if the awardee cannot spend all of the funding in one year?
Can we submit a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Partnership Agreement rather than an MOU?
Should the MOUs obtained from the partners be specific to this award or are more generic clinical MOUs what ASPR seeks (e.g.‐ MOUs involving transfers of patients, etc.)?
To whom should the LOS and MOUs be addressed (lead applicant or ASPR)?
Should individuals be named in the MOUs as these documents are executed by the organization and individual staff may change?
Does ASPR have a standardized template for partner MOU’s or will the awardee develop their own?
Please provide information on the funding distribution, such as the minimum and maximum awards possible.
Please clarify maximum direct and indirect costs to be permitted. Is the $3M budget cap a total award cost limited or are indirect costs separate?
How is the grant styled, “instructional vs on-campus, non-research” etc.?
Could you elaborate on maintenance of effort requirements for the primary awardee? Is MOE considered $0 for the first year since there are no preceding years?
Is there possibility of a no cost extension?
Cooperative Agreements are usually federal to state - will there be fiscal/tracking requirements? What accounting processes must the awardee have in place?
Since the initial budget is best estimate – what is the process for a budget amendment?
Our applicant institution currently has federally negotiated indirect cost rates with HHS for research activities. Would our approved offsite rate be applicable to this grant or would a new rate need to be negotiated with ASPR? New!
What is the approved indirect rate? New!
If we plan to use a small sub-contract that does not have a negotiated indirect rate, should we use the de minimus rate of 10%? New!
Can we use a lower rate than our federally negotiated agreement? New!
How do I apply subcontracts to my application? Can the partners of the award be subcontracted to the award? New!
Can we use cost reimbursement? New!
What performance measures are included as reporting requirements?
Are planning documents, training modules, AARs, etc. to be sent in final report to ASPR?
What performance data will be publicly available data for activities funded through the Cooperative Agreement, recognizing some data might be business sensitive? New!
Can you clarify some of the formatting requirements (e.g. margin size, footnotes, citations)? New!
Please clarify whether Attachment C (project work plan) is counted as part of the project narrative for the purposes of the 12 page limit.
Please define state-wide as it’s used throughout the activities described in the Funding Opportunity Announcement.
Is the Partnership working toward specialized surge management, expertise, education, and patient care coordination (including EMS) for all the specific hazards listed in the 12 month grant year?
Please explain the technical assistance (TA) process moving forward. For instance, will each awardee be designated a TA Specialist to work with? What types and levels of TA will be provided?
We anticipate the need to use consultants to assist with activity completion; do their names have to be included in the application or will listing the projected cost to be spent for consultants per activity be sufficient?
When is the notice of award expected?
When will funds be available to the primary awardee?
Is the primary applicant the fiduciary for the grant?
Do co-applicants provide documentation to the grantor?
Can the grantor provide a template for the required attachments?
For Capability 2, Objective 1 regarding plan gap analysis: is this within home state of host site or within all states of partners within partnership? Or interstate plans?
What is the intention for sustainability of capabilities developed during the demonstration project period?
What is the expectation for how best to balance the initial work required to develop the Regional partnership versus the work needed to operate and test the partnership over the course of the year’s work plan?
Can a trust that is responsible for pre-hospital care and formed by inter-local agreement be a jurisdictional applicant?
For the required exercise component, it is expected to be a functional/full scale or TTX?
Is there a specific list of ASPR-required trainings and workshops?
Does the budget column in Attachment C need to be precise? New!
Does ASPR plan to provide legal technical assistance?
Where can I go for technical assistance when developing my application?
Does ASPR plan to fund future projects related to the RDHRS concept?
ASPR aims to better address gaps in coordinated patient care during disasters through the establishment and maturation of a RDHRS. Building a RDHRS is one of ASPR’s four main priorities.
The RDHRS has four main goals:
Better organize and coordinate across local, state, regional, and federal healthcare response assets;
Improve bidirectional communication and situational awareness of the medical needs and issues in response;
Identify and further develop the highly specialized clinical capabilities critical to unusual hazards or catastrophic events; and
Increase healthcare coalition participation to ensure that states and multi-state regions maintain accessible and response-ready clinical capabilities that are essential in disasters and public health emergencies.
No. Applicants must focus on a smaller, more specific, part of that overall system – building partnerships that are able to expand medical surge capacity, coordinate patient and resource movement, and mobilize highly specialized clinical professionals at a state and regional (multi-state) level. The FOA will fund two demonstration sites to identify issues, develop best practices, and demonstrate the potential effectiveness of this part of the overall RDHRS concept.
Building a fully functional RDHRS is a major undertaking that will require ongoing investment outside of the Partnership for Disaster Health Response Cooperative Agreement.
This FOA does not aim to establish the RDHRS in its entirety, but instead funds a limited number of demonstration projects that will help identify issues, develop best practices, and demonstrate the potential effectiveness and viability of this concept. A key role of the measured success and impact of the current Partnership demonstration projects will be used to inform future decisions regarding funding and expectations of partnerships. While it is not expected that the results of these demonstration projects will be generalizable across the entire United States, quarterly meetings between awardees and the government may include discussion of generalizability, including technical approach and operational capabilities.
The goal of the cooperative agreement is to improve the clinical specialty and medical surge capabilities necessary in response. It focuses specifically on building and maturing the partnerships that are required to coordinate patient and resource movement to support medical response and ensure medical surge capacity at the local, state, and regional levels.
There are 5 specific capabilities listed in the FOA, each with a number of associated objectives and activities. The capabilities are:
The awards will be granted to partnerships that include hospitals (including at least one trauma center), healthcare facilities, and one or more political subdivisions and/or one or more States. The awards focus on the rapid expansion of medical surge capacity of the existing healthcare system, coordination of patient and resource movement to support disaster response, and the swift involvement of highly specialized clinical professionals. Accordingly, the involvement of both public- and private-sector healthcare partners is essential.
The composition of these partnerships is required under the statutory authority that authorizes these funding awards. For additional details, see Section 319C-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-3b), as amended.
A primary objective of this cooperative agreement is to establish a statewide Partnership of healthcare and governmental partners relevant to the coordinated delivery of patient care in disasters. There is no limitation on the number of entities that can participate in the partnership. Awardees will propose an overall governance structure for the Partnership, including the roles and responsibilities of all participating entities and organizations. While the direct and primary recipient in a cooperative agreement program must perform a substantial role in carrying out project objectives and not merely serve as a conduit for an award to another party or provider who is ineligible, it is not expected that they conduct all of the activities and objectives described in this grant. Therefore, it is not expected that a single hospital provide statewide care.
Eligible applicants are defined in the statutory authority for this grant, section 319C-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-3b), as amended. Unless a hospital association can be described as a “hospital”, “local health care facility”, or “political subdivision” or “state”, then it is not an eligible entity and thus cannot be a primary awardee. However, hospital associations would be welcomed as an additional (optional) partner by submitting a letter of support and ensuring that the applicant clearly define the role and responsibilities of this partner in achieving the requirements of the cooperative agreement.
