1/ Consortium: composition, eligibility and geographical location of members

Composition of the consortium

o Required number of consortium members and governance

1. Can the consortium be formed by only two entities in total - including the lead organization?

The consortium may be formed by at least two entities in total – including the lead organization. The diversity of profiles and experiences between organizations is sought.

2. Is there a minimum requirement of how many organisations can form the consortium?

There is no minimum requirement regarding the number of organisations to form the consortium.

3. Is it possible to form a consortium with two co-leader organizations?

It is possible to form a consortium with two co-lead organizations.

4. Is it possible to propose a co-leadership model in which two members of the consortium co-sign the financing agreement with AFD?

It is possible to form a consortium with two co-lead organizations with each leader signing an agreement with AFD.

o Local feminist CSOs in the consortium

5. In the guidelines - article 2 Operating mode - point 2.5- it is stated "The amount of direct subsidies paid to recipient feminist CSOs for their structures or projects must reach at least 50% of the total project amount." Question: In the case where a feminist CSO is a member of our consortium, could you confirm if the subsidies granted to this CSO as part of its participation in this consortium can be taken into account in the 50% share mentioned. If this rule is not applicable, could you confirm that the share of the 50% mentioned must be allocated in the form of a grant program for partners and cannot under any circumstances be paid to the consortium members. of separate grants that cannot include the consortium members as beneficiaries?

Local feminist CSOs are welcome as consortium members and/or lead consortium members. If they are part of a consortium, they cannot benefit from direct funding under component 1. This component must be organized in the form of grant payments to local feminist CSOs.

Eligibility of the consortium members

1. Could you confirm if international NGOs can lead the consortium?

International NGOs can both lead a consortium, as well as being members of the consortium.

2. Are international organizations, including UN agencies, eligible to submit a project under this call? If yes, can they be the lead organization?

International organizations, including UN agencies are not eligible for this call. They cannot be the lead organization nor consortium members. Details of the organizations eligible as lead and/or consortium members are available in section 4.2.a. of the general framework.

3. In contexts where there are significant restrictions on local civil society organizations receiving foreign funding—for example, requiring lengthy government approvals—would it be acceptable under this call to partner with a for-profit entity (e.g., a limited liability company) if the following conditions are met: the entity is fully owned by a non-profit organization; and it does not engage in commercial activities beyond implementing non-profit projects and services? We would be able to provide documentation demonstrating the ownership structure and the non-commercial nature of the activities. Could you please clarify whether such an arrangement would be considered eligible?

This call for proposals is for CSOs only and members of the consortia can’t be for profit organizations. That being said, in contexts where these restrictions are present, a partnership outside the members of the consortium with a for profit entity fully owned by a non-profit organization and do not engaging in commercial activities beyond implementing non-profit projects can be studied if the consortia is selected.

4. Can an organization be a member of a consortium while being tax sponsored by another partner organization? And can she be the leader?

All members of the consortium including the lead must be associations declared financially and fiscally independent.

5. Is it preferred that the consortium lead be a European organization to protect against an exchange rate loss?

There is no AFD preference for the consortium to be led by a European organization to protect against an exchange rate loss.

Geographical location of the consortium members

1. If the lead organisation partners with a single local or regional organisation to form the consortium and, as part of the project, local CSOs receive funding and implement projects in four eligible countries, does this meet the criterion «The consortium must cover a minimum of four countries in the consortium»?

The consortium must prove its presence in at least four countries of implementation of the project; no matter how many consortium members.

2. The geographical coverage has to be at least 4 countries from the list of AFD interest countries, but can there be for example two organisations forming consortium with presence in 4 or more countries?

The geographical coverage indicated concerns the perimeter where the project activities will be carried out. It does not concern the countries of origin of the CSO members of the consortium.

3. Could you please confirm whether U.S.-based feminist organizations working in AFD partner regions are eligible to apply, provided our efforts in those countries are led by local partners?

The geographical coverage indicated in the call concerns only the geographical perimeter where the project activities will be carried out. It does not concern the origin countries of the CSO lead or members of the consortium. It then can come from the US or anywhere else in the world if they do have an effective presence in the designated countries.

4. Would a regional feminist and gender NGO in Africa with headquarters in South Africa still be eligible to join the call for proposal as a consortium partner with national NGOs from the selected countries of implementation? Could it lead the consortium or does it have to partner with an INGO (international non-governmental organization)?

A regional feminist and gender NGO in Africa with headquarters in South Africa implementing activities in the countries included in this call is eligible to lead the consortium and/or be a consortium partner with national NGOs from the selected countries and/or INGOs.

