Hello, everyone! I see that we have our OGS colleagues joining us, which is great. Welcome, Jon! And participants joining, so that's great. I'm going to go ahead and get started, just so that we can stay on time with this informational webinar about CK23-0005 - Strengthening training, evaluation, and partnerships in the prevention and control of vector-borne diseases. Welcome to this webinar. I am Dr. Sue Visser. I'm the associate director for Policy and Extramural Program here in the Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, and we're the lead author for this non-research notice of funding opportunity. I'm joined by Jeff Borchert, who is our assistant director for Extramural Program, who runs the Extramural Program Office here in the Division. I'm really excited to also welcome two great colleagues from our Office of Grant Services, who will be answering questions that you may have that Jeff and I cannot answer from the program perspective. from our Grants Management perspective. John Messick and Benita Bosier-Ingram. So welcome to both of them, and thank you so much for your time today. We're really excited about this notice of funding opportunity. A few things just to start us out on webinar etiquette and notes. First, this webinar is being recorded, and will be made publicly available on both our website and I believe also on Grants.gov for future viewing. Please do use the Q&A feature for all questions about the NOFO, we have enabled upvoting. So, if you see a question that you also have, and you really want to reinforce that so that we can get to it, please upvote on it, and those questions will rise to the top and we'll prioritize those for answering early on in our Q&A period. Please refrain from using the chat for questions about the webinar content, but if you're having problems technically you can go ahead and use chat. That'll go to the hosts the panelists as well, and we'll try to help you on resolving those concerns, and finally, we'll have a mini web survey that will launch as soon as we shut down the webinar. You'll get pop up in your browser, asking for just a few simple things-your name, institution, and email address-so we can keep you up to date on any additional resources that might be made available for you regarding this NOFO. And it's just helpful for us to have an account of who you are, and sometimes the attendee list is a little bit more confusing than we'd like. So for now we would really appreciate it if in the chat you could just name your institution. Just one person from each institution is fine. If you'd like to do that, that would really help us out, just to know who we're talking to as we start the webinar. And while you're doing that I'll share that here in the Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, which is the host program for this non-research NOFO. Our vision is to create a future where vector-borne diseases no longer threaten public health. We are the lead public health agency for the prevention and control of vector-borne diseases, and our mission is to reduce illness and death due to vector-borne diseases. We have four goals as part of our strategic plan to accomplish this mission and an attempt to achieve this vision. The first is to identify and detect vector-borne pathogens that cause disease in people. The second to understand when, where, how often, and how people are exposed to vector-borne pathogens. The third is to prevent exposure to vector-borne pathogens and mitigate the consequences of infection, and finally to implement all of the vector-borne disease diagnostic surveillance control and prevention programs that we develop in goals one through three, and this notice of funding opportunity is a really great example of us trying to enhance what we know in terms of evaluating prevention and control strategies, training on best practices for the prevention and control of veterborne diseases, and also making partnerships to allow us to achieve this mission and vision. So with that, if you could go onto the next slide, I'm going to hand it over to Mr. Jeff Borchert, who will start describing the NOFO purpose and take you through the content of the NOFO, and what we're looking for, and that will be followed by Q & A. Thanks. Take it away, Jeff.

