Opportunity Information: Apply for PA 09 183
Apply for PA 09 183
- The Food Drug Administration in the agriculture consumer protection disaster prevention and relief education energy environment food and nutrition health natural resources science and technology and other research and development sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "Food Protection Rapid Response Team and Program Infrastructure Improvement Prototype Project (U18)" and is now available to receive applicants.
- Interested and eligible applicants and submit their applications by referencing the CFDA number(s): 93.103 Food and Drug AdministrationResearch.
- This funding opportunity was created on Jan 13, 2010 and posted on May 8, 2009.
- Applicants must submit their applications by Jan 13, 2010 Please Note that this Funding Opportunity Announcement (PA 09 183) has been CLOSED due to lack of funds. Applications in response to this announcement WLL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE JUNE 30, 2010 receipt date.. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- The funding agency has allocated a total of $1,500,000.00 to eligible and selected applicants.
- Each selected applicant is eligible to receive up to $1,500,000.00 in funding.
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 3 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: State governments Others (see text field entitled Additional Information on Eligibility for clarification).
- The following organizations/institutions are eligible to apply State Governments This cooperative agreement program is limited to State food safety agencies, and their manufactured food regulatory programs, with current FDA food safety inspection contracts. In addition, all cooperative agreement prototype projects that are developed at State agency level must have existing food safety inspection and surveillance programs under contract to FDA for food safety inspections. Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the PD/PI is invited to work with his/her institution to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for FDA support.
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
The Food Protection Rapid Response Team and Program Infrastructure Improvement Prototype Project (U18), Funding Opportunity Number PA 09 183, was an FDA cooperative agreement designed to strengthen state-level food protection capabilities by building and sustaining rapid response teams (RRTs) and improving the underlying regulatory program infrastructure. Led by FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) through the Division of Federal State Relations (DFSR), and supported in coordination with the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), the program focused on improving how states prevent, detect, investigate, and respond to food and feed incidents across the full "farm to table" continuum. The overall purpose was to enhance and better align state manufactured food regulatory programs with FDA priorities and national food protection expectations, while ensuring coordination that reduces duplicated inspection and response efforts.
Eligibility was intentionally narrow and structured as a limited competition. Only state governments with current FDA food safety inspection contracts were eligible to apply, meaning the target audience was state food safety agencies already performing FDA-contracted inspection and surveillance activities for manufactured foods. The project was structured as a three-year effort, with one year of initial funding and up to two additional years potentially available through non-competitive continuation awards, contingent on performance and the availability of federal funds. In practice, the announcement later closed due to lack of funds and stopped accepting applications for later receipt dates, but the design of the opportunity still reflects how FDA intended to prototype and scale stronger state rapid response capacity.
At the center of the award was the expectation that states would use the FDA Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards (MFRPS) as the backbone for assessing their current program and implementing continuous improvement through a strategic plan. A major deliverable tied to MFRPS, especially Standard #5, was the development, training, and operationalization of a foodborne illness rapid response team that uses Incident Command System (ICS) principles. The RRT concept was meant to be all-hazards, covering unintentional events (like contamination leading to outbreaks) as well as deliberate events (such as intentional contamination or terrorism threats). States were expected not only to stand up a team on paper, but to implement and exercise it so it could function in real incidents using expandable ICS structures appropriate to the size and complexity of the event.
The program emphasized that rapid response cannot work without strong routine infrastructure, so funding was geared toward both team readiness and broader program capacity. Allowable and encouraged uses included program assessment work, hiring or supporting personnel (including RRT coordinators, technical experts, and epidemiology-related team members), and purchasing equipment, supplies, and tools needed for inspections and investigations. This included practical response-enabling items such as communication tools, GPS-related interfaces, investigational equipment, and laboratory-related support. Training was a major component as well, specifically calling out ICS training, RRT development and coordination training, and response exercises. FDA also anticipated extensive collaboration with FDA District Offices and with an FDA contractor, the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security (WIFSS), to help develop RRT capability and ensure state and federal efforts reinforced each other rather than duplicating work.
