Also, please review the Applicant Inquiries, in their entirety, for responses to questions submitted via the FOA information line and FOA email. Responses to questions are grouped under the specific subject matter (individual questions may not be listed).

SECTIONS

• CATEGORY A
• CATEGORY B
• CATEGORY C
• PERINATAL
• PREVENTION PLANNING
• FUNDING
• RESOURCE ALLOCATION
• ELIGIBILITY
• LETTER OF AGREEMENT
• APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION
• CATEGORY C REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS
• BUDGET
• PS10-10138 EXPANDED TESTING PROGRAM
• MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND DATA REQUIREMENTS
• ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

CATEGORY A

1. In the 75% of funding resources for required activities, will there be the same level of emphasis on partner services that there has been in the past several years? (6/30/11)
   

   Yes. Partner services are included under comprehensive prevention with positives – for overall service provision for people with HIV that would enable them to reduce their transmission risk. There is a comprehensive approach to prevention with positives which includes partner services as well as linkage to and retention in care, antiretroviral therapy adherence, and behavioral change for people with HIV.

2. Since CRCS is for both high-risk negatives and positives, does it fall under the Core Activities (Comprehensive Prevention with Positives) or Recommended Program Components (Evidence-based HIV Prevention Interventions for HIV-Negative Persons at Highest Risk for Acquiring HIV) for Category A? (7/1/11)
   

   CRCS can fall under both - core required activities under Comprehensive Prevention with Positives (under the 75% of Category A funding resources) and Recommended Program Component of Evidence-based HIV Prevention Interventions for HIV-negative persons at high risk (under the 25% of funding resources).

3. When using Category A funds for testing in clinical settings which data collection and M&E plan will be required? Does the “Guidance for Counting HIV Testing under PS10-10138” still apply for HIV tests conducted with Category A and /or B funds? (7/13/11)
   

   The 10-10138 M&E plan will generally remain in place for PS12-1201; however, there will be updates to the HIV testing data requirements that will take effect in January 2012 in order to better respond to the NHAS and the program requirements of the FOA. The requirements for HIV testing funded under Category B will apply to those funded under Category A.

4. Will CDC be releasing any type of guidelines on condom distribution? (7/14/11)
   

   A Condom Distribution Toolkit is under development by CDC and is forthcoming.

5. What is an acceptable percentage of funding to be distributed to counties within a jurisdiction that do not meet the 30% criteria for funding priority? (8/8/11)
   

   Percentage of funding to be distributed locally will need to be determined by the health department. The states need to allocate funds to all areas in the state with a significant portion of the epidemic but they only need to report on areas constituting 30% or greater. However, it is recommended that jurisdictions utilize surveillance and epidemiological data for decision making processes.

6. Could you please direct me to the “Completed Syringe Services Programs (SSPs) Annual Certification Statement” form or provide an example? I have never seen this before and want to ensure we have submitted the necessary attachments. (8/31/11)
   

   Please review the below HHS Syringe Services Program (SSP) document, to include the required Annual Certification Statement on page 3 of the guidance.

CATEGORY B

1. What is the focus for the Expanded Testing Program in this FOA under Category B? Has it changed from PS10-10138 and 07-768?
   

   The focus will be to expand HIV testing through routine, opt-out testing in healthcare settings, linkages to care, and sustainability of programs (encourage reimbursement for HIV testing). It has the same focus as the previous announcements.

2. Are Expanded Testing Program activities under Category B the same as PS10-10138?
   

   Yes, the activities are the same. They are categorized slightly different – grantees can apply to implement testing in health care settings (required), non-healthcare settings (optional), and service integration (optional).

3. Category B asks for copies of MOAs or MOUs with healthcare and non healthcare facilities to be submitted with the application. If we have existing contracts because we’re currently funded for expanded testing, and we have existing contracts with 20 or 25 providers in our state, do you want copies of those actual executed contracts? (7/14/11)
   

   Potential applicants may outline in detail those current contracts in the application narrative without providing copies of all the contracts with the application packet.

4. Should the positivity rate for HIV testing in healthcare settings be consistent with what is included in the 2006 guidelines? (7/14/11)
   

   The positivity rate for HIV testing in healthcare settings should be in accordance with the 2006 guidelines. Based on these 2006 guidelines, “in all health-care settings, screening for HIV infection should be performed routinely for all patients aged 13--64 years. Health-care providers should initiate screening unless prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection in their patients has been documented to be <0.1%.”