5. In the call for proposal, it is mentioned “Implementation of the consortium in the targeted countries and ability to deploy in other localities / other countries of the regions targeted by the project.” – Does this mean that in each target country one of the consortium partners should have a presence/an office already? What is meant by “deploy in other localities”, does it mean establish an office there?

The call for proposal mentions as an evaluation criterion from AFD the capacity of “implementation of the consortium in the targeted country and ability to deploy in other localities/countries of the regions targeted by the project”. This criterion is to be evaluated via the offices of the different consortium members in the targeted countries and/or the experience of the consortium members in those targeted countries. When some countries are targeted but no member of the consortium has an office or previous experience there, it is important to prove the ability to deploy in this locality or country with the necessary means. An office is not imperative, but it is recommended to have at least a representative of the consortium based there.

6. "The lead CSO of the consortium will have to plan in particular means to go, during the project, at least once in each of the countries of the project.": Could regional meetings with the partners be considered as an alternative to visits in each of the project’s countries?

Regarding the field visits of the lead CSO, candidates must propose measures adapted to their project. If the most appropriate way according to the candidate organization is to organize regional meetings with partners, this should be preferred over a visit to each of the project countries.

2/ Structuring of the project and procedures for implementation

Geographical scope of the project

1. Is it mandatory for the consortium to include at least one African country in its scope of action, or would it be acceptable to focus exclusively on four countries in the Middle East region—namely Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq?

The consortium must cover a minimum of four countries in Africa and/or Middle East Region, including 3 so-called 'most vulnerable' countries as defined by the French Presidential Council for International Partnerships of April 2025. Indeed, a proposal focusing on four countries in the Middle East region—namely Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq would be acceptable.

2. I understand the geographical coverage has to be at least 4 countries from the list of AFD interest countries, but can there be for example two organisations forming consortium with presence in 4 or more countries?

The geographical coverage indicated concerns the perimeter where the project activities will be carried out. It does not concern the countries of origin of the CSO members of the consortium.

3. In the call for projects, it is mentioned that “The consortium must cover a minimum of four countries, including 3 so-called 'most vulnerable' countries as defined by the French Presidential Council for International Partnerships of April 2025: are considered as the most vulnerable countries "least developed countries and those particularly vulnerable to climate change or in situations of great financial fragility, using notably the UN multidimensional vulnerability index (MVI)." However, there is no formal list of 'most vulnerable' countries at this time, so it will be necessary to define and justify the vulnerability of the countries covered in the proposal." So, is it possible to tell us if the following countries (Lebanon, Jordan, Tunis, Palestine and Syria) fit this criterion or not?

The consortium must cover a minimum of four countries in Africa and/or Middle East Region, including 3 so-called 'most vulnerable' countries as defined by the Presidential Council for International Partnerships of April 2025, and following the list of countries in the call for projects.

Then, a proposal focusing on the following countries in the Middle East region and Northen Africa—namely Lebanon, Jordan, Tunisia, Palestine is possible; but Syria does not belong to the list of eligible countries for this call.

4. Please could AFD clarify whether the inclusion of Somalia as an eligible country also includes Somaliland or not?

The inclusion of Somalia as an eligible country might also include Somaliland. If the proposal is selected, complementary discussions would be necessary.

5. Are the countries listed in the AAP de facto considered as the most vulnerable countries by AFD (according to the mentioned UN multidimensional vulnerability index)?

There is no list available today of the most vulnerable countries according to the UN multidimensional vulnerability index. The list of countries provided by AFD is the list of countries where the consortium could operate, whether in vulnerable countries or not. The candidates will thus have to justify the choice of their countries of intervention on the basis of the criteria set out in the call for projects.

6. As long as the intermediated funds are channeled to implementing organizations in priority countries in the Africa, Near and Middle East regions, can the consortium engage other organizations from other countries or regions for learning and capitalization activities?

The consortium can engage other organizations from other countries or regions for learning and capitalization activities, as long as they are also twinned with the learnings done via the intermediated funds in Africa, Near and Middle East regions.

7. We have noticed that Madagascar is not among the countries listed in the geographical scope covered by this call (notably within DR Southern Africa), even though Madagascar is a partner country of France’s international development and solidarity policy and AFD is actively involved there. We would like to know if this is an omission in the scoping note or if Madagascar is indeed not eligible for this call.

