It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in How to Apply - Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from the HHS Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the How to Apply - Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the How to Apply - Application Guide , follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.
- Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
- Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application
to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your
application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
- Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.
-
System for
Award Management (SAM) Applicants must complete and maintain an active registration,
which requires renewal
at least annually. The renewal process may require as much time
as the initial registration. SAM registration includes the assignment of a
Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code for domestic organizations which have
not already been assigned a CAGE Code.
- NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
- Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)- A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. The same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
- eRA Commons - Once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their Grants.gov registration; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
- Grants.gov Applicants must have an active SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.
- A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
- A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
- An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see FDA Grants Policy Statement 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications).
- All applicants planning research (funded or conducted in whole or in part by FDA) that results in the generation of scientific data are required to comply with the instructions for the Data Management and Sharing Plan. All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, must address a Data Management and Sharing Plan.
- A Data Management and Sharing Plan is not applicable for this NOFO.
- May undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
- Will receive a written critique.
- Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
- Availability of funds.
- Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section
I. Notice of Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) is a unique global partnership established by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The STDF supports developing countries in building their capacity to implement international sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards, guidelines, and recommendations as a means to improve their human, animal and plant health status and ability to gain or maintain access to markets. In achieving its aims, the STDF acts both as a coordinating and a financing mechanism.
The STDF is a widely established knowledge platform for information exchange, sharing experiences and the identification and dissemination of good practice on SPS-related technical cooperation. Since 2004, over 220 projects and project preparation grants have assisted developing countries to overcome SPS constraints and gain and maintain market access. Close to 65% have benefited least developed and other low-income countries.
STDF's global partnership drives catalytic SPS improvements in developing countries and facilitates safe trade, in support of the UN’s 2030 Agenda. STDF's knowledge work on cross-cutting thematic topics (including public-private partnerships, electronic SPS certification and good regulatory practice) identifies and promotes good practices to improve SPS capacity development outcomes. Additionally, the STDF Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Framework provides a way to assess how the STDF delivers results and influences changes in SPS capacity that facilitate safe trade. At the same time, it promotes learning about innovative and collaborative approaches to SPS capacity development, including the linkages with cross-cutting issues like gender equality and the environment, that can further improve performance and impact.
STDF supports global research and capacity building to improve best practices to build effective food safety systems in low- and middle-income countries. This includes research and analysis about what works best and how effective a proposed food safety program is conducted. STDF measures effectiveness through 1) metrics incorporated into each grant proposal and 2) post grant evaluations conducted by third party groups. Lessons learned are incorporated into future food safety decision making and into STDF open resource materials.
With an increasingly diverse and complex global food supply, FDA’s interest is to strengthen food safety systems globally to prevent food safety problems rather than merely reacting to problems after they occur. FDA recognizes that it cannot do this alone. By leveraging the resources of other WTO member countries and partnering with the STDF, the FDA can broaden the reach of food safety capacity building efforts.
This cooperative agreement will allow FDA to deepen its international food safety capacity building partnerships and provide a wider scope of impact than currently exists.
See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
FDA grants policies as described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.
Competition is limited to the World Trade Organization s (WTO) Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF).
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the HHS Grants Policy Statement, are not allowed.
Applicant Organizations
Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the How to Apply - Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. Failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission, please reference HHS Grants Policy Statement for additional information.
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for FDA support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the How to Apply - Application Guide.
This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the HHS Grants Policy Statement .
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
The FDA will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time per HHS Grants Policy Statement . This means that the FDA will not accept:
The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
It is critical that applicants follow the Research (R) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide, except where instructed in this notice of funding opportunity to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the How to Apply - Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Not applicable
All page limitations described in the How to Apply Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
The following section supplements the instructions found in the How to Apply Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Resource Sharing Plan:
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the How to Apply - Application Guide , with the following modification:
Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Management and Sharing Plan will be attached in the Other Plan(s) attachment in FORMS-H application forms packages.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Appendix:
Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the How to Apply - Application Guide .