What is a “political subdivision”?
Eligible applicants are defined in the statutory authority for this grant, section 319C-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-3b), as amended. One of the required members of the partnership is “one or more political subdivisions, one or more States, or one or more States and one or more political subdivisions.” A political subdivision is a local government, such as a territory or freely associated state, county, city, town, or village. Authorized departments or agencies that are part of a political subdivision office are eligible to apply as part of the partnership.
The awards will be granted to partnerships that include hospitals (including at least one trauma center), healthcare facilities, and one or more political subdivisions and/or one or more States. Although applicants are welcome to partner with entities from other states as optional partners, the required members of this partnership as outlined above must be from the same state. Accordingly, political subdivisions or states can only serve as the primary applicant for one application. However, additional political subdivisions and/or neighboring states would be welcomed as an additional (optional) partner by submitting a letter of support and ensuring that the primary applicant clearly defines the role and responsibilities of this partner in achieving the requirements of the cooperative agreement.
The applicant must be a partnership comprised of (1) hospitals (including at least one trauma center), (2) healthcare facilities, and (3) one or more political subdivisions and/or one or more States (this could be the State Health Department). The applicant will have to designate a primary awardee, which according to the statutory authority for this grant can be any of those entities. However, please note that the scoring criteria favors primary awardees that have experience with direct patient care and can demonstrate capability for the ongoing, complex clinical management of patients requiring specialty expertise in (1) chemical, (2) radiation, (3) burn, (4) trauma, (5) high consequence infectious disease, and/or (6) pediatric care. Furthermore, a large proportion of the points awarded to applicants are tied to the Partnership’s ability to carry out the required capabilities listed in the FOA, and many of these are highly clinically focused and will require ongoing participation and ownership from the healthcare community. Strong applications will clearly demonstrate the participation and buy-in from hospitals/trauma centers, healthcare facilities, and the clinical experts needed to be successful in the FOA objectives.
The American College of Surgeons sets the standards for Trauma Center Designation. These standards/processes are found at hht://www.facs.org/trauma/ntdbacst.html. Simply put, a Trauma Center (TC) is designated in one of two ways: (1) TC directly contacts the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Verification Program or (2) The State has passed laws for its own designation process and the designations are done at the State level. ASPR strongly encourages partnerships to include an ACS/COT designated Level 1 trauma center.
To be eligible for an award through this announcement an entity shall be a Partnership consisting of the following required members:
one or more hospitals, at least one of which shall be a designated trauma center,
one or more other local health care facilities, including clinics, health centers, community health centers, primary care facilities, mental health centers, mobile medical assets, or nursing homes; and
one or more political subdivisions; one or more States; or one or more States and one or more political subdivisions.
The lead applicant for this award could be any one of the entities described above (e.g., a hospital, designated trauma center, a local health care facility, a political subdivision or state) applying on behalf of the partnership or a partnership or other legal entity consisting of all of the required members listed above.
Eligible applicants are defined in the statutory authority for this grant, section 319C-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-3b), as amended. Unless an academic medical institution can be described as a “hospital”, “local health care facility”, or “political subdivision” or “state”, then it is not an eligible entity and thus cannot be a primary awardee. However, academic medical institutions would be welcomed as an additional (optional) partner by submitting a letter of support and ensuring that the applicant clearly define the role and responsibilities of this partner in achieving the requirements of the cooperative agreement.
The awards will be granted to partnerships that include hospitals (including at least one trauma center), healthcare facilities, and one or more political subdivisions and/or one or more States. The composition of these partnerships is required under the statutory authority that authorizes these funding awards. For additional details, see Section 319C-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-3b), as amended. The State Office of EMS must send a letter of support for the overall application to be considered, though there is no application requirement for the inclusion of individual EMS agencies. Individual EMS agencies would be welcomed as an additional partner by submitting a letter of support and ensuring that the applicant clearly defines the role and responsibilities of this partner in achieving the requirements of the cooperative agreement.
The awards will be granted to partnerships that include hospitals (including at least one trauma center), healthcare facilities, and one or more political subdivisions and/or one or more States. The composition of these partnerships is required under the statutory authority that authorizes these funding awards. For additional details, see Section 319C-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-3b), as amended.
A primary goal of the grant is to establish strong, statewide partnerships across healthcare, public health, emergency management, EMS, and other critical partners focused on specialized clinical care in disasters. Although applicants are welcome to partner with entities from other states, the required members of this partnership as outlined above must be from the same state.
However, for States that do not have Trauma centers, partnerships may include Trauma centers in neighboring States that are willing to become partners. The application must clearly demonstrate how funds will be shared with the Trauma center despite the fact it is in different State from the partnership.
The Regional Disaster Health Response System aims to establish a network that coordinates both state-level clinical response assets and multi-state regional assets. This FOA focuses primarily on the maturation of state-level medical surge and specialty clinical care in response, and therefore partnerships include primarily state-level entities.
Through these demonstration sites, however, ASPR aims to demonstrate the effectiveness and viability of the overall RDHRS concept – including the regional mechanisms for sharing clinical expertise and coordinating patient care across state lines.
While applicants are not awarded any designated priority or preference for involvement of regional partners, it is a desired component throughout all 5 required capabilities and will therefore be considered as part of the overall application’s review.
Eligible applicants are defined in the statutory authority for this grant, section 319C-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-3b), as amended. Unless a healthcare system can be described as “one or more hospitals”, “one or more other local health care facilities”, or “one or more political subdivisions” or “one or more states”, then it is not an eligible entity and thus cannot be a primary awardee. If a healthcare system is comprised of “one or more hospitals” and/or “one or more other local health care facilities” then it is eligible assuming the partnership that is formed for this award includes the other statutorily required members.
This FOA focuses primarily on the maturation of state-level medical surge and specialty clinical care in response, and therefore the required partnerships include primarily state-level entities. However, the eligibility criteria in the statute does allow for a partnership to consist of “one or more states” or one or more political subdivisions. In addition, involvement of regional partners is a desired component across all 5 required capabilities and will therefore be considered as part of the overall application’s review.
Of note, there is also an applicable funding preference that can be applied for demonstration of “Regional Coordination” as described here: “The partnership demonstrates how it will enhance coordination among the hospitals and designated trauma center and between other local health care facilities, including clinics, health centers, community health centers, primary care facilities, mental health centers, mobile medical assets, or nursing homes and includes a significant percentage (greater than 51%) of the hospitals and health care facilities within the geographic area served by such partnership.”
Should applicants partner with entities across state lines, letters of support from the partnering state’s State Office of Public Health/Health, State Trauma Advisory Council (or equivalent), or State Office of Emergency Medical Services are not required unless the partnership is meant to be encompassing of “one or more states” in their entirety. For example, if the partnership is intended to be inclusive of the whole state of New York and the whole state of New Jersey, then letters of support from both state’s required entities will be requested. However, if the state of New Jersey would like to include New York City in their partnership, letters of support for state entities in New Jersey are required while those in New York are not.