Madagascar is considered at AFD as part of the Indian Ocean Regional Directorate, within the Three Oceans department and not the Africa Department. Despite the fact that this internal classification does not concern the geographical reality of Madagascar and other African countries in the Indian Ocean, nor does it prejudge the excellent quality of work between AFD and these different countries, this explains why Madagascar, the Comoros, Mauritius and the Seychelles are not eligible for this call for projects.

Project components and activities

o Project beneficiaries

1. Should proposed programs expect to generally target all populations impacted by TFGBV, or, would AFD be interested in proposals that target subsets of populations that are more susceptible to TFGBV such as women with higher public or online profiles?

The candidate is to fund feminist CSOs working against TFGBV. Feminist CSOs are free to choose whether they prefer to target all populations impacted by TFGBV or subsets of populations.

2. Does the project allow for strengthening government capacity to handle TFGBV cases? We are asking because government capacity is not explicitly mentioned nor stressed in the call document, except on page 47 where it is mentioned “Finally, the actions of feminist CSOs cannot be supported and considered without considering the scope of institutional intervention and public policy. In this sense, anchoring the project to the coordination entities and public policy dialogue, as a sounding board, a target for advocacy, and for the enhancement of expectations and of community mobilization should be considered as an intervention principle. The support will thus focus in particular on strengthening dialogue capacities with ministries.” On page 50 it is also proposed an activity which is “Awareness workshops for public actors and stakeholders in the fight against TFGBV” – so should the work with the government be limited to awareness-raising of authorities and coordination among them? We are thinking specifically of technical assistance on how to handle TGBV cases (SOPs, better mainstreaming of do no harm, referrals, etc.).

The project allows for strengthening government capacity to handle TFGBV cases if it comes through the action of feminist CSOs, especially in advocacy and coordination issues. Funding technical assistance from feminist local CSOs to governments on how to handle TFGBV cases might be considered with caution since in that case feminist CSOs are service providers for governments, and might not be considered in their daily activities funded by component 1. Anyway, coordination with Expertise France in that case might be welcomed.

3. Is there any room in the project to provide/fund technical assistance for parliamentarians to propose amendments to expand current GBV laws in target countries to include TGBV, and/or to propose new laws targeting TGBV specifically? We don’t see room for this in the project objectives mentioned but on page 50 it is mentioned “The recognition of TFGBV in their diversity as full-fledged violence constituting a barrier to gender equality and the design and implementation of public policies and legislative framework to prevent the phenomenon and protect targeted people, accompany the victims and punish the perpetrators of violence”.

Support for legislation/policy-making on TFGBV is encouraged from feminist CSOs in their advocacy with parliamentarians and/or governments.

o Number and content of components

4. Are we required to design the project along the framing of the three components? Or can we organize our logic of intervention differently, as long as we cover what’s in these three components?

The three components are to be found in the proposal, either in the same or in a different logic.

5. Would AFD accept including a fourth component dedicated to cross-cutting activities or costs that are difficult to allocate proportionally across the three main components?

The candidates have the possibility to suggest any other component they might think important.

6. When reading the call for proposal, we felt that the three project components mentioned above do not align well with the three project objectives mentioned on page 44, which are: “1)Strengthen security and respect in the digital environment, by widely spreading the necessary knowledge to fight and prevent TFGBV, equipping targeted individuals and organizations with the necessary tools and skills; 2)Provide comprehensive support to TFGBV victims, including psychological, legal and technological aid; 3) Produce, update and disseminate feminist knowledge on the phenomenon of TFGBV in order to inform advocacy actions for an appropriate legal framework.” For example, the objective of working with individuals falls under component 1 above, which means that consortium members cannot work with individuals, as component 1 is only for implementing CSOs (this is just one example, to illustrate our question). But would you be able to confirm to us if we understood this correctly?

The three project objectives mentioned in page 44 are to be considered globally for the whole project including each of the components, and not corresponding to one objective per component. For instance, capacity building in component 2 might apply the three objectives.

o Operational modalities for component 1 (intermediate funds)

7. If consortium members are local feminist CSOs, does forwarding of funds to them count as contributing to component 1 – flexible funding to feminist CSOs?

Local feminist CSOs are welcomed as consortium members and/or lead members of a consortium. If they are into a consortium, they can’t benefit from direct funding of component 1.

8. Can consortium members forward funds to local feminist CSOs?

Consortium members can forward funds to local feminist CSOs.

