TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT OF HIV PREVENTION, CARE TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND OTHER INFECTIOUS DISEASES THAT IMPACT HIV INFECTED PATIENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENTS EMERGENCY PLAN FOR AIDS RELIEF | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is this funding opportunity?

This opportunity is a CDC discretionary cooperative agreement under PEPFAR. It is focused on providing urgent technical assistance and program support for HIV prevention, care, and treatment services in South Sudan, with additional support for other infectious diseases that affect people living with HIV.

Which agencies and programs are associated with the award?

The notice describes the award as a CDC cooperative agreement under PEPFAR. It is listed under CFDA 93.067 (Global AIDS) and references CDC RFA PS09-9040401SUPP13.

When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?

It was posted on October 10, 2012. The closing date for applications was November 13, 2012.

Is this opportunity still active?

No. The listing was later archived on December 13, 2012.

What situation triggered this emergency funding?

The award was designed to stabilize and restart critical HIV services after a major financing disruption. The disruption followed the end of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) Round 4 grant, which expired in November 2011, and the national HIV program could not secure replacement funding in time.

What were the immediate service impacts described in the notice?

The description highlights two urgent consequences: (1) people who needed antiretroviral therapy (ART) after late 2012 were unable to access it, and (2) health facilities that previously provided HIV testing stopped offering testing because they could not procure HIV test kits.

How did the funding disruption affect both treatment and new patient identification?

The notice indicates that treatment initiation (and potentially continuity of care) was at risk at the same time that HIV testing capacity was collapsing. That combination threatened the ability to identify new patients and link them to care while also jeopardizing access to ART.

Did the Government of South Sudan attempt to bridge the gap?

Yes. The Government of South Sudan approved approximately $12 million in January 2012 to continue HIV activities that had been financed under GFATM Round 4.

Why was the approved domestic funding not implemented as planned?

The notice attributes the failure to execute the approved funds to a major disruption in oil income. Oil reportedly accounted for about 98% of government income, and the lack of a reliable export route prevented the government from allocating the approved funds.

What is the role of CDC/PEPFAR funding in this context?

The opportunity frames CDC/PEPFAR support as an emergency backstop to keep essential HIV services functioning when domestic bridge financing could not be executed.

What geographic area is the funding meant to support?

The activities described are focused on South Sudan, particularly restoring and stabilizing HIV prevention, care, and treatment services affected by the financing disruption.

What types of activities or services are emphasized?

The notice emphasizes urgent technical assistance and program support to restore continuity of HIV services, including ART access and HIV testing (including procurement-related barriers such as test kits). It also notes support for other infectious diseases affecting people living with HIV.

What is meant by a "cooperative agreement" in this opportunity?

The listing identifies the instrument as a CDC discretionary cooperative agreement. Based on the notice text alone, the key point is that CDC is providing assistance through this mechanism to rapidly support program continuity and urgent implementation needs.

How many awards were expected?

The opportunity anticipated a single award.

Was this a competitive opportunity open to many applicants?

The notice characterizes it as a single-source supplemental award. The eligibility language indicates it was intended for a specific existing grantee already operating in the affected region and able to implement activities immediately, reflecting the urgency and the need to avoid delays.

Why did CDC choose a single-source supplemental approach?

According to the description, the situation required immediate implementation to restore critical services. Using an existing grantee with an operational footprint and relevant experience was presented as the fastest way to restart services such as ART access and HIV testing.

What is the funding amount for this specific action?

For this particular supplemental action, the notice specifies an award floor and ceiling of $635,768, indicating a fixed-size award for the supplement described.

What does the opportunity mean by a larger estimated total funding figure?

The opportunity lists an estimated total funding figure of $350,000,000 in the broader program context, while separately specifying $635,768 as both the ceiling and floor for the specific supplemental award described in the notice.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The notice states there was no cost-sharing or matching requirement.

What outcomes was this funding intended to protect?

The practical intent described is to ensure continuity of HIV treatment and testing capacity, protect patient outcomes, and preserve the basic infrastructure of prevention and care programs during a period of fiscal instability.

What was the underlying economic factor linked to the crisis?

The notice links the fiscal instability to oil revenue disruptions, noting oil reportedly accounted for about 98% of government income and that export-route issues contributed to the inability to allocate the approved domestic funds.

What is the key takeaway about the purpose of this award?

The notice presents this as a targeted, time-sensitive intervention by CDC/PEPFAR to prevent a prolonged interruption of HIV services in South Sudan after Global Fund support ended and anticipated domestic bridge funding could not be executed.