All right, thanks, everybody. Really excited to have you all here and thanks for your interest in this NOFO -- we are pretty excited about it. It's really based on building on successes in other parts of our program including Centers of Excellence program and the ELC program. The purpose of this NOFO is really three-fold. The first was to build the vector-borne disease prevention and control workforce and its capacity. Secondly, to improve adoption and evaluation of vector-borne disease, prevention and control programs, tools, and technologies, and three -- facilitate partnerships between academic institutions and federal, local, state, territorial, tribal public health agencies and other interesting--interested parties. And really to break that down a bit more. We wanted to fund organizations that train, so to increase opportunities for students and professionals to receive training in vector-borne disease, prevention, and control. And for this NOFO it must include university- and college-based students, first of all. And then, secondly, it needs to include currently practicing vector-borne disease prevention and control professionals. Secondly, it was to evaluate - so evaluate the impact and effectiveness of non-research, existing, or commercially available vector-borne disease prevention and control tools, technologies, and programs. And lastly, to build partnerships among institutions and organizations and the vector-borne disease community to accomplish the activities that are proposed in the first two strategies. So, the mechanism that we use for this this funding is called a cooperative agreement, and this might actually be new to some of you. But it's different from funding mechanisms that might be used to. Federal government uses cooperative agreements as a mechanism when there will be substantial federal programmatic involvment. So essentially it's involvement of our program with the funded applicants. Substantial involvement means that the awarding office, so us, will collaborate or participate in project or program activities that are all specified in the NOFO, and then, you know, your resulting workplan. And this could include responsibility for project management, control, direction, or performance is shared by both our agency and the recipient. And if we need to, we also have the right to intervene, including interrupting or modifying project activities, but oftentimes this is just through conversations that we have constantly with your group, and over the years that we fund our recipients. Additionally, all work plans will receive feedback from our technical monitors and our subject matter experts and workplans should be revised to respond to this feedback that you get. The operation of this goal was really to kind of cast a wide net of, to try to get a lot of applicants that could really kind of answer a number of goals. And so it was to first come up with some that we could fund initially, so a group that we could fund in the first year, but really to create a roster of what we call ABU recipients, and so ABU means approved but unfunded, and this would be a list of grantees that we could utilize in the next twenty-four months to effectively respond to or manage, address, an identified public health threat or some kind of emerging issues in vector-borne diseases. In fact, the majority of applicants will likely end up on this list. And so we hope to have a wide range of applicants with high diversity. You know, one of the questions that we got throughout this process was, "What's the difference between the evaluation of research?" And I think this is a really great question. In the field of public health evaluation is actually distinct from research, and also in many other fields as well. You can find the definitions that we're using at the CDC website on this slide. So for the purpose of this NOFO, the definition of evaluation is the purpose is to determine the effectiveness of a specific program or model, and to understand why a program may or may not be working, and so the goal is to improve programs, to develop specific knowledge about that program and how to improve it. And so really it's like program performance, program improvement. And one of the definitions I read really used these three words that I think were the best in terms of my definition, which is, it's like measuring value, effectiveness, and significance, and that differs from research which really the purpose is in theory or hypothesis, testing, and to produce generalized knowledge. And so the goal is to contribute to the knowledge base. And so we really encourage you to do your research on the differences between research and evaluation. And we're really hoping for applicants that really understand these definitions. We've had a number of questions where you know potential applicants were asking us, pitching a specific project and saying, you know, is this research, or is this evaluation? And that's not something that we're  allowed to answer. So we really leave it up to you to figure out those definitions and see how they apply to the projects that you are proposing. For our funding strategy, as written in the NOFO, we are currently hoping to fund five to ten applicants that will be initially awarded, and this is depending on the need and available of funds, and I'm going to kick it over here to Sue again to give us a little update on some recent budget items.

Yes, just a quick note that when we published this NOFO we did not have our FY23 budget. The budget has come through, and it was less than what we initially saw in both the House and the Senate bills. So we're thinking we'll probably be leaning a little on the lower side of this. But again, as data in the NOFO, this is depending on availability of funds, so just wanted to to point that out, since we now have a budget for FY23. Back to you.