Operationally, funded states were expected to enhance or establish systems that improve how outbreaks and incidents are detected and handled. That included using epidemiological information from local, state, and federal partners to detect potential incidents; investigating reports of illness, injury, and suspected outbreaks; correlating and analyzing data; and disseminating public information effectively. States were also expected to share outbreak reports and surveillance summaries with relevant agencies, distribute current food defense guidance to industry, and create clear procedures for immediate notification of law enforcement when intentional contamination is suspected or threatened. Another explicit expectation was the ability to collaborate with FDA and other federal authorities under elevated threat conditions, reinforcing the program's focus on preparedness and coordinated escalation pathways.
The longer-term policy intent behind the cooperative agreements was to strengthen state inspection and compliance programs for firms involved in processing, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and warehousing of food, and to verify compliance with state laws, good manufacturing practices, and food defense expectations. The program was aligned with broader FDA frameworks and initiatives at the time, including the FDA Food Protection Plan (FPP), the Action Plan for Import Safety (ISAP), and the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). In other words, the RRT was not treated as a standalone emergency function; it was positioned as part of an integrated regulatory system where prevention, intervention, and response reinforce one another.
Finally, the grant included an important maintenance-of-effort style safeguard: these federal funds were intended to supplement, not replace, existing state funding for food protection program activities. States funded under the cooperative agreements would be required to document prior and subsequent years of state funding to show that the cooperative agreement did not simply backfill or substitute for state budget allocations. In terms of scale, the announcement listed an estimated total funding amount of $1.5 million with an award ceiling of $1.5 million, and it anticipated about three awards, reflecting its prototype nature and the expectation that lessons learned could be applied more broadly across the national food safety system.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the Food Protection Rapid Response Team and Program Infrastructure Improvement Prototype Project (U18)?
It was an FDA cooperative agreement designed to strengthen state-level food protection capabilities by building and sustaining foodborne illness Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) and improving the underlying regulatory program infrastructure. The aim was to improve how states prevent, detect, investigate, and respond to food and feed incidents across the full "farm to table" continuum.
What is the Funding Opportunity Number for this grant?
The Funding Opportunity Number is PA 09 183.
Which FDA offices led and supported this cooperative agreement?
The program was led by FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) through the Division of Federal State Relations (DFSR). It was supported in coordination with the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM).
What problem was the program trying to solve?
The program sought to strengthen and better align state manufactured food regulatory programs with FDA priorities and national food protection expectations, while improving coordination so that inspection and response efforts are not duplicated across state and federal partners.
Who was eligible to apply?
Eligibility was narrow and structured as a limited competition. Only state governments with current FDA food safety inspection contracts were eligible to apply, targeting state food safety agencies already performing FDA-contracted inspection and surveillance activities for manufactured foods.
Was this an open competition?
No. The opportunity was intentionally designed as a limited competition, restricted to a specific set of state applicants (those with current FDA food safety inspection contracts).
How long was the project period expected to last?
The project was structured as a three-year effort: one year of initial funding with up to two additional years potentially available through non-competitive continuation awards, contingent on performance and the availability of federal funds.
Were continuation awards guaranteed?
No. Continuation awards (for up to two additional years) were dependent on performance and the availability of federal funds.
Did the announcement remain open for all planned receipt dates?
No. The announcement later closed due to lack of funds and stopped accepting applications for later receipt dates.
What was the central framework states were expected to use to guide improvements?
States were expected to use the FDA Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards (MFRPS) as the backbone for assessing their current program and implementing continuous improvement through a strategic plan.
Which MFRPS standard was especially tied to rapid response team deliverables?
A major deliverable was tied especially to MFRPS Standard #5, including development, training, and operationalization of a foodborne illness rapid response team using Incident Command System (ICS) principles.
What is meant by "operationalizing" a Rapid Response Team (RRT) under this program?
It meant the state would not only establish an RRT on paper, but also develop it, train it, implement it, and exercise it so it can function during real incidents using expandable ICS structures appropriate to the size and complexity of an event.
What response model or management approach was required for RRT operations?
The RRT was expected to use Incident Command System (ICS) principles, including expandable ICS structures that can scale based on the incident.
Was the RRT concept focused only on unintentional food safety events?
No. The RRT concept was intended to be all-hazards, covering both unintentional events (such as contamination leading to outbreaks) and deliberate events (such as intentional contamination or terrorism threats).
Why did the program emphasize both rapid response and routine program infrastructure?
The program emphasized that rapid response cannot work without strong routine infrastructure. Funding was geared toward improving both RRT readiness and the broader state regulatory program capacity that supports consistent prevention, detection, investigation, and response.