CATEGORY C

1. In regards to the $20 million funding allocation for Category C, is that per year? Would projects be limited to one year or can they be continual and can a jurisdiction apply for multiple projects within that category per year? (6/30/11)
   

   $20 million in total per year will be available for this Category. If a proportion of those resources are not used in a particular year, e.g., the total budget for all eligible applications was less than $20 million, then the additional funds would be applied towards Category A. The time-frame for proposals may be between 1 and 4 years. Because some projects will be completed before the end of the 5-year project period, we expect to elicit new proposals during FY 2013 and FY 2014, based on availability of funds. Jurisdictions may apply for up to two proposals under Category C; however, a jurisdiction can only submit one proposal per Category C focus area per year. Each proposal submitted for Category C is limited to 10 pages.

2. Will jurisdictions be limited to one funded demonstration project at a time, or could a jurisdiction compete for and receive funding for more than one project at once, if all of them are sufficiently innovative? (6/30/11; updated 7/20/11)
   

   Applicants may submit up to two proposals. For example, an applicant can submit two proposals for Category C – each one being under a different focus area. An applicant may also submit one proposal inclusive of multiple focus areas. Single-focus area proposals must be for different focus areas; however, if multiple focus areas are included within a single proposal, overlap is permitted.

3. On Page 43 and page 54 the FOA states related to Category C: "Applicants may submit one or multiple proposals for one or more focus areas". Can multiple focus areas be addressed within one proposal? Additionally, the FOA on page 88 states: "Each applicant may submit only one project narrative for Category C and indicate the focus are addressed by the proposed demonstration project" Question: If multiple proposals are being submitted for Component C, is the narrative for each proposal limited to 10 pages or is the narrative for all proposals (regardless of how many) limited to 10 pages? (7/5/11)
   

   Yes, multiple focus areas can be addressed within one proposal. Each proposal submitted for Category C is limited to10 pages.

4. How long can a demonstration project last, and how narrow or focused must it be in scale? (6/30/11)
   

   Demonstration projects can last for up to four years in length within the five-year project period. This will allow grantees the potential to conduct multiple demonstration projects within the five-year project period.

5. Demonstration projects conducted under Category C should "demonstrate how the projects can have a cost effective impact on the local epidemic" - does this mean that demonstration projects that have an impact on the local epidemic but are proposed for low prevalence areas will have the same chance for funding as a project proposed for a higher prevalence area?
   

   The selection of Demonstration Projects will be based on score and merit. Additional funding preferences include availability of funds, geographic diversity, and DHAP priorities. Low prevalence areas will have the same chance for funding as a project proposed for a higher prevalence area. There are also tiers/ranges of funding for Category C. Projects will be funded within each tier.

6. If the jurisdiction proposes to submit two proposals for Category C, is the maximum award for both projects or for one project? For example, if you're going to give an award in the $1 million to $2 million range, can a jurisdiction receive two awards at the maximum range? (7/21/11)
   

   The maximum funding amount is per proposal. For example, if a jurisdiction submits two proposals - both in the higher funding range of $1 million to $2 million, then the maximum amount is based on the proposal and not the jurisdiction. No individual proposal should exceed $2 million. Proposals that exceed the $2 million ceiling will be deemed ineligible and taken out of the competition. If you have a proposal that has multiple focus areas, it is still considered as one proposal and must be below the $2 million ceiling. Each ten page proposal for Category C must not exceed the $2 million ceiling.

PERINATAL

1. What happened to the perinatal supplement? Will all funded jurisdictions have to implement perinatal HIV transmission activities or only the previous perinatal supplemental grantees? (6/30/11)
   

   Funds previously allocated for the perinatal supplement are now included in the core funding amount for Category A. Previously, select jurisdictions have received supplemental funding to conduct enhanced perinatal transmission prevention activities. This FOA requires that all grantees implement perinatal HIV prevention activities, under HIV testing and comprehensive prevention with positives, where appropriate, under the 75% of funding resources for required activities. The exact balance of resources allocated to perinatal prevention activities would be up to the health department’s discretion.

PREVENTION PLANNING

1. What is jurisdictional HIV prevention planning?(6/30/11)
   

   Jurisdictional HIV prevention planning is a coordinated health department and community engagement process that includes the development of a jurisdictional HIV prevention plan and the establishment of an HIV prevention planning group (formerly HIV Community Planning Group). Community planning has evolved into HIV prevention planning, which aims to contribute to HIV prevention through developing both targeted and broad-based collaboration among a diverse group of partners and stakeholders. Prevention planning will require the engagement of a broader group of partners and stakeholders across HIV prevention, care and treatment programs such as Care/Ryan White planning group(s) and providers, Community-Based Organizations, Community Health Centers, Federally Qualified Health Centers, other care providers from the public and private sectors, mental health and substance abuse providers, Persons Living with HIV/AIDS, educational and academia institutions, and other appropriate governmental and non-governmental entities. Prevention planning groups are expected to participate in an “engagement process” that supports prevention planning, improves the scientific basis of program decisions and increases access to care by developing a seamless system to immediately link HIV-infected individuals to a continuum and coordinated quality of care and contribute to the development of the Jurisdictional HIV Prevention Plan.