All right, thank you. So when recipients apply, we want to be sure that you respond to all the program strategies that are included in the NOFO. So, keep that in mind as you apply. Pre-approved organization may be funded once CDC has determined that public health threat exists and funding is available. So this is really tied to kind of that ABU list that we're hoping to put together. So in the future, if there is an emerging need we can provide additional guidance in coming years that you can then apply to and potentially receive funding. This next bullet is kind of the disclaimer. That's always that, you know, there could be limited funding at the time of the announcement. Additional funding will always be based on the availability of funds at CDC's sole discretion. As I said, we will always provide additional guidance to that ABU list when it comes up. There's no ceiling on this five-year funding opportunity, and so there's no maximum amount of funding that we can put out. Nor is there a funding floor, so we can have very minimal awards as well if it makes sense to do so at that time. Lastly, recipients may be funded out of rank order, and there's additional details within the NOFO that described that. So for eligibility on this NOFO, we're hoping for open and maximum competition, and really the strongest applicants will demonstrate the ability to develop work plans that address the following, and that's to improve and standardize vector-borne disease prevention and control training and education for targeted groups and vector-borne disease professional or students. And for this NOFO we have a couple of definitions, you know, throughout it that are really trying to capture the types of groups that we're interested in. So some of that is right here. So professionals and students may include those students in the following fields: human or veterinary medicine, entomology, vector control, public health, and environmental health, and you'll see some other groups throughout the NOFO as well. We're really trying to be inclusive here. So secondly we want applicants to be able to increase the number of vector-borne disease students and professionals who are trained to evaluate new and improved vector control programs, tools, and strategies, and to build their strength and collaborative activity between universities and college communities with federal, state, and local agencies. And lastly, we'd like our applicants to reach populations that may be lower income and rural areas and are members of minority communities that might experience higher rates of vector-borne diseases or adverse outcomes from those diseases. So really the target population, you know, initially, will be different than ones in the ABU program. And so for the ABU, for future year's guidance, this could vary, depending on the particular public health that needs to be funded. This cooperative agreement should always directly impact the health of the public through prevention and control activities within the vector-borne disease field and seeks to fund organizations that reach the following groups. Groups we'd like to target and that includes sanitation workers; hospital healthcare workers; correctional workers; healthcare workers; purchasing organizations; facility, design, engineering associations; entomologists; vector-borne professionals; occupational health and safety professional organizations. So like I said, it's a very wide group. So I'm going to go into the program strategies a little deeper. I already read through them on some of those initial slides. But I did want to point out that there will be required activities that we would like you to apply for. These include under training, to conduct training and educational needs assessments for vector-borne disease prevention and control professionals and students to develop and maintain readiness across the existing vector-borne disease workforce. Likewise, we'd like to define training and educational goals for vector-borne disease, prevention and control, and then, of course, training undergraduates, graduate students, or post-doctoral fellows. As we mentioned, it's a requirement to train and educate already practicing vector-borne disease prevention and control professionals, and then we would like to see evaluation and performance monitoring and improvement plans to evaluate the impact of these training programs as they are implemented. Secondly, under the evaluate strategy, the required activity is to evaluate the operational use of approved vector-borne disease, prevention and control tools, strategies, and programs. The last strategy is partner, and the requirement here is to establish collaborative partnerships in vector-borne disease prevention and control and relevant partners needed to develop and implement training and evaluation activities, and we have a long list of examples there that include professional organizations, state and territorial and local health departments as well as a number of federal agencies. But I did want to point out that we did include professional organizations and private industry as potential partners. It's just one. For general work plan guidance, we'd like you to plan your budget around $1.75M for the first twelve-month period. So, have a detailed budget up to $1.75 for the first year, and then include a high-level budget for all five years. And so it doesn't have to be in the same detail. It needs to map out kind of a general plan for how budget, how funding will be spent over the remaining four years. Plans and activities should align with all three program strategies and logic models. And as we mentioned, applicants should be able to revise these plans and activities, once CDC reviews or once additional guidance has been put out by our division depending on the emerging vector-borne disease need. The planned activities should reflect the strategies, outcomes, evaluations, and performance measures that are described throughout the NOFO. So, a couple of specific ones: references need to be included in the page limits, and there is no required format for CVs and for references in terms of the application review. It's all mapped out within the NOFO, and really it's all captured right here on this slide and it covers 3 main areas. It's the approach that you plan to take. It's evaluation and performance management tied to your program and then your organizational capacity to implement the approach. And I'm not going to go through all these. But I did want to really highlight and emphasize that as you write your applications, please be writing them to or consider all of these different aspects of these three criteria as you author your application, because really this is how you will be scored. So it's certainly would be wise to to be reviewing your entire application and tie it to this objective review criteria, because this is what we will be using. Lastly, we need you to include a budget. This is not scored within our review. But really it's to what extent are the proposed budgets consistent with the stated program strategies? Does it make sense? Does it tie in well enough in terms of the activities that you've proposed, and make sure that it's adequately justified. We already mentioned about the one-year budget, and then the total budget for five years. So really the timeline, we're already well into. The NOFO was posted on the twenty-first of November. We received letters of intent from many of you on the twenty-second of December, and we just wanted to thank those that actually sent us those letters. It's very helpful for us to plan a review, to have some sense of the interest in the NOFO, and then to be able to, come up with the right set of reviewers and the right review process in the coming months. The webinar is today, and it will be recorded so for those of you that might have trouble getting in. As for for those of you that couldn't get in, we welcome you as you listen to this recording because we will get it posted and try to let everyone know. Applications will be due on the third of February, and then we anticipate to put out awards at the end of June. Regarding contacts, you can always reach out to me. My email is here. It's also in the NOFO. We have a new grants person that has already been introduced, this is Benita. Listed in the NOFO, though it's Freda Johnson. And Benita has just recently replaced Freda. Certainly, reach out to Benita. But if you send any emails to Freda, if you're using the old email, that's fine too, I'm sure Freda will get those forwarded to myself and to Benita. And lastly, we'd like to cover a couple of questions. Before we open it up for questions in general we received some written questions and our policy, and it's policy like this, for all of our all our CDC's mechanisms is really not to answer these individual questions, but to try to save them, and then answer them as a group. So really all applicants get the same information, and so what I'm going to do is I have a few slides with questions that we received, and we have answers that have been both discussed within our program and also discussed with OGS. So that the same answer is available to all potential applicants. After that we'll have plenty of time to have questions from the chat box. So the first question was this...
And Jeff, sorry to interrupt, just a quick thing on connection. For some of you, you're having a tough time without the full invitation connecting through your computer. So I posted in the chat that full link you should be able to one click link that. But knowing that several of you are on the phone, I will read to you the passcode just really quickly, if you want to write it down, and then you can shift over to your computer if you can't, for whatever reason, click on this link from your phones, or want to somehow forward it a different way. The passcode for this webinar, with the shortened link is +=9b1q3t: so plus sign equals sign nine B as in boy, one q is in quarter three T as in time. So if you want to try to connect via your computers, I know a bunch of you have shifted over already, but otherwise again, this will be recorded, and we'll make sure to make it available to everyone at a later date. Carry on, Jeff.