What types of activities were allowable or encouraged uses of funds?
Allowable and encouraged uses included program assessment work; hiring or supporting personnel (including RRT coordinators, technical experts, and epidemiology-related team members); purchasing equipment, supplies, and tools needed for inspections and investigations; and conducting training and exercises.
What kinds of equipment or tools were specifically mentioned as supporting response readiness?
Examples included communication tools, GPS-related interfaces, investigational equipment, and laboratory-related support.
What training topics were emphasized?
Training was a major component, specifically including ICS training, RRT development and coordination training, and response exercises.
What collaboration was expected with FDA offices and external partners?
FDA anticipated extensive collaboration with FDA District Offices and with an FDA contractor, the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security (WIFSS), to help develop RRT capability and ensure state and federal efforts reinforce each other rather than duplicating work.
What systems or operational capabilities were states expected to enhance or establish?
Funded states were expected to enhance or establish systems to improve detection and handling of outbreaks and incidents, including using epidemiological information from partners, investigating illness and outbreak reports, correlating and analyzing data, and disseminating public information effectively.
What kinds of information-sharing expectations were included?
States were expected to share outbreak reports and surveillance summaries with relevant agencies and to distribute current food defense guidance to industry.
What were the expectations around intentional contamination or threats?
States were expected to create clear procedures for immediate notification of law enforcement when intentional contamination is suspected or threatened, and to be able to collaborate with FDA and other federal authorities under elevated threat conditions.
Which parts of the regulated food system were targeted for strengthened inspection and compliance?
The longer-term intent was to strengthen state inspection and compliance programs for firms involved in processing, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and warehousing of food, and to verify compliance with state laws, good manufacturing practices, and food defense expectations.
How did this cooperative agreement align with broader FDA initiatives and authorities?
The program was aligned with broader FDA frameworks and initiatives, including the FDA Food Protection Plan (FPP), the Action Plan for Import Safety (ISAP), and the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA).
Was the Rapid Response Team treated as a standalone emergency function?
No. The RRT was positioned as part of an integrated regulatory system where prevention, intervention, and response reinforce one another.
Could federal funds be used to replace existing state funding for food protection activities?
No. A maintenance-of-effort style safeguard applied: federal funds were intended to supplement, not replace, existing state funding for food protection program activities.
What documentation was required to show the funds were not backfilling state budgets?
States would be required to document prior and subsequent years of state funding to demonstrate that the cooperative agreement did not substitute for state budget allocations.
What was the estimated total funding amount and award ceiling?
The announcement listed an estimated total funding amount of $1.5 million and an award ceiling of $1.5 million.
How many awards were anticipated?
About three awards were anticipated, reflecting the prototype nature of the project and the expectation that lessons learned could be applied more broadly.
What was the overall intended outcome of funding a small number of prototype awards?
The prototype approach was intended to build, test, and scale stronger state rapid response capacity and to generate lessons that could strengthen the broader national food safety system through improved coordination and aligned expectations.
Browse more opportunities from the same agency: Food Drug Administration
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Agriculture Consumer Protection Disaster Prevention and Relief Education Energy Environment Food and Nutrition Health Natural Resources Science and Technology and other Research and Development
Next opportunity: Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2
Previous opportunity: TIGER Grants for Surface Transportation
USGrants.org Applicant Portal:
Are you interested in learning about about how to apply for this government funding opportunity? You can create a free applicant account and receive instant access to our applicant portal that many business owners like you have benefited from.
Apply for PA 09 183
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Grant application guides and resources
It is always free to apply for government grants. However the process may be very complex depending on the funding opportunity you are applying for. Let us help you!
Apply for Grants
Premium leads for funding administrators, grant writers, and loan issuers
Thousands of people visit our website for their funding needs every day. When a user creates a grant proposal and files for submission, we pass the information on to funding administrators, grant writers, and government loan issuers.
If you manage government grant programs, provide grant writing services, or issue personal or government loans, we can help you reach your audience.
Subscribe to Leads
Request more information:
Would you like to learn more about this funding opportunity, similar opportunities to "PA 09 183", eligibility, application service, and/or application tips? Submit an inquiry below:
Don't forget to subscribe to our grant alerts mailing list to receive weekly alerts on new and updated grant funding opportunities like this one in your email.