2. It seems like there’s a lot of duplication with all the required “plans” for example, the jurisdictional prevention plan, the comprehensive plan, National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) state plans, other in-house plans, etc. How do all these “plans” work together? (6/30/11)
   

   The FOA requires a jurisdictional HIV prevention plan to include the collaboration and coordination of HIV prevention, care, and treatment. Additionally, the jurisdictional plan should be used as a reference for developing the comprehensive plan. If health departments have an existing plan (e.g., ECHPP, NHAS state plan, in-house plan) that satisfies the required elements outlined within the FOA for the jurisdictional plan, then the existing plan can be used. Jurisdictions will have approximately a year to plan – from the release of this FOA to the final version of the jurisdictional HIV prevention plan being submitted to CDC within six months after start of the project period. The FOA also requires a comprehensive plan specific to program planning, monitoring and evaluation, and quality assurance activities as it relates to this FOA. The jurisdictional HIV prevention plan and comprehensive plan will need to be developed and submitted to CDC within six months after the start of the project period.

3. Could you elaborate on what an engagement plan (process) would entail? (8/8/11)
   

   The main goal of the engagement process is to develop strategies for increasing collaboration and coordination among HIV programs across the state, jurisdiction, and tribal and local governments to reduce the rates of new HIV infections. Steps for engagement should include: determining the goals of the plan and who to engage; developing engagement and retention strategies for previous partners; developing engagement strategies for new partnering agencies; prioritizing engagement activities; creating an implementation plan; monitoring progress; and maintaining the partner relationships. The upcoming Prevention Planning Group Guidance will provide additional information on the engagement process.

4. The new PS12-1201 FOA has prevention planning as a required activity, yet gives little information about how this differs from community planning. States have been waiting for a considerable time for the new Community Prevention Planning Guidance. This document would be helpful as we write our PS12-1201 applications. Can you please advise as to when we will actually get the Guidance? (8/31/11)
   

   As outlined in the FOA, the development of a results-oriented engagement process is considered a key element in the HIV prevention planning process. The engagement process involves working collaboratively with key stakeholders and broad-based communities to identify strategies for increasing coordination to reduce new HIV infections in the jurisdiction. We hope to post the Prevention Planning Group (PPG) Guidance and provide everyone a timeline for the partner engagement process as soon as possible. The draft PPG Guidance will be posted on the FOA website for 30 days for review and comment. The name of the guidance was changed to better reflect the new direction of HIV prevention towards high impact results and the expectation that the CDC has for the planning process to help achieve the goals of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) in the local jurisdiction. To accomplish these goals, planning processes must also demonstrate an enhanced commitment to improved communication, coordination, and implementation of services across the continuum of HIV prevention, care, and treatment.

FUNDING

1. Where are the funding amounts located for each eligible jurisdiction? (6/30/11)
   

   Funding amounts for each jurisdiction are located in the FOA under Attachment X: Funding Tables.  This information is also accessible on the webpage here.

2. Will the new award levels be implemented immediately?
   

   No, the new levels will be gradually implemented over five years to minimize any disruption that could occur as a result of the cuts. This will also allow areas receiving increases to thoughtfully scale up their programs.

3. What is listed as the funding levels of an individual floor and ceiling? (6/30/11)
   

   The funding tables are accessible on the webpage here.  Funding ranges (i.e., floor and ceiling) are included for each eligible jurisdiction. Funding amounts for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 for Category A are anticipated and subject to available funding. The amounts listed in the funding announcement for Category B are anticipated as being available in fiscal year 2012.

4. What formula was used to compute floor and ceiling awards for the jurisdictions for FY12, FY13 and FY14? Provide figures, based on 2008 case reports, used to calculate the award levels. (7/5/11)
   

   Award ceilings were calculated by increasing the anticipated award amount produced by the funding formula by approximately 5%. Floors were calculated by applying an approximate 5% reduction. The funding range for those areas previously designated as only eligible for the minimum funding level is now $750,000 to $1,000,000. Ranges were used for this table because the exact funding level for each year is not presently known. More precise estimates for FY 2013 and each subsequent year will be provided at the time that applications for that funding are being prepared.

   The data used as the metric for Part A funding can be found in table 21 of CDC’s 2009 Surveillance Report, found here.

5. Will the formula for funding for the life of the cooperative agreement be based upon 2008 living HIV cases or will it shift each year to be based on more current data (e.g. year two 2009, year three 2010, etc.)? (7/5/11)
   

   The funding formula will remain the same for the 5-year project period.