Thank you. All right, So questions so far, the first one. There is a lot on training students including graduate students, but how does CDC reconcile training graduate students when there isn't a research component? I.e., How are students to be funded without a project? Is it expected that they will be funded through other sources or cost share? And this is, you know, goes back to just the differences between research projects and evaluation projects and really the funding can be used in that evaluation projects but not research projects. So if you have a grad student that's implementing something tied to evaluation, it could certainly be funded and with this type of funding. Second question, can these funds be used to support products for vector control evaluation? It is clear that the project team are not deployed or not to deploy any control methods, but they can provide the product and/or product expertise to the end. The answer to that is, these funds can be used to procure the better control products needed to conduct the evaluation. But please know that the applicant may need to partner with a partner organization or an entity that has the authority to use the vector control projects in the jurisdiction. And so that's just goes back to the third strategy of developing partnerships between universities and college and then state, local, and federal partners. Secondly, if the NOFO states "implement and evaluate vector surveillance tools and programs, can you extend on that evaluate for what? effectiveness? adoption? evaluations of effectiveness, or adoption would certainly be responsive. And so you know, certainly, if you have questions along that line, please go back and review the definitions for evaluation versus research, and have a clear understanding of the differences between the two. We also had a very specific question about the IDC rate. So this is the IDC rate is the IDC rate eight percent. Or should we use the negotiated IDC with the University. Since the NOFO doesn't specify this as a designated training, NOFO, and this is identified by the type of program which is a U50, then the applicant's rate agreement should be used. 

And Jeff, and this is Jon, and I just wanted to clarify real quick. Also I had a follow-up thought to that also is that while there is no rate maximum or anything like that, and they can use their negotiated rate, they always can if they want to use less indirect costs, and that they always can reduce that themselves, and request less indirect cost rate if they want to. So that's an option that they want to do if they want to put more funds to the program to the direct cost instead of the indirect cost. So.

All right, thanks, Jon. Appreciate that. Next one: would creating and incorporating a business model as part of this Grant proposal be received favorably by the CDC? Or would this be viewed more like using taxpayer dollars for commercial gain? We have a lot of discussion about this one internally. It's okay to include the business plan and proposal as long as it obviously doesn't conflict with the goals of the NOFO, but also that it doesn't ultimately generate income for that program, and Jon can add more information if he wants to.

There he is. And you know, if there's other individuals that want to elaborate a little bit more on the question. Originally I had a different response, but then it was more specifically towards the organizational business model. But if it's something, if someone wants to elaborate it more than they can do that. But I I believe that the answer there as long as it doesn't generate the program income, Then that would be fine, because any program income generated would, as it go back to into the program. 

All right. Thanks, Jon. Last question is there if we have an Abu for another CoAg with potentially overlapping activities, but we have never received funding, are we eligible to receive an award through this NOFO? Answer to that is yes. An organization can apply under this NOFO and receive an award. However, once they receive an award, they would need to decline future funds under other ABUs, if they are recommended for future funds for overlapping scope. And so I think the key there is we can't double fund anything. So whether or not you've applied and not been funded under another NOFO, or, you know, are planning to apply to another NOFO we can never fund overlapping activity. So just keep that in mind. I think you know what's clear kind of with all these questions is we do take them all seriously, and you know as Jon sort of, you know alluded to. If there are you know other distinctions that come from these questions, or new questions that come up, certainly reach out to to us, and we can answer both programmatic questions and financial questions with our OGS colleagues. But that is all we had from a presentation standpoint, and so I believe we're going to go into questions from the chat box.

Yep, and Jeff, I have a couple that I think would be great to answer live. The first one I have is "Is there a list of approved vector-borne disease prevention, control tool strategies, programs?" And very quickly I'll just answer, no, we don't have a specific list, and there's a couple of reasons for that. The first is, once, you know, we award this, or even after you submit, there's probably additional prevention and control tool strategies programs that have been demonstrated to be effective. And so we didn't want to, you know, create a single list. And so really your goal inside your application will be to document that these tool strategies programs have been determined to be effective elsewhere because we're not creating new full programs and strategies. But aside from that there's no specific list. Jeff, do you want to add anything on that?

No. Nothing to add, I think that covers it. Okay?