9. It is mentioned in component 1 that it should be 50% of the project, and this entire component will be to fund local CSOs i.e. grantees (not consortium members) activities and operational costs. However we presume that these same CSOs will also receive funding/support under components 2 and 3, so the total budget value going to these CSOs will actually be higher than 50%. Can you confirm/explain this to us?

This call for proposals is under the French feminist fund for feminist organizations, meaning that its objective is to fund directly feminist grantees of the consortium for their daily activities against TFGBV, at least by 50% of the project. The same CSOs might apply for components 2 and 3, but this is not considered as their daily activities, but can contribute to their impact.

10. The Appel notes that 50% of project funds must be dedicated to funding feminist CSOs, but also notes that these can be entities that are not formally registered. Can the applicant count towards this 50% any funds that may be issued via direct payments by consortium members to cover the activities of groups that are not registered and cannot receive subgrant funding?

The candidates can count into the 50% for component 1 the direct payments given to unregistered feminist CSOs not formally registered to fund their activities. But, unregistered feminist CSOs can also apply for activities under component 2 on capacity building. Direct payment for component 2 or 3 is not to be considered into the 50% threshold.

11. Is the application maximum grant amount for application 250,000 euro? With 50% forwarding of funds within/through the consortium?

The present call for tenders concerns funding of 4 million euros, divided into 3 activity components, to be implemented by a consortium of feminist CSOs. Of this total amount, a minimum of 50% must finance local and national feminist CSOs.

Through component 1 of the project, it is possible to include among the activities one or more calls for projects that will enable the funding of small-scale feminist CSOs located in the countries of intervention, with amounts ranging from €5 000 to €250 000.

The range from €5000 to €250000 is an estimate, and can be adapted based on the recommendations and expertise of the consortia. However, it is recommended not to leave this range, going below €5000 or above €250000.

12. In the call for projects, it is stated in 2.5 that 'The amount of direct grants paid to recipient feminist CSOs for their structures or projects must reach at least 50% of the total project amount. ' Is this minimum of 50% of direct subsidies paid to the corresponding feminist CSOs calculated on the basis of the budget of the AFD grant alone? For example, if the budget of 4 million is increased by co-financing, will the amount of direct grants paid to recipient CSOs have to reach 50% of the total budget (4 million in AFD and co-financing grants)?

If the candidate consortium were to have co-funding for this project, the rule of 50% direct grants paid to feminist CSOs in component 1 is only applied to AFD financing. However, any increase in this percentage through co-financing is welcome.

o Capitalization and Evaluation

13. Regarding the guidance that the lead CSO should plan at least one visit to each country of implementation to support capitalization efforts, and that regular debriefings with AFD country offices, regional directorates, and headquarters will be organized, we would appreciate clarification on: whether the in-country travel for capitalization refers specifically to visits to project partners and beneficiaries in the implementation countries, and whether the regular debriefings with AFD will be conducted online or if we should anticipate budgeting for travel to France or other locations for in-person meetings.

Indeed, the in-country travel in component 3 refers to visits to project partners and beneficiaries in the implementation countries in order to capitalize their experiences. There is no need to budget a travel to France for debriefings with AFD; those meetings can be hold online and/or in person with AFD local agency in the country.

14. Do you have any indications on the recommended minimum for the amounts to be allocated to the evaluation and capitalization inherent in the project?

There is no recommended minimum for the amounts to be allocated to the evaluation and capitalization inherent in the project.

Project Budget

o Indirect costs

1. Could you confirm whether it is acceptable to allocate indirect costs incurred by support staff based at the organization’s headquarters, who do not form part of the overall management but provide services to the project (for example, finance or administration staff), with appropriate proof of delivery? We understand that staff hired specifically for the project (e.g., a Project Manager) would be considered direct costs, but would like to clarify the eligibility of headquarters-based support staff costs attributed proportionally to project activities.

Indirect costs allocated to the project might include support staff to the project based in the headquarters. They must not exceed 12% of the total project amount. Staff directly hired for the project would be considered as direct costs.

2. Regarding the ceiling of 12% for indirect costs, could you kindly confirm if this percentage is calculated over the total grant amount requested (for example, the entire 4 million euros) or over total direct project costs?

The ceiling of 12% for indirect costs is calculated over the total direct project costs and not over the total grant amount requested.

3. Does the administrative fee of 12% also cover the staff costs of the lead (French organisation, based in France, without a local office or expatriate staff), or is it possible to charge these costs directly to the project budget under the second category?

The administrative fees of 12% of direct costs cover the expenses of the lead structure and this includes human resources that are not dedicated to the project. This package can be shared with consortium members to cover their indirect costs.