6. The FOA provides a floor and ceiling amount for each jurisdiction. What amount should jurisdictions apply for? (7/5/11)
   

   The amount that CDC expects to be able to award each grantee is likely to be within those two figures, assuming resource levels in FY 2012 do not substantially change from FY 2011 levels. Applicants are encouraged to apply for any amount within that range. Final award amounts will be determined after applications have been reviewed and once more precise estimates of FY 2012 funding are available.

7. If a jurisdiction has Financial Assistance and Direct Assistance, are the amounts provided excluding those federal assignees or is that included in the figure? (7/5/11)
   

   Total includes Direct Assistance.

8. Is the award for the Pacific Island jurisdictions $250,000 per jurisdiction or $250,000 total for the 6 jurisdictions? (7/6/11)
   

   $250,000 per jurisdiction.

9. If an eligible city/county health department does not plan to cover all the counties listed within their MSA/MD and the state health department plans to assume responsibility for those areas, then the state health department should receive a share of the city/county’s funding amount for the provision of funding and services to those counties. How are we to calculate that amount for our application? (8/11/2011)
   

   CDC’s formula did not include allocations by county, only by Metropolitan Division. Our expectation is that the state and/or city allocate resources in a manner that best addresses the epidemic in their area, using local epidemiology and practical considerations to guide resource allocation decisions. If an objective method for dividing resources would be helpful in negotiations, one approach would be to use local data on persons living with HIV/AIDS for those counties and apply the proportion attributable to each area to the funding available for the Metropolitan Division. This approach is comparable to what was used at the national level.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

1. Is there anything in this announcement that asks health departments to also geographically target how funds are used at either the state or city level? (6/30/11)
   

   The FOA states that “applicants are expected to allocate programmatic and financial resources to local areas based on the burden of disease.” To ensure that resources are reaching the areas of greatest need, funded jurisdictions will be required to report annually to CDC on the amount of funding allocated and HIV prevention activities in any city or area within their jurisdiction that has 30% or more of the HIV epidemic. 

2. The FOA states, “funded jurisdictions will be required to report annually to CDC on the amount of funding allocated to the areas with 30% or greater of the HIV epidemic and how the funds were used.” How does this requirement apply to a state with a directly funded city?
   

   The purpose of the requirement is to provide CDC with an accurate picture of how resources are being distributed to the most heavily affected areas within the state and as such, it’s necessary to have a complete accounting of the funding resources provided to the directly funded metropolitan area, including funding that comes from the state. However, in some states, the cases attributable to the directly funded city could constitute 80% or greater of the state’s entire burden of disease which would result in the state only reporting on that city. To ensure that CDC receives information about how resources are distributed to areas other than the directly funded metropolitan areas, states with these cities must deduct the number of cases attributed to the cities from the total and, using this new denominator, calculate the areas within the remainder of the state that constitute 30% or greater of the state’s epidemic or the top three areas/cities. States with directly funded municipalities should only report on the directly funded municipality if they invest any of their award in the area. If a state provides funding to a directly funded area, the state must also report on two other areas in addition to the directly funded city or cities. 

3. For the states that also have directly funded cities or larger jurisdictions, what is the expectation around the state allocation with regard to the jurisdictions that received direct funding? With the cities that represent greater than 30% of the epidemic in the states, will the states be able to disregard the directly funded cities and look at the remaining cities? (6/30/11)
   

   If the amount of money provided to the cities in those states is at the maximum levels that is allowed by the FOA, the states would then use the balance of resources to provide HIV prevention efforts in the part of their states that is not included by the geographical bounds of the directly funded city. However, there will be flexibility for balancing resources. If funding resources are not being provided to the directly-funded city, then the state does not have to report on that city and will need to direct resources and report on the other cities that meet the criteria. If funding resources are provided to the directly funded city, then the state should report on that city as well as other cities that meet the criteria.

4. The FOA indicates that states will be required to report on the allocation of funds and use of funds for areas in the state with 30% or greater of the HIV epidemic. In our case, this area also received substantial directly funded CDC projects. In fact, the amount CDC directly funds to this area totals more than 30% of the states award. Are you permitted to include this funding and programs in the reporting of how the epidemic is addressed in the area or are we required to then fund what would amount to 60% of total CDC funds coming into the state to this area?
   

   Jurisdictions will still be required to direct funding resources to the areas of greatest burden. CDC funding to directly-funded CBOs provides additional resources to the jurisdiction and should not be used as a replacement for services and/or resources to those areas.

5. The way the FOA is written, it assumes that all of the eligible cities for direct funding will go ahead and apply on their own to be directly funded, but it is also written in the FOA that city funding is optional, and those cities can come in as part of the state application. If the city chooses to come in with the state, how does that impact the letters of agreement and the 30% reporting? How would that apply if those eligible cities do not apply for funding? (7/14/11)
   

   If the eligible city chooses not to apply, then that should be outlined in the letter of agreement (LOA) that will be included within the state application. The LOA should outline that agreement, included with the signatures of a state representative as well as the city representative indicating that the state will apply for the city’s portion of the funding because the city elects not to apply. Additionally, if the city elects not to apply and state will apply for the funding resources for that city, then that state will include that city or (MSA) within their 30% report. The state will report on that city as well as any other city or area that meets the criteria.