The second question is about the risk assessment questionnaire that is included as a pre-award assessment on page twenty as section five of the NOFO. Asked if it was required for the proposal stage. Now, Nathan, I'm assuming that you mean like at the application stage, do you need a risk assessment questionnaire? And the answer to that, I believe. And Jon, I just want to check with you and Benita on that is no, it's just if you were to receive an award before you actually received the resources you would have to go through the risk assessment process. Is that correct?

No, actually as part of the application, that is, is a requirement to be submitted with your application, and that's reviewed as part of the initial part of the applicant organizational review that comes along with that. So it's, as it says in the NOFO, though, that if you, if you've applied recently within the past twelve months, then you've already done that then you can provide your screenshots. I believe it is, or something like that. There's a section in there that identifies what they can do if they've already done that within the past twelve months.

Thanks, Jon. I'm glad I asked you. We're happy to have our OGS colleagues here. Okay? Great, a question for you, Jeff. How is operational use defined?

Operational use? I think the way to consider that is to really think about what's already been approved in terms of product. So something that's been registered already with the EPA or something that's already commercially available. something that is already in operational use. So you know, mosquito vector control organizations, state health departments. Those types of groups are already using something and potentially, you know, you can evaluate how that's used in a different scenario or other ways to improve the usage of that or the operational usage of that program or product.

Thanks, Jeff. Okay, couple of questions, Jon, that I think are best answered by you. Where should sub-agreement budgets for their partnerships be included in the budget maybe under Section H in Section B. They're wondering where to tuck those sub-agreement budgets.

This would be under the contractual line item. So anywhere where, if you have a sub-contract that you're proposing that, then it would be lined up under that category. That line item category. And if they're talking about the Section B on the SF424, then that would be that contractual line item that identifies all of those sub-awards.

Thank you. And then relatedly, is the budget itemized list included in the twenty-page limit?

That is a good question, and I don't believe it is. I don't think so. I don't think it. I don't believe that it is. I think that that's just the project narrative.

That's my understanding as well. Yeah.

Okay, is a multi-PI plan required or allowed if there are co-PIs, and I believe we're all in agreement. That's fine. I think that's okay.

Yes, and just for clarification in Grant Solutions also, if there were to be an award made there would be a primary PI listed that would be the main point of contact, but there's no limit on how many co-PIs that are listed in there.

Thank you. Okay, back to you, Jeff. A question...it seems that the NOFO seems to exclude high school students and children and focuses on college level for for training. Is this an indication that training for future vector control professionals or vector professionals is the priority over education to prevent vector-borne diseases?

Yeah. Well, that's a great question. I think you know, certainly educating younger students or younger individuals is a priority for a division, but it's really not a priority for this NOFO. And so really, the focus here is to target community, college or college students, but then also already vaccine vector-borne disease professionals.

Thanks. A question about if there are specific requirements or templates for how we format the performance, measurement, plan and work, time components, and the answer to that is no, we can be creative in that. Simple is best. Of course we like that. But you can use visuals if you want--tables, images, or text is all just fine. 

A question in the evaluation piece. How do you define "approved"? Evaluate the operational use of approved vector-borne disease and prevention and control tool strategies and programs. And here again we're trying to focus on you know, if there's something that requires regulatory approval, that it already has regulatory approval. We wouldn't be interested in something that is completely has not been demonstrated to be effective or has gone through the regulatory pathway if it needs it. However, we recognize there's lots of programs and strategies that don't require regulatory approval. And those certainly could be evaluated. You just wouldn't want to be creating a new, for example testing a new insecticide, for example. That would not be consistent with this non research NOFO if that makes sense. Jeff, anything to add on that?

No, I think that's I think, that captures it.

Okay. Can you elaborate on whether a Dmp is required or allowed (data management plan) if the data that will be collected is evaluation data and not public health data as defined. 

That's a good question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. I would not think that it is public health data. I don't know. Sue, do you have any thoughts? Or Jon? More experience on data management plans?

Go ahead, Jon. I was just going to say, I don't have any additional knowledge on that. Really, I haven't put so much effort into that.

Yeah, I mean, I would assume that you would want at least a brief description of how you're going to manage the data. So a short data management plan would be really important for any of the data that you're collecting for the evaluation strategy. But we can get a little bit more information and communicate that to all the attendees here and post that publicly when we have a little more time to consult. But I would plan for a data management plan for your evaluation data. Okay. Is it acceptable for faculty and or agencies to participate on multiple applications so long as activities are distinct? So I'm, assuming this would be you have a previously funded award by CDC. And as long as the activities are distinct, you're asking if you can have faculty and agencies participate on both. So what the NOFO says is that if you have overlapping activities, activities that have the same strategies being implemented. So for us, out of our specific division. One obvious example of this is the research-based centers of excellence. We have two overlapping strategies in terms of training and also the partnership activities could be overlapping, so those activities would be seen as overlapping, those agencies or faculty should be very, very cautious when you're proposing their participation, because it's very likely that those collaborators will have overlapping strategies across both, and should not be included. But John can provide maybe more support for how that determination is made.