When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or FDA-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the How to Apply - Application Guide , with the following additional instructions:
If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.
Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
Delayed Onset Study
Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.
See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, FDA’s electronic system for grants administration. FDA and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the HHS Grants Policy Statement .
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the How to Apply Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All FDA awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the How to Apply - Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply - Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
Important reminders:
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to FDA. See Section III of this NOFO for information on registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the How to Apply - Application Guide.
See more tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, FDA. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact a Scientific/ Research Contact at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the How to Apply - Application Guide .
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy. Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.
Applications submitted to the FDA in support of the HHS mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the FDA peer review system.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
If the project involves human subjects and/or FDA-defined clinical research, are the plans to address
1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and
2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.
When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or FDA-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following three points: (1) a complete description of all proposed procedures including the species, strains, ages, sex, and total numbers of animals to be used; (2) justifications that the species is appropriate for the proposed research and why the research goals cannot be accomplished using an alternative non-animal model; and (3) interventions including analgesia, anesthesia, sedation, palliative care, and humane endpoints that will be used to limit any unavoidable discomfort, distress, pain and injury in the conduct of scientifically valuable research. Methods of euthanasia and justification for selected methods, if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, is also required but is found in a separate section of the application. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals Section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Not Applicable
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
Not Applicable
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Not Applicable
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Reviewers will comment on whether the Resource Sharing Plan(s) (e.g., Sharing Model Organisms) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable.
For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s), in accordance with HHS peer review policies and practices, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this NOFO.
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate FDA Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this NOFO. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access their Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, FDA will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement. This request is not a Notice of Award nor should it be construed to be an indicator of possible funding.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient’s business official.
Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this NOFO will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for FDA Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.
Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in FDA-funded studies, the recipient must provide FDA copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.
All FDA grant and cooperative agreement awards include the HHS Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA.
If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.
If a recipient receives an award, the recipient must follow all applicable nondiscrimination laws. The recipient agrees to this when registering in SAM.gov. The recipient must also submit an Assurance of Compliance (HHS-690). To learn more, see the Laws and Regulations Enforced by the HHS Office for Civil Rights website.
HHS recognizes that FDA research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to FDA grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this NOFO.
In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), FDA awards will be subject to System for Award Management (SAM.gov) requirements. SAM.gov requires Federal agencies to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently SAM.gov) prior to making an award. An applicant can review and comment on any information in the responsibility/qualification records available in SAM.gov. FDA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the information available in the responsibility/qualification records in SAM.gov, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR Part 200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all FDA grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
"assistance" mechanism in which substantial FDA programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. The FDA will also actively participate, as part of the US, in its capacity as on official WTO member to the Standards & Trade Facility.
Under the cooperative agreement, FDA's purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and FDA as defined below.
All awardees are required to participate in a cooperative manner with FDA
An agency program official or a Center program director will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice. FDA staffs have substantial programmatic involvement that is the normal stewardship role in awards as described below.
b. Principal lnvestigator(s) (Pl)/Program Director (PD) responsibility
The Principal Investigator (Pl)/Program Director (PD) will have responsibility for the scientific, technical, and programmatic aspects of the grant and for day-to-day management of the project or program. The PD/Pl(s) will maintain general oversight for ensuring compliance with the financial and administrative aspects of the award, as well as ensuring that all staff has sufficient clearance and/or background checks to work on this project or program. This individual will work closely with designated officials within the recipient organization to prepare justifications; appropriately acknowledge Federal support in publications, announcements, news programs, and other media; and ensure compliance with other Federal and organizational requirements.
The awardee is responsible for submitting an annual progress report (e.g. at specified intervals), when requested, to the FDA Project Officer (PO) and the Grants Management Specialist (listed as contacts on the Notice of Grant Award) including summary data on progress and expenses to date.