Regions are defined as multi-state entities, or entities that cross state lines, irrespective of HHS Regional boundaries.
This FOA focuses primarily on the maturation of state-level medical surge and specialty clinical care in response, and therefore partnerships include primarily state-level entities. Accordingly, emphasis should be put on state-level capabilities. However, the eligibility criteria in the statute does allow for a partnership to consist of “one or more states” or one or more political subdivisions. In addition, involvement of regional partners is a desired component across all 5 required capabilities and will therefore be considered as part of the overall application’s review.
In general, yes, federal, state, and local government partners are eligible to support the RDHRS efforts under this cooperative agreement. Federal entities such as VA/DoD hospitals may be eligible for funding under this award if they carry out allowable activities to the extent that they have an applicable statutory authority that authorizes them to accept such grant funds. It is incumbent upon the primary recipient of this grant and the individual partners in question to ensure that the appropriate authorization to accept these funds exists.
Please also reference Section IV of the FOA - Rule of construction – which states that “nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of awards under this section to pay salary and related expenses of public health and other professionals employed by State, local, or tribal agencies who are carrying out activities supported by such awards (regardless of whether the primary assignment of such personnel is to carry out such activities).”
The statutory authority requires three statements of assurance that are included in various areas within the FOA. The first is to “prepare in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer and the lead health officials of the State, District, or territory in which the hospital and health care facilities in the partnership are located, and submit to the Secretary, an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require.” The second is that the Secretary may not award a cooperative agreement to an eligible entity described in subsection (b)(1) unless the application submitted by the entity is coordinated and consistent with an applicable State All-Hazards Public Health Emergency Preparedness and response Plan and relevant local plans, as determined by the Secretary in consultation with relevant State health officials.” The third is “an eligible entity shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that activities carried out under an award under subsection (a) are coordinated with activities of relevant local Metropolitan Medical Response Systems, local Medical Reserve Corps, the local Cities Readiness Initiative, and local emergency plans.”
Perhaps the easiest way to fulfill all of the statutorily required assurance statements would be to include an attestation of all three requirements in the letter of support from the State Public Health/Health Office. If this is not a reasonable or feasible option for your partnership there are other ways to fulfill this requirement. Only the first statement of assurance must come directly from the lead health officials in the state or territory; the other two can come from other appropriate parties (e.g. the primary applicant). If you seek to identify alternative means by which to fulfill the requirements, please request technical assistance from the program office by contacting Melissa.Harvey@hhs.gov.
Of note, there is no requirement for all key partners to provide equivalent statements of assurance in their letters of support. Each of the three statements of assurance need only be supplied once, so long as it is by the appropriate partner or official.
To strengthen your chances of success, be sure to include following elements, which are specified as funding preferences in the authorizing legislation:
Regional Coordination: applicant demonstrates ability to coordinate among greater than 51% of the healthcare facilities and hospitals in the geographic area served by the partnership
Inclusion of NDMS: Partnership includes facilities participating in NDMS program
High-Risk Area: Partnership is located in a geographic area that faces a high degree of risk
Need for Funding: Applicant demonstrates significant needs for funds to achieve the medical preparedness goals described in the FOA
Applicants are asked to submit statement of funding preference that describes eligibility for the applicable preference(s). Application of the funding preferences is at the discretion of ASPR.
Applicants are required to submit letters of support from:
State Office of Public Health/Health
Healthcare coalition leaders (or points of contact) in the state
State Trauma Advisory Council (or equivalent)
State Office of Emergency Medical Services
Additional funding priority will be given to applicants that submit optional letters of support from:
VA/DOD facilities
State DMAT teams
State Offices of Emergency Management
State Children’s Hospital Network (or equivalent)
Radiation Injury Treatment Network centers
Acute Care Hospitals/Medical Centers
Due to the short duration (1 year) and limited funds (up to $3 million) of these awards, the most desirable applicants will be mature entities that are able to demonstrate existing capabilities in the 5 required capability areas listed above.
Yes, due to the required partnerships and the statewide/regional focus of the cooperative agreement, ASPR strongly prefers that only one application be submitted per state. A primary goal of the grant is to establish strong, statewide partnerships across healthcare, public health, emergency management, EMS, and other critical partners focused on specialized clinical care in disasters. Should a single state submit more than one application, it would suggest that the state was unable to obtain the collaboration necessary for the grant objectives to be achieved.
Due to the required partnerships and the statewide/regional focus of the cooperative agreement, ASPR strongly prefers that only one application be submitted per state. A primary goal of the grant is to establish strong, statewide partnerships across healthcare, public health, emergency management, EMS, and other critical partners focused on specialized clinical care in disasters. Ideally, all the required partners in a State will come together to decide on a single applicant.
Project Overview: Applicants must provide a project narrative that includes an overview of their proposed project, along with a workplan/timeline, detailed description of the Partnership’s capabilities, and an evaluation and performance measurement plan.
Partnership Documentation: Applicants will also need to provide:
MOUs from statutorily required partners
Letters of Support from state Departments of Public Health/Health, Healthcare Coalition leaders (or POC), state Trauma Advisory Councils (or equivalent), and the State Office of Emergency Medical Services.
A table describing required partners
CVs for key project personnel
Standard Forms – Application for Federal Assistance and Budget Information
Copy of applicant’s most recent indirect cost agreement, if applicable
ASPR will award additional points to applications that are able to demonstrate that the primary awardee in the partnership has the capability for ongoing, complex clinical management of patients requiring specialty expertise in (a) chemical; (b) radiation; (c) burn; (d) trauma; (e) high consequence infectious disease and/or (f) pediatrics.
As part of the project work plan, applicants should provide their proposed approach to all objectives and activities in:
Capability 1: Build a Partnership for Disaster Health Response
Capability 2: Align Plans, Policies, Processes, and Procedures Related to Clinical Excellence in Disasters
Capability 3: Increase Statewide and Regional Medical Surge Capacity
Capability 4: Improve Statewide and Regional Situational Awareness
Capability 5: Develop Readiness Metrics and Conduct an Exercise to Test Capabilities
ASPR provided Attachment C: Project Work Plan and Timeline as a suggested format for applicants to complete their work plan. Awardees must address all components included in the “objectives” and “activities” listed in Attachment C in their application. For example, an application should not only focus on one clinical specialty (e.g. pediatrics or infectious disease), when various clinical specialties are included in the objectives and activities.
Applications will be evaluated based on a four-step process:
Initial Review: Applications will be reviewed to ensure they meet the administrative requirements. All applications that have the required components will be referred to an Objective Review Committee.
Review by the Objective Review Committee: The Objective Review Committee will score the applications based on established Review and Selection Criteria as described in the FOA.
Application of Funding Preferences: ASPR will receive the scored applications and apply additional funding preferences as allowable under the authorizing statute and described above.