I was going to add also, just want to make sure that they they don't overlap in terms of being the same activities, obviously, But as long as the activities are distinct, then that's fine. As long as the overall effort doesn't exceed one hundred percent in terms of you know, your effort overlap. So you want to make sure that each of them have the identified percentage in terms of your budgeting and identify, and that you don't exceed that one hundred percent, because obviously we don't have more than one hundred percent time on our hands. So yeah, so just make sure of that. But other than that it's fine.

Yeah, I see that follow-up question that just came up in the chat about health departments, too. And I think you know the key thing is overlap. I think it's okay for health departments to be involved in more than one application. But the activities need to be distinct. It's something you just need to be careful about. But it is okay to play the field. This came up with the COE applications as well, and it's something that is acceptable.

Just be careful when you're doing it. Okay. Just a quick note that anyone who's asking questions in the chat. Please pop over and enter them in the Q&A. We're not paying any attention to the chat, just so that we can manage to keep the questions that are flowing in one spot, so please re-enter them over in the Q&A. And that also allow us to publish these questions and answers later on.

There's a quick question just to clarify references. Are they included in the twenty-page limit?

They are. Yes, and that's any one of the slides as well.

There's a question about the five-year budget plan, and if that has to be submitted as well, yes, there's a request for the overall five year budget to be submitted as well. You'll submit a detailed budget as Jeff mentioned for year one and a high-level budget for the other four years or fewer, you don't have to propose all five if you don't want to.

It would be recommended to propose the budget for five years, since the project period is four- or five-year period. So there's a chance that if you don't get, if you're not proposing anything to happen in year five, then you might not. It might be it might not look good in terms of the reviews and things like that.

Yeah, agreed.

We have a question for the budget. The 1.75 million is for direct costs or total costs. They're for total costs.

Correct.

Are biosketches required for senior personnel?

They are. That's, I believe, an addendum that could be attached. But we need to double check if it's required we would like to see them. They don't have to be lengthy. There's no format for CVs, but we would like to see them.

There's a question about who are the key contacts they're supposed to submit on the key contact form.

The key contact for the key context would be the principal investigator and the authorized organizational official (AOR). The I think it's technically the authorized organizational representative. I believe is who it is. So it is the AOR.

Thank you, Jon.

A question about if the funds can be used for vector control products? Can they also be used to establish a molecular testing laboratory which would be equipment at a remote, underserved tribal community or health department?

So just to make this a little more general, just can the dollars be used to buy equipment for molecular testing?

Hmm. I think, you know, molecular testing laboratory testing in general is not a focus of this NOFO, so I mean it's hard to say you can't try to put it in there. But, I think it probably does not align with the with the main objectives, the main strategies of this NOFO.

Yeah, I would have to clearly tie back to an evaluation goal if you needed the equipment to conduct your evaluations in some way that could potentially be proposed, I could see that. But again, you need to very, very clearly extend every single activity in every purchase back to one or more of the strategies.

Okay, there is a question about is there a specific definition of what is being designated as a vector-borne disease would monitoring disease spread by mice, bats, etc. fall under this award. So on our website we have a listing of all of the priority vector-borne diseases that we handle at CDC. Please note that we consider vector-borne diseases to be those pathogens that are transmitted by mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, and body lice. We don't cover mice, or bats which we typically see as hosts. It's a bit of a technical discussion. But you'll find on our website our target vector-borne diseases,

And we also don't cover Chagas disease. So that's one that's parasitic, and that's not under our division.

Okay, there's a question. Is there a budget maximum yearly and over five years? And we did ask for a planning budget for 1.75 million for that first year. But we did not set a budget maximum for the full five year budget. Jon, anything more to add there?

Usually it's a level of funding for that. Obviously everything is subject to availability of funds for Congress. So if they obviously cut funds and things like that later on, then we have no control. But usually it's the whole funding.

Okay, another. You mentioned if we cite literature, that's part of the twenty-page limit for the Project Narrative. Is that correct?

Yes. Yup.

Okay. Another budget question. It appears that the budget for the first year needs to be broken out into more than one function or activity. Is that correct?

Could you repeat that? I don't know if I.

It appears that the budget for the first year needs to be broken out into more than one function or activity. So I'm wondering if this is the focus that you have to be responsive to all three program strategies of the NOFO. That's the question. The answer is, yes. We want all applicants to address all three strategies in the NOFO. That's what our requirements.