ELIGIBILITY

1. Who is eligible for Category B: Expanded HIV Testing Program (ETP)? Why has it expanded from 30 jurisdictions to 36 jurisdictions?
   

   Eligibility for ETP (Category B) is limited to health department jurisdictions with at least 3,000 Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino adults and adolescents (unadjusted number) living with a diagnosis of HIV infection as of year-end 2008. Because HIV data are being used for this FOA, the metric for ETP was changed as well to HIV. The 30 previously funded jurisdictions retained their eligibility, Indiana and Colorado are now included using this new metric and the major urban areas newly eligible for direct funding include Atlanta, Miami, Baltimore, and Ft. Lauderdale.

2. Can local health departments (County LHDs) outside of the 10 listed in the FOA apply for Category C of the HIV Prevention FOA?
   

   Only the eligible entities listed within the FOA can apply for Category C. Eligible jurisdictions include the 50 states and 10 cities/MSAs included in the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). This does not include local county health departments, unless the county health department is identified in the FOA as the eligible entity.

3. Can we switch our applicant from City and County to our Bonafide Agent after application submission, but before awards are issued and/or is it permissible to switch at any time during the 5-year project period? (7/12/11)
   

   Switching from a city and county to our Bonafide agent after application submission can be done; however, it can be difficult to ensure funding is appropriately transferred after the awards are processed. It is recommended that the agency to apply for the cooperative agreement using the Bonafide agency, rather than waiting, if possible.

LETTER OF AGREEMENT

1. Is a Letter of Agreement (LOAs) for cities/states required for Categories A, B, and C? (6/30/11)
   

   Yes, LOAs are required for each category for which the applicant is applying. City or county health departments will be responsible for providing services to the entire MSA or specified MD. However, in the event the city or county health department is unable or unwilling to provide services for the entire MSA or MD, the state may assume responsibility for any areas left uncovered and apply for a portion of the city or county’s funding allocation commensurate with the additional responsibilities and resource needs. Because of the different required components and activities for each category or different agreements for service coverage and implementation for each category, LOAs will need to be tailored for each category. Agreements can vary in nature; however, the specific agreement related to funding, service coverage, and program implementation must be clearly outlined.

2. I’m wondering if the Letter of Agreement only applies to entities within a state, city, MSA, or MD who are both applying for grant funds. If so, the Letter of Agreement is N/A for states without eligible cities since it is the only entity applying for funding for this grant opportunity. (8/31/11)
   

   Correct. The Letter of Agreement only applies to jurisdictions that have a state and city both eligible for direct funding. States without cities eligible for direct funding do not need to provide a Letter of Agreement.

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION

1. In Category A, does the HD have to provide goals and objectives for each of the required activity and components? (7/15/11)
   

   Yes. A description of the proposed program goals and objectives is required and should be included with the brief program descriptions in this submission of the narrative for each proposed components and activities.

2. Are draft SMART objectives part of the 50 pages for Part A and the 30 pages for Part B? (7/6/11)
   

   The draft SMART objectives can be included as part of the 50 pages for Part A and the 30 pages for Part B. If necessary these objectives can be placed in an appendix so that the overall proposal does not exceed the 50 and 30 page limit for each respective Category.

3. If we plan to submit two project narratives/proposals for Category C, are two Letters of Intent (LOIs) needed? (7/7/11)
   

   Only one LOI is necessary.

4. We previously submitted our Letter of Intent (LOI). Can we resubmit the LOI with further clarification and consolidation of our ideas by the new deadline of July 21, 2011? (7/21/11)
   

   Yes.

5. According to the FOA, we are required to submit an Epidemiology Profile. Will the most recently published profile suffice? We are currently working on our 2010 Epi Profile? (7/8/11)
   

   The most recent copy of the Epidemiology Profile will suffice.

6. Page 93 of the FOA guidance states that "No more than 50 electronic attachments and 100 additional pages should be uploaded for each application". Regarding the page limit for Category A, we are being instructed to attach a copy of our current Epi profile along with the application. This document alone is near 100 pages. There will be no way to keep the total page amount for Category A under 100 pages if the Epi Profile is being counted toward that page limit. (7/14/11)
   

   Each Category has a page limit. Please ensure that the project narrative adheres to the page limit for each category. All other requested documentation should be included as attachments. Please do not count the Epi Profile towards your page limit for Category A.

7. Will health departments only need to propose what they want to do in the future and/or do they also have to report on what they have done until now? (7/15/11)
   

   This is a new funding announcement. Health departments are to respond to the questions outlined in the FOA, which should support what is being proposed under the new funding announcement.