Final Award by ASPR: ASPR will make the final award decisions. In making these decisions, ASPR will take into consideration 1) recommendations from the review panel, 2) reviews for programmatic and grants management compliance, 3) reasonableness of estimated cost to the government, and 4) likelihood that the proposed project will result in the benefits expected.
Letters of Intent must outline the project abstract and approximate funding request. Specifically, in 2 pages or less, intended applicants must describe the key capabilities that differentiate their organization and the required partnership members from other potential applicants. Intended applicants must also include a project overview not to exceed 4 pages. The project overview need not address all of the capabilities described in the FOA, but rather, should highlight the overall strategy and partnerships that applicants plan to pursue. Applicants will not be evaluated on the Letter of Intent.
No, the Letter of Intent is not binding. Applicants will not be evaluated on the Letter of Intent.
Each applicant will receive written notification of the outcome of the objective review process, including a summary of the expert committee’s assessment of the application’s strengths and weaknesses, and whether the application was selected for funding. Applicants who are selected for funding may be required to respond in a satisfactory manner to Conditions placed on their application before funding can proceed. Letters of notification do not provide authorization to begin performance.
Additional information about the scoring system, including detail about funding priorities and preferences, is included in the funding opportunity announcement.
Applications will be reviewed in whole by three reviewers. Given the number of applications expected, there will be more than three reviewers on the review panel; therefore, not all reviewers will review every application that is submitted.
Letters of Intent are not binding and are not a replacement for complete and final applications. Final applications are due no later than August 15th 2018 at 11:59 p.m. ET. The Objective Review Committee and ASPR will commence review of the applications thereafter. Each applicant will receive written notification of the outcome of the objective review process, including a summary of the expert committee’s assessment of the application’s strengths and weaknesses, and whether the application was selected for funding. Notification of award will be made no later than September 30, 2018, when the project period begins.
Applications will be scored according to the criteria set forth in the funding opportunity announcement. Depth and width of existing partnerships will be recognized through multiple aspects of the application, including but not limited to: the required MOUs and letters of support; demonstration of organizational capability of the partnership to complete the capabilities and objectives as required of the grant; and any applied funding priorities and preferences.
Due to the 12-month project period, the strongest applicants will demonstrate existing partnerships and capabilities as described in the funding opportunity announcement.
Will overhead rates be considered in the application scoring? New!
While your overall budget will be reviewed as part of the application review process, there is no specific scoring criteria assigned to the designation of overhead rates that are applied to the grant.
I’ve been advised that VA and DOD facilities in my state are unable to provide letters of support. Can I receive funding priority in another way?
We have been notified that not all VA and DOD facilities are equally legally able to provide letters of support to potential applicants. To ensure equal opportunity to all applicants, the funding priority points previously assigned to VA/DOD facility letters of support have been modified. No funding priority will be awarded for letters of support from VA or DOD facilities. The 1 point allocation that had been assigned to these facilities has been added instead into the “acute care hospitals/medical centers” category, such that a total of 3 points may be awarded (with .5 points for each facility letter of support in this category). Please see the full funding opportunity announcement for this update.
The awards will be granted to partnerships that include hospitals (including at least one trauma center), healthcare facilities, and one or more political subdivisions and/or one or more States. In addition, applicants should have demonstrated past performance of coordinating with healthcare organizations and healthcare coalitions across the state and are required to submit with the application package letters of support from:
Based on these requirements, state entities such as the State Office of Public Health/Health or State Office of Emergency Medical Services may simultaneously fulfill a number of roles on the grant. For example, they may fulfill the “one or more States” requirement of the partnership, submit a letter of support as required, and/or serve as a sub-awardee. If the state agency is designated as the required “one or more States” requirement of the partnership, it is also eligible to be the primary awardee and designate the Principal Investigator on the grant.
Of note, in most cases, state entities are more likely to fulfill the “one or more States” requirement than the requirement of “political subdivision.” Political subdivisions are generally a component within a state – a county, village, city, town, etc. and different from a state agency. Therefore, a county-level agency health department (for example) could be considered a political subdivision, but the state-level agency health department would not. If you suspect your agency may be an exception based on your specific state practices, please contact the program office for more specific guidance.
An arrangement to carry out a portion of the programmatic effort by a third-party or for the acquisition of goods or services is allowed under the grant. Such arrangements may be in the form of sub awards (grants) or contracts. A consultant is a non-employee retained to provide advice and expertise in a specific program area for a fee. Accordingly, the costs for additional (optional) partners can be charged directly to the grant so long as these participants are acting as an approved sub-recipient on the grant.
The Budget Summary is used to determine reasonableness and allowability of costs for the project. All of the proposed costs listed, whether supported by Federal funds or non-Federal match, must be reasonable, necessary to accomplish project objectives, allowable in accordance with applicable Federal cost principles, auditable, and incurred during the budget period. Awardees must also briefly outline the scope of work, planned activities, and intended outcomes of work performed via subawardee contracts.
Applicants must designate an Executive Director and a Medical Director to act as leaders of clinical preparedness and response and neutral brokers among the partnership members and supporting organizations. The Executive Director and Medical Director position need not come from the same entity.
The Principal Investigator (PI) listed in the Letter of Intent must be from the primary applicant that is also serving as the fiscal agent for this grant. The Principal Investigator need not also serve as the Executive Director (ED) or Medical Director (MD). However, should applicants prefer that the Principal Investigator also serve in the role of either Executive Director or Medical Director, it is allowable. In these cases, please be sure to account for the clear delineation of roles and responsibilities of the individual as both the PI and the ED or MD and take into consideration that ASPR has estimated the roles of ED and MD to require at least .25 FTE.
The Medical Director must meet or exceed the following qualifications:
Physician with a current in-state license and demonstrated clinical experience.
Board Certified in an American Board of Medical Specialties recognized specialty and clinically active.
Familiarity with EMS, Emergency Management and Public Health laws and regulations.
Education and/or experience with mass casualty, bioterrorism, Nuclear, Biological Chemical, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and/or disaster preparedness.
While the position’s job responsibilities and salary are designed to encompass work of a .25 FTE, the expectation of the employer is not limited to a set number of work hours, but rather the completion of all necessary tasks to meet the objectives of the grant that would naturally be attributed to the chief clinician.
State health departments and local healthcare coalitions are integral to disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation activities and ASPR is proud of the progress that the HPP and PHEP programs have made since their inception.
We recognize, however, that progress has not been achieved to the same extent across all healthcare preparedness and response capabilities. In particular, the medical aspects of disaster response (for example, those related to sharing strategic medical intelligence or to the complex medical management of large numbers of patients) have not been as well addressed.
The fiscal agent for this grant is the primary applicant of the required partnership including one or more hospitals (including at least one designated trauma center), one or more local healthcare facilities, and one or more political subdivisions and/or one or more States. The fiscal agent for this award could be any one of the entities described (e.g., a hospital, designated trauma center, a local health care facility, a political subdivision or state) applying on behalf of the partnership or a partnership or other legal entity consisting of all of the required members.