But I'm not sure if that answers the question. SJRogers, if you want to clarify if we didn't hit that?

Okay. Continuing down can projects include training and evaluation for potential vectors in addition to known vectors?

I think the answer to that would be yes.

A question, Jon, about how to structure the budget. Can the co-PIs be from different institutions, which I think the answer is yes. But if so, then how would the budget be addressed?

Technically, that would be the personnel that's listed on the budget are actually staff members. So if it's not a staff member, that's being if they're being paid, and that would be a type of consultant/contract type of thing.

But or let's see, I'm trying to think other, maybe. But usually the PIs are going to be from the same organization.

But if it did, if there was some type of situation like that, then it would be in one of the other categories, because those main categories of salaries, wages, and things like that are for staff members only, so it could be arranged either way, depends on how the how the budget is worked out. It could be in contractual or consultants or other something like that. So it just depends.

I think. You know we've seen this in other awards where there is a PI from the recipient institution. But then there's subcontracts that include them. Co-PIs, from other institutions, and the way the clean way that seems to be done is to use the subcontracting mechanism which is totally fine.

Right, and I would agree, and that would be something that they would just have a detailed budget under the subcontract and have that person listed as a staff member of that contract organization.

Okay, and then back down to SJRogers' question, clarifying that they're referencing Section A for the budget, just sort of how to to fill out Section A if you have multiple staff across multiple organizations and different functions and activities.

For the form A. That would be the standard form. And that's a 424A document, and it would just be lined up across whichever line item it;s categorized in. And so if you're identifying, say, for instance, we're going back to that previous example where they are co-PIs that are on another contract or subcontract organization, then they would be listed under the contractual for that main recipient. Keeping in mind that the main recipient is the organization that is primary, for, like the salaries and wages and fringe things like that. So if they're going to be identifying them under subcontracts, then everything's going to be built under that subcontract/contractual line item.

And let me just make sure. SJRogers, did we answer that question? If you want to put one more into the Q&A A. Otherwise I'll open the line for you to just ask the question to clarify. Okay. And the interim, more questions. Just about the--okay. No. So SJRogers still is asking. Now contracts are in Section B. So i'm going to open. You're line to go ahead and talk if you want to.

Okay. in Section A that it says it's a budget summary, and it says, grant program, function, or activity A, and then there's four different things that you can list there and then it has different things on it. That also has estimated unobligated funds, federal and then new, our revised budget.

Oh, I see. I see what you're looking at, the section A on that one, yeah that's the budget summary on that one. I see that would be the grant program, function, or activity that you're identified under in this category the CFDA or the Assistance Listing number. Those would all just be one line item that would have the entire amount on there.

Yes, okay, right. Sorry about the confusion there yep. That's fine.

All right. Great. Thank you so much, Jon. Okay, several questions about the bio sketches. People are just interested in a little bit more information and explaining elaborate, more on bio sketches. Is it only for the principal investigators, etc.?

I would say principal investigators and key staff. Certainly not everyone needs to be included. you know. Even part of your partnerships. I would just include key staff for each of the organizations that you think are the most relevant.

Thank you. And then several questions on the data management plan. Is there an example? A sample data management plan that's out there that they can use as an example, or for reference some questions about the differences between the standards to be used for the collection or generated data versus standards of statement, of data standards as the standards to be used for collected or generated data. Lots of questions about the data management plan.

Yeah, I think we're I think what's best is if we bump that question, and we respond in the same spot where we post this on the Internet because I think what it'll do is it'll allow us to look at all these questions, try to come up with some answers and make sure that we get the best information. But I think that's better than fumbling around on what we know and what we don't know. Because we can certainly look into it.

So stay tuned for more from Jeff on the data management plan, which wre'll post with the answers to the questions that we've answered today.

Okay, some questions on how the funds can be used, so can we use funds for materials and supplies related to training such as reagents and consumables for pathogen testing or sampling, and I believe the answer for that is yes.

Yep.

Jeff concurs.

Can we use funds to provide incentives as part of our strategies. also read from the NOFO that furniture and equipment is not permitted, but could be depending on the justification. Could you clarify furniture and equipment use

It's hard to clarify the use, I mean, I think it would just have to be justified. which isn't quite a good answer. But I'm trying to think of an example. I mean, you know, equipment supplies for training. That's I believe would be supportive, and as long as it ties back to the strategies of the NOFO. But I'm having a hard time with the furniture.

Yeah, the only thing I could think of is something like, if you have new, like in terms of college individuals or something like that where you're setting up an office. You know, a small little office, or something like that for them to conduct evaluations, or in the trainings, or or something like that, or whatever. you know. However, you could justify that back. But there, I guess there are certain situations. That's why we put in there that it could be dependent on justification. So we don't want to necessarily say yes, it can be or no, it can't be, but It just depends on how this justification comes in.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Okay.

