RFA #103425-07-20-2026-002 Teaching English With Technology Course - UPDATED

Agency:	FHI 360
State:	District of Columbia
Type of Government:	State & Local
NAICS Category:	541930 - Translation and Interpretation Services 611430 - Professional and Management Development Training 611710 - Educational Support Services
Posted Date:	Aug 11, 2026
Due Date:	Sep 11, 2026
Solicitation No:	103425-07-20-2026-002_RFA_02
Original Source:	Please Login to View Page
Contact information:	Please Login to View Page
Bid Documents:	Please Login to View Page

Description

RFA #103425-07-20-2026-002 Teaching English With Technology Course
RFA No.: 103425-07-20-2026-002_RFA_02

Issue date: 20 Jul, 2026
Closing date: 11 Sep, 2026

Solicitation file(s):
1. OPEN RFA 103425-002 Teaching English with Technology GOC RFA (343 KB)
2. OPEN RFA 103425-002 Teaching English withTechnology Attachment A Submission Instructions (253 KB)
3. OPEN RFA 103425-002 Teaching English withTechnology GOC Attachment B Cover Sheet (475 KB)
4. 2026-002 OPEN RFA Teaching English with Technology GOC Attachment C Budget (82 KB)

Modification file(s):
OPEN RFA 103425 002 Teaching English with Technology GOC Q A UPDATED 08 11 26_639220391248790740.pdf (264 KB)
OPEN RFA 103425-002 Educational Technology Attachment A Submission Instructions UPDATED 08.04.26.pdf (253 KB)

Attachment Preview

Online Course Development and Delivery

Teaching English with Technology

OPEN RFA FY26-103425-07-20-2026-002

Questions and Answers

Q1: Does the OPEN program have rules or guidelines about how many courses may be

developed and delivered by one university? Is a university eligible to apply for this grant even

if it is already delivering other OPEN courses? Would the number of OPEN courses in a

university's portfolio affect the likelihood of selection for an additional grant?

A1: OPEN’s evaluation process is designed to support merit-based selection. As stated in the

RFA, any accredited, U.S. –based university, academic institution or non-profit is eligible to apply

for this grant. When directed by the funder, we limit eligibility to institutions that have not

received prior program funding. While that is not the case for this RFA, applicants that have not

previously developed an OPEN course will receive additional consideration. This approach levels

the playing field so that U.S. government funding is reaching a broad range of U.S. institutions.

Experience successfully managing U.S. government grants, such as other OPEN courses, will also

be taken into consideration.

Q2: On page 3 of the Application Checklist and Submission Instructions, the instructions refer

to "module topics referenced in the RFA," but there is not a list of module topics in the RFA

(unlike some past RFAs for OPEN course development). It appears that the bottom of page

4 of the RFA suggests that the applicant should choose the topics for the individual modules.

Could you please confirm?

A2: This is an error in the Submission Instructions, Part 3, “Proposed Course Outline.” Module

topics were not suggested in the RFA. The applicant should choose appropriate module topics

based on the course description and objectives. This section of the Submission Instructions

should read as follows:

“Using the goals and objectives referenced in the RFA, provide a course outline for the

eight-module course.”

An updated copy of the Submission Instructions will be published along with this Q&A

document.

Q3: Could you elaborate on the cost sharing requirement? Does this have to be financial

amount, or could it be other types of services like the use of university infrastructure (Zoom,

Internet, library resources, etc.)?

A3: For a full explanation of allowable cost share, please refer to the Code of Federal

Regulations, 2 CFR 200. While it may be possible to include this type of infrastructure in a cost

share plan, pay special attention to valuation and documentation requirements.

Q4: On page 3, there is information about the purpose of the eight-week course. It

also states that we will develop and teach several sections determined by the program. Is this

correct?

A4: That is correct. The initial cost-reimbursable subgrant will be issued for course development.

After that, OPEN anticipates issuing a fixed price subcontract to the same institution to deliver

the course as a pilot to one or more course sections. OPEN will determine how many course

sections will be requested, depending on demand for the course topic. After that, provided there

is continued demand, the selected institution could be asked to continue delivering the course

up to four times per year, with subcontracts issued annually.

Q5: Since we do not know the number of sections assigned, what estimated number of

sections/instructors would you suggest we budget for?

A5: Please budget for one section of 25 participants in the “Delivery” tab of the budget

template.

Q6: Regarding indirect rates (F&A), are there any restrictions for universities that have a

NICRA agreement? Is there any incentive to request a waiver to reduce the F&A rate?

A6: Cost reasonableness is evaluated across the various components of cost included in a

budget. Applicants may seek approval from their institutions to reduce their indirect cost rate as

part of their strategy to present a competitive budget and proposal.

Q7: Regarding the $6,500 cost-share commitment under 2 CFR 200.306, does FHI 360 have a

preference for unrecovered direct staff labor versus unrecovered indirect costs, and will

third-party in-kind valuation documentation be required in Attachment C?

A7: FHI 360 will consider any type of cost share that complies with 2CFRR200.306 and supports

the project’s objectives. While documentation is not required for the budget, applicants should

explain the basis of valuation in the budget narrative.

Q8: Does FHI 360 require the Principal Investigator (PI) to hold formal TESOL

certifications/degrees, or is it permissible for the PI role to focus on project management and

educational technology oversight, provided that curriculum developers and subject matter

experts on the team possess demonstrated TESOL qualifications and experience?

A8: FHI 360 will evaluate the currency and relevancy of experience relative to the proposed role.

For the Principal Investigator, this includes experience managing grant-funded activities.

Q9: As part of our evaluation process, we would like to know whether proposals may be

submitted by potential institutions as vendors rather than through a sub-award?

A9: FHI 360’s prime award is specific in requiring us to issue sub-awards for course development

and delivery. Subawards facilitate our role in monitoring course development to ensure that

program requirements are met and guidelines followed.

Q10: If it is possible to propose as a vendor, can the cost share be reflected as a price discount

to achieve the same financial impact as a cost share?

A10: See above.

This page summarizes the opportunity, including an overview and a preview of the attached documents.

Get Government Bids Like This by Email Receive daily bid alerts that match your keywords, business categories, and target regions.

View Sample Report Start Free Trial

RFA #103425-07-20-2026-002 Teaching English With Technology Course - UPDATED

Description

Attachment Preview

See Also