The direct and primary recipient in a cooperative agreement program must perform a substantial role in carrying out project objectives and not merely serve as a conduit for an award to another party or provider who is ineligible. The organizational capability statement should describe how the primary applicant agency and the required partner agencies are organized, the nature and scope of their work and/or the capabilities each possesses.
The Principal Investigator listed in the Letter of Intent must be from the primary applicant that is also serving as the fiscal agent for this grant (from among the required partners as defined in the statutory authority for this grant, section 319C-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-3b), as amended).
The Principal Investigator need not also serve as the Executive Director or Medical Director. The expectation of the employer is not limited to a set number of work hours, but rather the completion of all necessary tasks to meet the objectives of the grant that would naturally be attributed to the Principal Investigator of a grant.
While the job responsibilities and salary estimate of the Medical Director and Executive Director are designed to encompass work of a .25 FTE, the expectation of the employer is not limited to a set number of work hours, but rather the completion of all necessary tasks to meet the objectives of the grant that would naturally be attributed to the chief clinician and chief executive.
Yes, grant funds may be used to cover costs of: personnel, consultants, equipment, supplies, grant-related travel, and other grant-related costs. The awardee is able to name and fill personnel positions as required to meet the objectives of the grant, so long as they do not violate the funding restrictions as listed in the FOA.
Yes, the awardee is able to name and fill personnel positions as required to meet the objectives of the grant, so long as they do not violate the funding restrictions as listed in the funding opportunity announcement. While the Principal Investigator must be from the primary applicant that is also serving as the fiscal agent for this grant, any Co-Investigators need not be.
Designation of the Executive Director and Medical Director is at the discretion of the partnership. The Executive Director and Medical Director must, however, meet the qualifications and requirements set forth in the funding opportunity announcement.
All required partners must submit a memorandum of understanding, memoranda of agreement, partnership agreement, or other similar agreement that can be used to describe performance expectations.
The funded programs would be expected to respond to an actual emergency as appropriate for existing state and local plans. Should awardees use demonstration project mechanisms in an actual response, a prior approval request for any redirected funds must be submitted. All redirects must be within scope of the approved project activity and budget. Decisions are made on a case by case basis.
The PI/PD is generally an employee of the award recipient (in this case the primary awardee). If the PI/PD is not an employee of that organization, you must provide a formal written agreement between the PI/PD and the primary awardee that specifies an official relationship between the parties even if the relationship does not involve a salary of other form of remuneration. If the PI/PD is not an employee of the applicant organization, the program office will assess whether the arrangement will result in the organization being able to fulfill its responsibilities under the grant, if awarded.
Accordingly, in addition to the formal written agreement, the program office will do a thorough review of the PI's curriculum vitae or biosketch to ensure that the arrangement will allow the organization and the PI to fulfill their respective responsibilities under the award. Please also be sure to consider whether the PI is able to make fiduciary decisions related to the grant if he is not an employee of the primary awardee, as it may be helpful to clarify in the formal written agreement who specifically will be responsible for that role.
You can also refer to the Grants Policy Statement (Section I) link in the FOA for additional guidance.
With the application package, awardees must submit a Curriculum Vitae (CV) or Biosketch of Key Personnel, including that of the Executive Director and Medical Director, as well as of any technical consultants that are essential to the execution of this cooperative agreement.
Key Personnel are defined as all individuals who contribute in a substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of the project, whether or not salaries are requested.
Each CV or Biosketch should be no more than 5 pages each, and while there is no required format, CVs or Biosketches should be double-spaced, on 8 ½” x 11” plain white paper with 1” margins on all sides, and a font size of not less than 11.
CVs or Biosketches should clearly convey the required qualifications of the position (if defined in the funding opportunity announcement) and/or any specialized expertise and experience that enables the personnel to complete the assigned roles and responsibilities under the cooperative agreement.
HPP, NDMS, MMRS
To ensure that state health departments and healthcare coalitions, specifically, are included ASPR will also require letters of support from these entities (as well as state trauma and EMS) to be submitted with the application package.
HPP supports regional health care system preparedness, though not necessarily though the development of a RDHRS. The capabilities included in this FOA are designed to be complementary to the HPP capabilities but emphasize the clinical coordination aspects of disaster response.
Given the anticipated award date for this FOA is September 30, 2018 and the next FOA for the HPP is expected to be released in January 2019, it is unlikely that lessons learned from these two RDHRS pilot projects will be included in the upcoming HPP FOA.
To ensure that healthcare coalitions, specifically, are included ASPR will also require letters of support from healthcare coalitions to be submitted with the application package. Additionally, regional coordination – demonstrating the ability to coordinate among greater than 51% of the healthcare facilities and hospitals in the geographic area served by the partnership – is specified as a funding preference in the authorizing legislation. This qualification may be demonstrated, for example, by the submission of letters of support from a majority or all of the healthcare coalition leaders (or POC) in the state.
The HHS RDHRS grants are separate and distinct from the DHS MMRS grants. However, conceptually the two programs share certain elements. For example, RDHRS aims to ensure that local healthcare systems and facilities are included in and influence state- and regional-level disaster planning and response efforts. Like MMRS, RDHRS aims to bring together various elements of emergency response, including healthcare, public health, emergency management, EMS, and specialty expertise in areas such as chemical, biological, pediatric, and infectious disease readiness.
Furthermore, the authorizing statutory language for this award states that “awardees shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that activities carried out under this award are coordinated with activities of relevant local Metropolitan Medical Response Systems (MMRS), local Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), and the Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI)” and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Letter of Support from the State, Territory, or directly funded metropolitan area public health agenc(ies) participating in the partnership must include a statement of assurance to this effect.
The health care coalitions (HCCs) funded by HPP serve as collaborating and responding entities that brings together hospitals, EMS, public health, emergency management, and other partners. Together, the HCC examines the region’s hazards and threats via a hazard vulnerability analysis, conducts a gap analysis, and engages in joint planning, training, exercising, and equipment acquisition. The HCC plans for and responds to hazards that can compromise the ability to provide care such as utility failure. The HCC also tries to prevent future surges of patients by acting to mitigate a disaster. The HCC also works on patient distribution and tracking. In short, the HCC exists to ensure the medical system impact from a disaster is mitigated or kept to a minimum, and that existing patients and new patients resulting from emergencies can receive high quality care at an appropriate facility.
The RDHRS will be built on a tiered regional framework that emphasizes the collaboration among local healthcare coalitions, trauma centers, public and private healthcare facilities, and emergency medical services to expand access to specialty care expertise and increase medical surge capacity.
The goals of the RDHRS are to better coordinate across local, state, regional, and federal healthcare response assets (including to help coordinate across HCCs); improve bidirectional communication and situational awareness of the medical needs and issues in response; identify and further develop the highly specialized clinical capabilities critical to unusual hazards or catastrophic events; and increase healthcare sector participation in preparedness efforts.