Do we need to include period of performance outcomes in our proposal, or do we select some that apply to our project, and I assume that means the entirety of the five years. So, period of performance all five versus the first year is the way I'm interpreting that.

Definitely the first year we would like to see performance measures for that. I think you could speak in general for the remaining years. Certainly plans change over time. But having, like, I think, a longer-term goal that slides back from the logic model would be something that we would like to see and could strengthen an application.

Okay, Thank you.

Okay. A specific question. I think. Jon, this one's for you. This is about the documentation starting on page 26 of the NOFO. Do they need to include documentation regarding Item thirteen, which is funds tracking, item fourteen, which is pilot program for enhancement of whistleblower protections, and item fifteen copyright interest provisions or are those all post-award components and processes?

Those, I believe, are informational things that are just being are just input for making the applicants aware that these are requirements that you have to follow as part of the application process like funding restrictions. Things like that.

And then the was the other one.

Copyright provisions, Yeah, things like that did are just required to follow as part of the policies.

And, Jon, while you're off mute, I'll ask another one: can faculty or agencies participate in competing applications for this NOFO, so could they be listed as staff on two applications?

They can be as long as like we said before, as long as the effort is not overlapping or exceed the one hundred percent, then, but just put in the percentage of the effort that the person is contributing to that particular award, so you have four awards, and it's going to be twenty-five percent on each of those awards, so which then should be budgeted accordingly. So the question, can they, if they want to submit a detailed budget for years two to five?

Of course

Sounds good, and we know that that changes. Again, the beauty of a cooperative agreement is we can and do expect change to the work plan, and so we can be flexible and revisit those budgets over time as well.

Okay. So if a program was ABUed from our last round of centers of excellence funding on our research cooperative agreement can relevant projects, trainings, The data management plans be recycled to this NOFO, and, as we mentioned once awarded, you can't be awarded for something that is identical. Another award. But, yes, if you have not received funding, for sure you could propose those activities in this application as well, Jon, any further guidance on that?

I don't have anything additional.

Okay, thanks. can we use funds to provide incentives as part of our strategies? start with that part first.

Yeah, I mean I'm assuming that by incentives maybe you mean in terms of surveys, and if that's what's meant by that, it might be possible. It's something that we've come up with in the past. There's a lot of reluctance within CDC to support that. But there has been justification, for that's been...where folks have been able to do that. And so, I think it's something that's okay to propose. But it would be something that we would need to spend some more time looking into that particular project overlaps into research, and if it doesn't, then, you know, would we be able to provide funding to support those incentives.

So for incentives it obviously has to be reasonable. You can't offer, you know, five hundred dollars as an incentive for someone to come in off the street and answer a question. So it has to be reasonable. Usually it from my understanding of my recollection, anyway, usually like a twenty-five dollar incentive for somebody to fill out a questionnaire or evaluation or something like that would be sufficient. So it depends on what's proposed.

Yeah, and I don't think we've ever seen one as high as twenty-five so that...

Right.

And just a quick point of clarification. Letters of support and Biosketches. They all get uploaded separately from project narrative, is that correct?

That's in the NOFO, that's correct. That's the way it's written.

Although I don't know how that's done, Jon. Do you have insight? We're not power users of grants.gov. Could you provide guidance on that?

I believe that that's in...I forget what the section is, but I don't believe it counts as part of the project narrative. But yeah, so. But I don't think that there's any type of restriction on it. So maybe it's optional documents or something like that. I don't remember exactly what the section is, but it's not included in your project narrative, we don't want it to count against your twenty pages. There is another bucket, and we can't recall if it's additional resources or optional documents or something. But if you have trouble uploading that please reach out so we can help you. And then I think that one of the things that we've always kept in mind is that it's basically if it's uploaded, no matter what section it's in, then it's included in the application, and it'll be reviewed.

And then we are at the top of the hour, so I'll land on one final question: Are you looking for initiatives that are local, regional, or statewide? This was designed to be more regional in coverage, but we have not specified the coverage of the work that's proposed here. So I would say that whatever you propose, you justify it very very well about the impact, and why you selected the region that you have, whether it be local, more multi-state or statewide, for example.

All right. With that, what I will promise you is that we do have all the rest of your questions. We will take those and provide answers to them when we provide all of the question and answers that will include an FAQ. That we will post. We'll follow up with everyone who attended when that information and this recording is posted, so you'll have access to it, and we are so grateful for you joining on and for your interest in this NOFO, we're really excited to work on it in the coming months as you submit your applications. Any final words from you, Jeff?

No, just thanks, everybody. Good luck! We're looking forward to seeing them.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you!