4. The Appel indicates a maximum of 12% for administrative and indirect costs. Does the term administrative costs only apply to costs that are included in an organization’s overhead or indirect rate, or are there other costs that would need to be categorized under this label? For example, consortium members and local feminist CSOs in implementing countries may not have an established rate but rather charge percentages of their office rent or administrative salaries directly to their budgets. If these costs can be allocated directly to project support in this way, are they allowable as “project” rather than as administrative costs?

Indirect costs must not exceed 12% of the total direct costs and may relate to: Purchase, rental and maintenance of offices, maintenance and other security fees, insurance, etc.; furniture, computers, photocopiers, supplies; Water, gas, electricity, internet, fuel. ; Audit office, study, recruitment costs, fundraising costs, salaries and contributions for indirect support functions not included in the direct costs of the project/programme (human resources management, IT service, CFO, communication, fundraising, etc.) ; Salaries of permanent staff at headquarters only in the 12% option.

5. Article 2. Procedure, Section 2.6 and 2.7 notes that “funding will be used to finance capacity building, exchange of practices and networking activities, project-specific human resources, operational functioning of the consortium, possible technological solutions for the benefit of CSOs, studies”. Can AFD please confirm that those staff members directly supporting program activities who are based in the bidding organization’s headquarters office are considered to be project-specific human resources? For example, those individuals who are directly supporting the implementation of all aspects of program activities in each of the target countries will be included as part of the individual activity budgets.

Staff members directly supporting program activities who are based in the bidding organization’s headquarters office or in the field are considered to be project-specific human resources (reference to art 2, procedure, section 2.7). For instance, a full-time program manager in charge of the project is to be considered as project-specific human resource. On the contrary a staff member who spends some hours in the project per year is to be declared in the indirect costs for the project.

o Budget allocation by countries

6. For the purpose of the budget distribution by country, could you confirm whether expenditures should be allocated based on: a) The country in which the expenditure is implemented (i.e., where the activity takes place), or b) The country of registration/location of the implementing partner organization? For example, if the lead organization based in Lebanon organizes a conference in Morocco and transfers funds to Morocco to pay suppliers, should the expenditure be reported under Morocco or Lebanon in the budget distribution?

The expenditure is to be reported under the country where the activity takes place and not in the country of registration/location of the implementing partner organizations.

o Exchange rates

7. Article 5. Contract currency and payment currencies: “5.1 The organizations have to draft their proposal in euros, which is the currency of the financing agreement. The budget must be established including global and flat-rate, firm and not revisable”. Can AFD confirm whether there is the possibility to revise the budget within the overall EUR4M ceiling or if there is line-item flexibility to account for unanticipated changes during program implementation?

The established budget of EUR 4M is firm and not revisable. The candidates can include a budget for unforeseen expenses.

8. Is it preferred that the consortium lead be a European organization to protect against an exchange rate loss?

There is no AFD preference for the consortium to be led by a European organization to protect against an exchange rate loss.

o Presentation of the budget

9. In the document 'Instructions for filling out the budget', the sections mentioned do not have the same numbering and layout as those in the Excel budget template document. Would it be possible to specify under which headings should the fees and costs charged for the external audit and evaluation of the project be included? Is it in Heading 3 «Operations – sub-heading Costs of external services, studies and services» which is mentioned in the notice under the points on external evaluation and external audit or is it in Headings 3 «Monitoring and Evaluation» and 5 «Audit» as presented in the budget excel?

There are inconsistencies that will be corrected for future calls for projects between the document « Notice to fill a budget » in annex 1 and the template budget in annex 2. The candidates can thus declare the audit, either in Heading 3 « Expenses for services, studies and external supplies » following the recommendations in Appendix 1, or in Heading 5 as provided in Appendix 2.

10. The same applies to all external services concerning studies and capitalization services, for example. they must put themselves in section 3 «Costs of services, studies and external services» as mentioned in the notice or then under section 4 Capitalization of the budget Excel; or in the category 1 capitalization activities of the budgetary Excel?

Regarding external services for studies and capitalization services, it is recommended to declare studies for the project in Heading 3 « Expenses for services, studies and external supplies »; and those related to component 3 under heading 1 « Activities and programs » as part of component 3.

11. In the document 'Instructions for filling out the budget', point 2 states: 'operating costs may include the following headings' but then indicates in the details of the text expenses directly related to the activities. For example, under "supplies and consumption" it says "supplies for activities". Would it be possible to specify if the purchases directly related to the realization are included in the budget Excel under heading 1 "activity" or under heading 3 "operation"?