Given the role of health care coalitions as the foundation of the RDHRS, there must be collaboration between this cooperative agreement and the state’s HPP Program and its associated HCCs.
While it is certainly acceptable, it is important to note that the HCC requirements for the HPP BP1 Supplemental must still be accomplished thoroughly and in a timely manner. If the HCC Coordinator has additional time to dedicate to the demonstration project, serving in both roles is acceptable.
All 11 ASPR-HPP Regional Field Project Officers (FPOs) will support these two demonstration projects, but it has not been determined if they will serve as the official Project Officer for the demonstration projects, or if there will be a dedicated Project Officer for these new projects, separate from the HPP FPOs.
Please see the answer to the question: Is it acceptable for a current Health Care Coalition Coordinator to assume the position of Executive Director for this Partnership for Disaster Health Response demonstration project?
Grant funds may be used to cover the costs of personnel, consultants, equipment, supplies, grant-related travel, and other grant-related costs.
Please refer to the FOA for a complete list of funding restrictions.
ASPR is not designating a specific percentage of funding for management and admin costs. The Budget Summary is used to determine reasonableness and allowability of costs for the project. All of the proposed costs listed, whether supported by Federal funds or non-Federal match, must be reasonable, necessary to accomplish project objectives, allowable in accordance with applicable Federal cost principles, auditable, and incurred during the budget period.
Additionally, the direct and primary recipient in a cooperative agreement program must perform a substantial role in carrying out project objectives and not merely serve as a conduit for an award to another party or provider who is ineligible.
The purpose of this FOA is to fund two demonstration projects that will help identify issues, develop best practices, and demonstrate the potential effectiveness and viability of the RDHRS concept. Specifically, the Partnership will implement and demonstrate the 5 specific capabilities listed in the FOA, each with a number of associated objectives and activities. Accordingly, funding for this FOA is meant to implement demonstration projects rather than conceptualize a concept.
Grant funds may be used to cover costs of: personnel, consultants, equipment, supplies, grant-related travel, and other grant-related costs. Applicants should include personnel costs in the required Budget Narrative/Justification as shown in Attachment B.
All costs directly related to the Partnership for Disaster Health Response Cooperative Agreement Funding Opportunity Announcement project activity and within scope of the approved budget that are consistent with the statutory authority for this award (section 319C-2 of the PHS Act, as amended) and applicable regulations including the Cost Principles in 45 C.F.R. part 75, subpart E may be charged directly to the grant. “Reimbursable expenses” are only paid through the sub contract cost category of the budget and such expenses are direct charges to the grant. Attachment B “Budget Narrative/Justification - Sample Format” provides examples and definitions of the cost categories.
All cost directly related to the Partnership for Disaster Health Response Cooperative Agreement Funding Opportunity Announcement project activity and within scope of the approved budget that are consistent with the statutory authority for this award (section 319C-2 of the PHS Act, as amended) and applicable regulations including the Cost Principles in 45 C.F.R. part 75, subpart E may be charged directly to the grant. “Reimbursable expenses” are only paid through the sub contract cost category of the budget and such expenses are direct charges to the grant. Attachment B “Budget Narrative/Justification - Sample Format” provides example and definitions of the cost categories.
Applicants may reference Attachment B “Budget Narrative/Justification - Sample Format” and Attachment C “Project Work Plan and Timeline - Sample Template” for guidance in preparing their budgets.
Recipients must submit a prior approval request to redirect funds. All redirects must be within scope of the approved project Activity and Budget. Approval decisions for the redirection of funds are made on a case by case basis.
Recipients are expected to use all awarded funds for the approved project Activity and Budget.
There is not a cap on Personnel support funding or number of personnel.
Travel costs for partners, sub-contractors and sub-recipients of the Partnership for Disaster Health Response Cooperative Agreement Funding Opportunity Announcement award to participate in site visits are allowable as direct costs to the grant provided the awardee has policies and procedures for site visits and travel of personnel and such costs are in the approved budget.
Applicants may reference various tools via the internet to determine the labor market rate for professions. ASPR does not endorse any internet tools. Applicants may also reference the Bureau of Labor and Statistics via https://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm for compensation ranges.
Yes. Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate their organizational capacity of executing the tasks provided in the Partnership for Disaster Health Response Cooperative Agreement Funding Opportunity Announcement.
Yes. Such tasks must support the Partnership for Disaster Health Response Cooperative Agreement Funding Opportunity Announcement as detailed in the proposed budget.
Yes. Admin assistant/support must be includedas personnel of the recipient or partnership.
Funds are only allowable for Project related costs. Should a Steering Committee be established to support, for example, the requirements under Capability 1, Activity 2 to “Propose an overall governance structure for the Partnership, including the roles and responsibilities of all participating entities and organizations,” “convene Partnership members in person at least quarterly,” and “Identify and document governance best practices” it may be considered an allowable cost.
However, it is unclear what the inquirer means by “permanent positions” as this is a 1-year project period. There are multiple ways to compensate consultants or sub-contracts under this award, and we recommend that you seek additional technical assistance from the program office by contacting Melissa.Harvey@hhs.gov to ensure the establishment of a “permanent” position is allowable.
There is no cost sharing or match requirement for this project. This project does include maintenance of effort requirement as specified in section 319C-2(h).
In general, an entity that receives an award under this section shall maintain expenditures for health care preparedness at a level that is not less than the average level of such expenditures maintained by the entity for the preceding 2 year period.
Rule of construction: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of awards under this section to pay salary and related expenses of public health and other professionals employed by State, local, or tribal agencies who are carrying out activities supported by such awards (regardless of whether the primary assignment of such personnel is to carry out such activities).
Applicants are expected to budget for requested funds within the solicited period of performance. Awardees can contact the awarding agency for technical assistance during the period of performance. The awardees are also allowed and encouraged to establish contractual relationships in order to secure the subject matter and technical expertise needed to achieve the grant objectives. No cost extensions require prior approval; are requested in the last year of the period of performance; are requested when the recipient cannot complete their approved project activity within the period of performance and cannot be requested to expend funds.
Understanding that many of your institutions consider MOUs to be binding legal documents, we will also accept MOAs or partnership agreements in place of the MOU. The MOU should be between the primary awardee (in other words the organization that the PI comes from) and the partner organization – ASPR need not be named.
The MOUs (or MOA or partnership agreements) should be specific to this award and detail the roles and responsibilities of each partners in conducting the work needed to meet the objectives of this grant.
The letters of support and the memoranda of understanding (or memorandum of agreement or partnership agreement) should be addressed to the primary awardee.
The names of individuals need not be named in the MOUs and position titles and organization names may be used instead.
ASPR will not provide a standardized template for partner MOUs and ask that the awardee develop their own MOU, MOA, or Partnership Agreement based on what works for their partnership.