The awardee is encouraged to publish and publicly release and disseminate results, data and other products of the varies activities, concordant with the activity protocol and governance and the approved plan for making data and materials available to the scientific global community and FDA
The awardee is responsible for obtaining approval for the development and design of FDA projects prior to execution.
b. FDA Project Officer Responsibility
An FDA Project Officer (PO) with scientific/technical expertise and other members of the FDA staff will have programmatic involvement that is the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
The responsibilities of the PO and its role as a WTO member will include involvement during conduct of the activity, through technical assistance, advice, coordination, and/or other assistance activities.
As appropriate, the PO will participate in the definition of objectives and approaches, and in planning, conducting, analyzing, and publishing results, interpretations, and conclusions of their studies. However, the dominant role and prime responsibility for the activity reside with the awardees(s) for the project.
The PO will be responsible for the administration and general scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award. And have programmatic involvement that the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
The FDA through the PO will have access to data generated under this Cooperative Agreement and may periodically review the data and progress reports. The FDA PO may use information obtained from the data for the preparation of internal reports on the activities of the study.
However, awardees will retain custody of and have primary rights to all data developed under these awards or as stated in the terms and conditions of award.
c. Collaborative Responsibilities
During performance of the award, the PO, with assistance from other scientific program staff, designated based on their relevant expertise, may provide appropriate assistance, advice and guidance. The role of the PS will be to facilitate and not to direct the activities. It is anticipated that decisions in all activities will be reached by consensus between the PD/Pl and the PO and that the FDA programmatic staff will be given the opportunity to offer input into this process. The PO will facilitate liaison activity for partnerships and provide assistance with access to FDA supported resources and services.
d. Steering Committee (Optional)
If a Steering Committee is determined to be necessary, it should be comprised of the PD(s)/Pl(s) of the cooperative agreement, the FDA Project Officer, and the FDA agency program official will have primary responsibility for finalizing standard procedures and measures common to all funded projects. The steering committee will meet up to twice a year, or as dictated by the needs of the project.
The primary governing body of the study will be the Steering Committee, which will have responsibility for the final details of project activity and policy decisions and will define the rules regarding access to data and/or product outputs or samples, etc.
e. Dispute Resolution Process
Any disagreements that may arise in technical or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the FDA may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened comprised of (1) a designee of the Steering Committee (if a Steering Committee is not active, a designee of the recipient organization) chosen without FDA staff voting, one FDA designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardees' right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16. Disallowance of Cost.
f. Copyright
Except as provided in the conditions of the award, when a publication or similar copyrightable material is developed from work supported by HHS, the author is free to arrange for copyright without approval of the FDA. Such copyrighted materials are subject to a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to the Federal government to reproduce them, translate them, publish them, and use and dispose of them, and to authorize others to do so for Federal government purposes.
Note: The FDA Policy for Data Management and Sharing is effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023.
Consistent with the 2023 FDA Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the HHS Grants Policy Statement. Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.
When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.
A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement. FDA NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, FDA will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 2 CFR Part 200.301.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as amended (FFATA), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients of applicable FDA grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over the threshold. See the HHS Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 2 CFR Part 200, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (Responsibility/Qualification in SAM.gov, formerly FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 2 CFR Part 200 Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity
and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)
Finding Help Online: https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help
(preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
General Grants Information (Questions
regarding application instructions, application processes, and FDA grant resources)
Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred
method of contact)
Telephone: 301-480-7075
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding
Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: support@grants.gov
Susan Berndt
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)
Food and Drug Administration
Telephone: 240-402-2143
Email: susan.berndt@fda.hhs.gov
Kimberly Pendleton
Office of Acquisitions & Grants Services (OAGS)
Food and Drug Administration
Telephone: 240-402-7610
Email: kimberly.pendleton@fda.hhs.gov
Kimberly Pendleton
Office of Acquisitions & Grants Services (OAGS)
Food and Drug Administration
Telephone: 240-402-7610
Email: kimberly.pendleton@fda.hhs.gov
Recently issued trans-FDA policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by FDA is provided in the HHS Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 2 CFR Part 200.
and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.