8. Who do we address our cover letter? Is the required table of content needed for each Category or for the entire application? Do we need to include the completed application checklist with our application? (7/21/11)
   

   Please address cover letter to Angie Tuttle, CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The cover letter should include information on all submitted categories - Category A, Category B, and each Category C proposal. The table of content should be for the entire application, to include Categories A, B, C, attachments, etc. The completed application checklist does not need to be provided with the application.

9. What are the requirements for the submission of attachments? Are we talking about: 50 attachments/100 pages for the Category A application; 50 attachments/100 pages for the Category B application; and, 50 attachments/100 pages for the Category C application or- 50 attachments/100 pages for the entire package of Category A, Category B, and Category C applications? (7/21/11)
   

   It is recommended that the applicant limit their attachments to no more than 50 attachments that total 100 pages. For example, an applicant should not submit 100 attachments that are 1-page each or 50 attachments with 100 pages each. Grants.gov does recommend limiting attachments and/or pages in megabytes (MBs) regarding the size of the entire application. Grants.gov recommends a 200MB limit which includes the required forms and any attachments. Applicants may want to check how large the attachments will be and edit the pages as appropriate. We are aware that your Epi Profile may be over 100 pages and will exceed the page limit (this is an allowable exception to the 100 page limit).

10. What information is due with the application that is due September 14, 2011? (7/21/11)
    

    The following items are due with the application submission: Table of Content; Cover Letter; Application Form (with DUNS number included); Project Abstract (one condensed abstract that address each requested category); Project Narrative, to include Category A (50 pages), Category B, if applicable (30 pages), and Category C, if applicable (10 pages per proposal) ; City/State Letter of Agreement, if applicable; Copy of Epidemiology Profile (if available); Budget and Budget Justification (for each requested category); CDC Form 0.1113 Assurance of Compliance; and Management Plan (for each requested category), to include resumes, CVs, etc., and Appendices.

11. What information is due after funding? (7/21/11)
    

    The following items are due after funding: Detailed Comprehensive Program Plan (to include information for all funded categories); Jurisdictional HIV Prevention Plan; Results of Prevention Planning Group (PPG) Engagement Process; PPG Letter of Concurrence; Capacity Building Needs Assessment (if applicable); Data Security and Confidentiality Memorandum of Understanding for Administrators and Users; Rules of Behavior for Data Systems; and Completed Syringe Services Programs (SSPs) Annual Certification Statement, if applicable.

12. Can you please clarify what plans are required for this FOA? You reference the prevention planning process as well the comprehensive plan. What information is supposed to be submitted with the FOA by September 14, 2011 for the Prevention Planning Group? (7/21/11)
    

    The FOA requires a jurisdictional HIV prevention plan to include the collaboration and coordination of HIV prevention, care, and treatment. Additionally, the jurisdictional plan should be used as a reference for developing the comprehensive plan. The FOA also requires a comprehensive plan specific to program planning, monitoring and evaluation, and quality assurance activities as it relates to this FOA. The jurisdictional HIV prevention plan and comprehensive plan will need to be developed and submitted to CDC within six months after the start of the project period. What needs to be included with the application in regards to the Comprehensive Program Plan as well as the Jurisdictional HIV Prevention Plan is outlined within the project narrative on Page 62-77 of the amended FOA. In general, a brief description of proposed program goals and objectives for the proposed required activities and recommended program components will need to be included with the application. Furthermore, the upcoming guidance for the prevention planning group process will provide some clarification in regards to the prevention planning group process.

13. How do you recommend that we use the appendices for any additional documentation needed for our application? (8/25/11)
    

    As outlined by the FOA, applicants may include additional supporting documentation as part of the appendices. As indicated, the appendices will not be counted toward the narrative page limits; however, applicants should be mindful that their respective applications will be reviewed through a structured review process and should label and reference as appropriate (by category) in the narrative and table of contents any key documents that have been placed in the appendices for the reviewer to consider in their reviews.

14. If a staff person will be working across all categories, do we have to submit their resume or CV for each category or can we submit this information only once within the application? (8/25/11)



If a staff person will be working across all categories or a combination of categories, only one resume or CV for that staff person is necessary for the entire application.

15. Can you provide an example on how to comprise the application? (8/25/11)
    

    The following is an example of items to be included in the application submission: Table of content for the entire application (to include categories A, B, and/or C, and appendices); one cover letter for the entire application; application form; one project abstract (one condensed abstract that address each requested category); project narrative for each requested category - Category A (50 pages), Category B, if applicable (30 pages), and Category C, if applicable (10 pages per proposal); City/State letter of agreement, if applicable; copy of Epidemiology Profile (if available); budget and budget justification for each requested category; CDC Form 0.1113 Assurance of Compliance; management plan for each requested category (can be an appendix or indicated within the narrative); resumes and CVs (provided for key personnel for all requested categories), and any other supporting documentation.