Applicants may request funding that does not exceed the ceiling award amount of $3 million. ASPR may award all or part of the funds for two awards, and a total of up to $6 million dollars, subject to availability of funds.
The $3M budget includes both direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs can only be claimed on Federal funds, more specifically, they are to only be claimed on the federal share of the award. For instance, a recipient may charge the approved negotiated rate for indirect costs to a Federal Share of $3M. If indirect costs are to be included in the application, a current copy of the approved indirect cost agreement must be included in the application. Further, if any subcontractors or sub-grantees are requesting indirect costs, copies of their most current indirect cost agreements must also be included with the application. Otherwise, applicants may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely. Costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all federal awards until such time as the recipient decides to negotiate for a rate.
The FOA will fund up to two non- research cooperative agreements.
These expenditures encompass all funds spent by the entity for health care preparedness regardless of the source of funds. The awardee will be required to report on maintenance of effort upon receipt of the award. Maintenance of effort activities will not include those already being reported on under the Hospital Preparedness Program and Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program grants.
To be eligible for funding under this announcement, the entity must demonstrate in the budget narrative that they intend to budget at least, and not less than, the average of their FY 16 and FY 17 total spending for health care preparedness. See the example below:
MAINTENANCE OF FUNDING: EXAMPLE
STATE EXPENDITURES - HEALTH CARE PREPAREDNESS
$1,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000
$1,200,000 $3,500,000 $4,700,000
-- -- $4,850,000
FOR FY 18, STATE X SHALL MAINTAIN EXPENDITURES FOR HEALTH CARE PREPAREDNESS OF AT LEAST $4,850,000.
No cost extensions require prior approval. An applicant may request a no cost extension 10 days towards the end of the period of performance for the purpose of completing the project activity.
Recipients must comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit requirements in 45 C.F.R. part 75. These regulations address financial management and standards for financial management systems (45 C.F.R. 75.302) and performance and financial monitoring and reporting (45 C.F.R. 75.341-343), among other things. Recipients are required to submit to ASPR an annual Federal Financial Form (SF-425) reflecting authorized funding and expenditures. In Addition, recipients must report cash disbursements quarterly to the Division of Payment Management Services (DPMS).
States and non-Federal entity’s financial systems must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
The Initial budget request is considered the approved budget of record for recipients. Prior approval is required for change of scope, significant budget revisions of 25% or more of the total award and change in key personnel. Recipients may submit a revised budget at any time during the period of performance via Grantsolutions.
Applicants may use current NICRAs with HHS for research activities with the intent to charge indirect costs to only non- research related activities within the agreement. Only ‘Other Sponsored Activities’/non-research rates are allowed for indirect costs of the RDHRS award.
Applicants have the discretion to negotiate a new indirect cost rate agreement anytime within the period of performance if necessary.
A Federally approved negotiated indirect cost rate agreement provides an indirect cost rate that is used when calculating proposed indirect costs for an application.
The negotiated indirect cost rate agreement must be conducted by a cognizant Federal agency. Applicants may refer to the HHS Program Support Center for detailed information on negotiated indirect cost agreements and cost allocation plans via https://rates.psc.gov/ for detailed information.
Any non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely or until a Federal agency negotiates an indirect rate agreement.
Yes. Applicants may use the 10% de minimis rate of 10% for sub-contracts that do not have negotiated indirect cost rate agreement.
Non-federal entities with a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRAs) that wish to use lower rates than their NICRA may provide a description of the basis for the rate they are requesting to use for this award.
Applicants intending to apply subcontracts to their proposals must comply with 45 CFR 75 Federal procurement provisions 45 CFR 75.326; competition 45 CFR 75.328; and procurement procedures 45 CFR 75.329. Effective 6/20/18, the threshold for micro-purchases is $10,000 and $250,000 for simplified acquisitions. Under the micro-purchase procurements with federal award funds (e.g. 45 CFR 75.329(a)), the purchases at or under the established threshold may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations.
There are two primary methods of selecting a subcontractor: sole/single source selection or competitive bidding. A detailed justification is required with the proposal for all types of procurements.
Single or Sole Source Selection is most common in projects where a recipient/prime wishes to collaborate with an identified organization offering unique expertise or facilities. Single and Sole Source selections require ASPR prior approval and a written agreement on letter with dual signature from the Authorizing Official Representative (AOR) and Project Investigator (PI).
Single source selection occurs when a Subcontractor is a preferred Subcontractor for completion of the Statement of Work which may be available from more than one source, but for reasons of location, price, Facilities, availability, etc., one of the qualified Subcontractors is preferred over the others.
Sole source selection occurs when a project requires performance from one particular Subcontractor for completion of the Statement of Work which cannot be obtained from any other source. Sole source selection in the second scenario is not justified simply by the fact that there has been continuing collaboration between organizations. A sole source justification in these situations must be further justified with respect to the unavailability of the services or expertise from other sources.
Competitive bidding is often used as the method of Subcontractor selection when purchasing goods or services or when the recipient does not have a preferred Subcontractor in mind either at the time of proposal or post award. This method requires the recipient to solicit proposals make a final Subcontractor selection from those responding based on technical merit and cost objectives. This may be based on a combination of price and qualifications.
Cost Reimbursement agreements are generally the means used for payment to contracts for allowable, allocable and reasonable costs incurred during the period of performance of the contract. However, grantees have the discretion to utilize fixed price subcontracts agreements and may consult 45 CFR 75.329 for procurement procedures.
Awardees are required to submit three types of reports:
Quarterly Progress Reports: The awardee will be required to submit quarterly progress reports, including an End of Year report using an ASPR-provided template.
Exercise Reports: The awardee will also be required to submit an After Action Report and Corrective Action Plan as a result of their required exercise.
Evaluation and Performance Management Plan and Report: The awardee is asked to create an Evaluation and Performance Measurement Plan that describes how they will evaluate progress, and whether the identified outcomes have been achieved. To guide this process, ASPR has provided 7 performance metrics in the FOA. These performance measures are separate and different from the “readiness metrics” that the applicant is asked to develop under Capability 5 of the award.
The following performance measures are included as reporting requirements (see FOA section Reporting Requirements/Performance Measures):
The Partnership demonstrates clearly defined, cooperative, and ongoing relationships to accomplish its mission with the required partners, supporting organizations, additional partners, and with local, regional, and/or state public health agencies and emergency management agencies
The Partnership has identified critical clinical capabilities and gaps in existing disaster plans, aligned existing coalition and state response plans to facilitate coordinated
The Partnership has improved medical surge capacity and capability
The Partnership has developed a comprehensive statewide or regional situational awareness (SA) capability that integrates medical resources in order to improve early detection of, response to, and clinical management of all public health and medical emergencies
The Partnership develops and implements readiness metrics for peer review assessments, monitoring, recognition reporting, and a “Response Ready” designation program
The Partnership conducts at least one readiness exercise during the project period that measures the readiness of the coalitions’ surge capacity and demonstrates the ability to coordinate healthcare service delivery at the statewide or regional (i.e. multistate) level
The Partnership has submitted timely and complete data for the required reports (quarterly progress and end of year reports)
Partnerships shall maintain all documentation that substantiates the answers to these measures (site visits, surveys, exercises, etc.) and make those documents available to Federal staff as requested during site visits or through other requests. The required mid-year and end-of-year reports should also include status updates related to these performance measures.