16. We are applying in all three categories under CDC-RFA-PS12-1201. Do we submit a management plan within the narrative for each category, or do we submit a separate document with all three management plans? (9/6/11)
    

    You may either submit a separate detailed management plan for each category within the narrative or a separate document with all three management plans as an attachment. If you chose the latter option, please ensure that you provide a brief description of each management plan in the applicable section with instructions that leads to the detailed plan in your list of attachments.

17. If the jurisdiction is submitting applications for more than one category, is an abstract needed for each category or only one abstract for the entire application? (8/31/11)
    

    Only one abstract for the entire application is required. This abstract should include information on all requested categories.

18. May applicants receive an extension to the deadline date for application submission?
    

    Due to the competitive nature of this new FOA and the grants.gov policies around such FOA’s, extensions are not possible, except for extreme or emergency situations. In those cases, extensions may only be granted to the non-competitive pieces of the FOA (Category A and B). If an extension for Category A and B is required, due to an emergency, this must be requested in writing to the Procurement and Grants Office. Additionally, the application deadline was previously extended as indicated within the amended version of the FOA.

CATEGORY C REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS

1. Will Category C proposals be reviewed by their proposed funding tiers? What is the review and selection process for Category C proposals? For example, if a proposal is ranked below the cut off for the highest tier, can it still be considered for funding, but at a lower amount (within a lower tier)? (8/25/11)
   

   The Category C tiers have no affect on the way the application is reviewed through the objective review process. The tiers will only be used to make final funding decisions once all the reviews are complete. All proposals will be reviewed and scored based on the evaluation criteria listed in the FOA. The proposals will be ranked by score and funding preferences (identified in the FOA) may be applied. This process will produce the first list of proposals recommended for funding. Subsequently, the Project Officer assigned to the grantee will review that proposal(s) and make changes to the budget, if necessary. Once the recommended funding levels are established, the program will select applicants in rank order using the tier limits established in the FOA until all the available funds are exhausted. Please note that the number of awards listed in the FOA for funding under each tier is an “approximate” number and based on the availability and distribution of funds.

2. For Category C proposals, would a proposal be more competitive in the eyes of CDC if it included a control group design? (9/6/11)
   

   Funding for Category C will be based on score and merit. The proposed budget submitted for each proposal, score from review process, geographic diversity, DHAP priorities, as well as the availability of funding will be taken in consideration for the funding of demonstration projects.

BUDGET

1. Do we need to submit with the application a detailed budget of the contracted agencies that will be providing prevention services? (7/21/11)
   

   Please include a line-item breakdown and justification for all contractors to include: name of contractor, method of selection, period of performance, scope of work, method of accountability, and itemized budget and justification.

2. We are a state with an eligible city/county for direct funding. If the city/county opts not to apply for their funding and the state plans to submit one application for the entire jurisdiction (inclusive of the state and city/county), how should we construct the budget? (8/11/11)
   

   It is recommended that the state send in separate budget narratives for each city/county jurisdiction with one summary of all budgets. The summary can be a spreadsheet of all budgets; an additional narrative is not needed for the summary. This format applies to each Category.

3. I understand that the budgets for the different categories should be separate. However, should each amount be outlined on the SF424A form in the application package? It is my understanding that only one SF424A is to be submitted to include all requested categories being outlined the sections on the SF-424 form. This means that each category does not have its own SF-424 form. (8/31/11)
   

   A budget and budget justification is requested for each category. The amounts requested for each category may be provided in one 424A form; each category should be outlined within the separate columns.

4. We would like to submit a separate 424 and 424A form for the Category C funding. However, the application packet downloaded from Grant.gov only gives one set of 424 and 424A forms, how do we submit separate 424 and 424A forms for our grant submission? (9/6/11)
   

   Only one SF424 form is necessary and provided; the SF424A is the budget form which is available at www.grants.gov along with the FOA document in addition to the budget form provided. The additional budget form must be completed by hand, scanned then attached to the submission.

PS10-10138 EXPANDED HIV TESTING PROGRAM

1. It seems that the intent of the PS12-1201 FOA is to integrate PS10-1001 and PS10-10138 activities and that the grant year for PS12-1201 will begin January 1, 2012. Is this correct? If so, are there any plans being made to fund activities that are currently funded under PS10-10138 from September – December 2011? (7/6/11)
   

   Yes. There will be one consolidated FOA to include activities currently funded under PS10-1001 and PS10-10138. Plans are being made to fund PS10-10138 activities for a 3-month period (October - December 2011).

2. How will the Expanded Testing Program (ETP) transition from PS10-10138 to PS12-1201? (6/30/11)
   

   Previously, ETP was funded under a separate FOA (i.e., PS07-768 and PS10-10138). In response to stakeholder feedback and recommendations to streamline program activities and reduce reporting burden, PS10-10138: Expanded Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Testing for Disproportionately Affected Populations will end on December 31, 2011. Expanded Testing Program (ETP) activities for Part A will continue under the flagship Health Department FOA PS12-1201 scheduled to begin January 1, 2012. PS10-10138 Part B activities (enhanced linkages to care) will conclude on December 31, 2011.

3. Grantees recently just completed Interim Progress Reports (IPR) for PS10-10138 dollars for the next budget period and are currently funded through September 2011 under the current budget period. What happens between October 1, 2011 and when this FOA would go into effect in January 1, 2012? (6/30/11)
   

   Grantees currently funded under PS10-10138 will receive funding for October, November, and December of 2011 under a 3-month budget period. The individual amounts awarded will be approximately 25% of the amount that would have represented level funding for a 12-month budget period under PS10-10138. A revised budget, budget narrative, and work plan that reflects the new award level and project period will be required for the 3-month period (for Part A and Part B). Grantees should only budget for the necessary funding to support the 3-month implementation period. Grantees are encouraged to work closely with their project officer and grants management specialist to ensure a smooth transition. The main concern is the uninterrupted continuation of HIV prevention activities funded by CDC. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND DATA REQUIREMENTS

1. What is CDC’s expectation for health department grantees preparing cooperative agreement applications regarding specific needs for local program monitoring and data submission? (8/30/11)
   

   The following is provided to clarify the current set of CDC expectations for health department grantees preparing cooperative agreement applications and to point to efforts to reduce data burden on grantees. The Program Evaluation Branch will work with each grantee and their program project officer regarding specific needs for local program monitoring and data submission. New HIV testing data requirements have been provided to current health department grantees. These requirements will be effective in January 2012. In response to the NHAS and changes in HIV prevention, new data requirements for other HIV prevention program activity (non-testing activities) are being developed. Criteria for the new requirements are: measuring progress on the NHAS; measuring progress on priority HIV prevention activities as defined by specific program announcements; and reducing grantee data reporting burden. During this period of transition to new program activities, only aggregate and qualitative data on activities other than HIV testing and partner services will be required.

2. Will funded grantees be required to use the Program Evaluation Monitoring System (PEMS) for PS12-1201? (8/30/11)
   

   CDC will be ‘sun-setting’ PEMS on January 1, 2012. CDC will provide to all grantees a user friendly, more cost efficient data system for submission of HIV testing data. Grantees will be notified in September about the transition to the new system for submitting HIV testing data. Additionally, both interim and longer term solutions for a data system for other HIV prevention data will be discussed internally and with grantees in the near future.

3. What should be considered in our PS12-1201 applications for data collection and monitoring and evaluation activities? (8/30/11)
   

   Grantees are expected to conduct data collection, data upload or key entry, data quality assurance, and submission of required data elements to CDC. Additionally, we expect that grantees will make every effort to utilize program monitoring data for managing their programs and making program improvements. Personnel resources should be allocated and assigned to these important program monitoring tasks. Additionally, if you have been using PEMS and will need another system to input, manage, and report data on activities other than HIV testing, you should plan to allocate resources in order to comply with the new requirements.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

1. Can funding be used to attempt to get accurate realistic inclusive comprehensive sexual health education into our schools? (6/30/11)
   

   Under “Policy Initiatives” funds may be used to support efforts to removing barriers to the use of high quality sexual health education curricula in schools. Funds may not be used to directly fund Departments of Education (DOE). CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH) provides funding to state and local Departments of Education.

2. Which staff positions are resumes and CVs required? The FOA states on Page 76: "Submit curriculum vitae or resume (limited to 2 pages person) for each professional staff member named in the project". How is CDC interpreting "professional staff member"? We have over 100 persons on the cooperative agreement including disease investigation specialists, contract managers, evaluators, administrators. At two pages per person, this could become an unwieldy attachment and perhaps not of great value to reviewers. (7/6/11; updated 8/11/11)
   

   Management level staff and up will suffice. Resumes and CVs are required for staff deemed as "key personnel." Biographical sketches of staff can also suffice.

3. What are examples of biomedical interventions? (7/14/11)
   

   Biomedical interventions are the use of medical, clinical, and public health approaches designed to moderate biological and physiological factors to prevent HIV infection, reduce susceptibility to HIV and/or decrease HIV infectiousness. Biomedical interventions reduce transmission of HIV with the use of oral or topical antiretroviral medication, topical antimicrobial preparations, vaccines or surgical procedures (circumcision). Barrier methods such as male or female condoms are also considered biomedical intervention.