The awardee will be required to submit quarterly progress reports, including an end of year report using the template provided in Attachment E. This template requests that the awardee also “include as attachments any supporting documents to demonstrate completion or success of the deliverable.”
The awardee will be required to submit an annual After Action Report and Corrective Action Plan as a result of the exercise conducted as part of Capability 5 using the templates in Attachments F and G, respectively.
Further, for monitoring purposes, the primary awardee must allow the Project Officer access to any documentation requested.
ASPR recognizes that some of the data provided by the awardees will be business-sensitive. In general, ASPR does not disclose such information to the public unless required by the law. While we cannot guarantee that all submitted data will be confidential, any HHS- or ASPR-derived reporting will, where possible, use de-identified and aggregated information to convey general trends, best practices, and findings.
The funding opportunity announcement provides general formatting requirements for the application submission but has omitted some specific requirements as follows: please use 1” margins at the top, left, right, and bottom of the Project Narrative submission; page numbers, footnotes, running heads, and other information that is generally located in the header or footer of the page may be placed in the margins; any citations should be collated and attached as an appendix that does not count toward the 12 page limit; you may use any citation style (e.g. APA, AMA, MLS, etc.) but please use the same style throughout the submission.
No, if you choose to fill out and submit Attachment C it will not count toward the 12 page limit. However, any narrative drafted to accompany Attachment C and fulfill the required “Work Plan and Timeline of Proposed Activities” section of the project narrative will be included in the 12 pages.
The RDHRS structure is conceptualized as a tiered system that builds upon the existing Medical Surge Capacity and Capability (MSCC) foundation for local medical response (e.g. trauma systems and HCCs) by enhancing coordination mechanisms and incorporating discrete clinical and administrative capabilities at the state and regional levels. At the state level, RDHRS specifically aims to establish more robust situational awareness of healthcare system capability and capacity, coordination and prioritization mechanisms for patient transfers, process and policy for resource management, and access to clinical specialists in areas such as pediatrics, trauma and burn care, and infectious disease. The maturation of these capabilities will better enable states to respond to healthcare crises within their geographic boundaries and increase their ability to support resource requests from other states.
It is an expectation of this cooperative agreement that applicants will demonstrate the partnerships necessary to build and/or deploy the aforementioned capabilities across the entire state, and not just in one specific town, city, county, or sub-state region.
Letters of support from the following statewide agencies are required as part of the application:
State Offices Public Health/Health
Healthcare coalitions leaders (or points of contact) in the state
Furthermore, according to the statutory requirements, the Secretary may not award a cooperative agreement to an eligible entity unless the application submitted by the entity is coordinated and consistent with an applicable State All-Hazards Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response plan and relevant local plans.
Funding preference is able to be applied for applicants that can demonstrate the ability to coordinate among greater than 51% of the healthcare facilities and hospitals in the geographic area served by the partnership.
It is important to note that the directly funded cities through HPP (New York City, Chicago, and LA County) are not considered states for the purposes of this FOA. If they wish to apply, they must coordinate with their larger states, New York State, Illinois, and California.
Each awardee will be provided with a Project Officer from ASPR. The Project Officer will establish routine telephone and in-person meetings with the awardee for monitoring purposes and to allow the awardee to describe any challenges they are having completing the capabilities. The Project Officer will assist with connecting the awardee to proper technical experts, either within ASPR, the federal government, or the private sector.
Listing the projected cost to be spent for consultants per activity will be sufficient.
The funds will be available to the primary awardee at the start of the project period, September 30, 2018
Yes, the primary awardee is expected to serve as the fiduciary for the grant.
The primary awardee, through the Principal Investigator, will provide all required documentation to the grantor and serve as the primary point of contact throughout the duration of the grant.
There are fillable templates available on the grants.gov webpage for this funding opportunity announcement.
The plan gap analysis should be conducted for the home state of the partnership. Efforts to scale the effort across any additional partner states will be appreciated but not required.
The measured success and impact of the current Partnership demonstration projects will be used to inform future decisions regarding funding and expectations of partnerships. Additional demonstration projects may be supported in the future. Applicants who are successful in obtaining awards under this solicitation will be eligible to compete for additional demonstration project awards, should funding be available. As with all federal grants future offerings are dependent on the availability of appropriated funds in subsequent fiscal years and a decision that funding is in the best interest of the Federal government.
Building the regional partnership is just one of five capabilities listed as required to fulfill the objectives of the grant. As part of the project work plan, applicants should provide their proposed approach to all objectives and activities in:
ASPR provided Attachment C: Project Work Plan and Timeline as a suggested format for applicants to complete their work plan. Awardees must address all components included in the “objectives” and “activities” listed in Attachment C in their application.
Please contact ASPR for specific questions about eligibility as a required partner that are not already covered in this FAQ page.
The required exercise should be at minimum a tabletop; operations-based, functional, or full scale exercises are preferred.
The funding opportunity announcement lists required meetings and training opportunities for the awardees. Questions about additional trainings and workshops can be directed to the ASPR program staff.
No, Attachment C is meant to be a guide specifically to the work plan. It includes a budget column to help ensure that applicants appropriately account for all activity expenses in Attachment B, which is the authoritative document for budget allocations. We recognize that there will be some activities that are very difficult to develop precise accounting for; in those cases you can use a n/a or $0 designation (as applicable) or simply refer the reviewer to Attachment B.
There are three ways to learn more about the FOA
Read the full FOA: For more details, please see the full Partnership for Disaster Health Response Cooperative Agreement Funding Opportunity Announcement and Grant Application Instructions.
Pre-Application Teleconference: ASPR will hold a pre-application teleconference on June 22, 2018 at 11:00 AM ET at 800-857-5236, passcode 2894826.
Technical Assistance Call: A technical assistance conference call will be held on July 10, 2018 at 1:00 PM ET. This meeting is designed to address any technical questions encountered during the application process. It is open only to applicants that have submitted a Letter of Intent by July 5, 2018 as described in the FOA.
ASPR will not provide legal technical assistance in connection with this award. There are non-Federal entities that provide legal assistance to public health officials such as the Network for Public Health Law.
A technical assistance conference call will be held on July 10, 2018 at 1:00 PM ET. This meeting is designed to address any technical questions encountered during the application process. It is open only to applicants that have submitted a Letter of Intent by July 5, 2018 as described in the FOA.
The Massachusetts / Region 1 Partnership for Regional Disaster Health Response ​​
Nebraska Regional Disaster Health Response Ecosystem
About the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA)
FOA Full Text