The supplies for the activities are to be declared in Annex 2 under heading 3 « Expenses for services, studies and external supplies ».

Compliance/ screening rule

1. Under the evaluation criteria, reference is made to the “relevance of the mechanism ensuring the proper execution of the funding allocated to funded projects.” Could you please share which main components or elements AFD expects applicants to detail in this section (e.g., internal controls, verification processes, financial monitoring tools) so we can ensure our explanation addresses your priorities effectively?

AFD applies a thorough policy on anti-laundering, fraud and corruption. This pillar aims at ensuring that the selected applicants would be executing technically and financially the projects with the most suitable procedures and documentation (internal control, external audits, technical and financial monitoring tools and reports, application of AFD directives on contractors, due diligence, etc.).

2. We understand that in cases where funds or economically exploitable resources are transferred to beneficiaries, there are specific screening requirements (such as identity verification) or the need to have a screening waiver and that this may require country-specific procedures and filling out a compliance questionnaire for AFD accreditation. In our case, while we do not anticipate transferring per diems directly to individuals ourselves, our implementing partners may provide per diems to project beneficiaries. Could you please clarify: What screening requirements would apply to our partners in this situation? Whether AFD would expect the lead applicant to submit detailed screening procedures for each country of implementation where partners will manage per diem payments?

Compliance with international financial sanctions applies to all financial flows, whether they involve losses, monetary donations or economically exploitable goods, and to all recipients, whether partner organizations, suppliers or beneficiary populations. The verification that partners are not on international financial sanctions lists, called "filtering"/screening, is mandatory for partners and suppliers. The audit teams will verify that this has been done.

For the final beneficiaries, that is to say effectively the people to whom a perdiem or a donation would be paid by a partner, alternative measures to filtering may be requested. For this, it is essential to fill out the questionnaire whose link is in the file: https://www.afd.fr/sites/default/files/2025-06/docs_reference_en.zip in which it is requested to detail the internal control procedures, of the organization’s anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism, in particular for compliance with international financial sanctions. This allows for the accreditation by AFD of the procedural corpus of the OSC (the lead), which then allows it to implement alternative measures to filtering to ensure full compliance with international financial sanctions. These alternative measures can only concern monetary transfers to final beneficiaries of the project. To request alternative measures, it is requested to clearly detail how the organization will ensure that it does not finance any person or entity appearing on the lists overall, and if necessary, it is-to say if there are specific conditions that can justify a humanitarian exemption or an exception because the identity of the persons must be preserved (minors, human rights defenders...etc) or it is impossible to prove (no civil status), detail this country by country. It is also requested in the file to clearly detail all the financial circuits from the consortium lead to the beneficiary feminist organizations through the member organizations of the consortium.

3. Can you provide information on whether AFD has any registration requirements or other administrative requirements that need to be met for organizations that have not previously received AFD funding to apply?

All the requirements are listed in the call for proposal, either for organizations that have or haven’t yet received AFD funding. A special attention is to be given to fill out the questionnaire whose link is in the file (https://www.afd.fr/sites/default/files/2025-06/docs_reference_en.zip) in which it is requested to detail the internal control procedures, of the organization’s anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism, in particular for compliance with international financial sanctions. This allows for the accreditation by AFD of the procedural corpus of the CSO lead, which then allows to implement alternative measures to filtering to ensure full compliance with international financial sanctions.

Payment, procurement and audits

1. Administrative and financial aspects - Point: 1.1 Disbursement, reporting and audit modalities: Regarding the payment terms, is it conceivable that AFD could release a first tranche of funding for a period of 15 months, covering the first year and the first three months of the second year, thus allowing the lead CSOs to guarantee their cash flow?

Several payment methods are possible, indeed a first advance whose amount is to be determined based on the budget for the first months/year, then annual payments until the balance; be an advance for 15 months, a payment for the following 15 months, and a balance at the end of the project.

2. Could you please share the AFD’s “Procurement Guidelines for Foreign States” in an updated link or in another format so these can be accessed?

AFD’s procurement guidelines for Foreign States are available in the internet here (https://waf.afd.fr/en/ressources/procurement-guidelines-afd-financed-contracts-foreign-countries).

3. What is meant by this sentence “Any contract between the consortium and implementing structures in beneficiary countries outside the consortium will be considered as a service provision and will be subject to AFD’s Procurement Guidelines for foreign states. In the interest of efficiency in project management, bidders are nevertheless invited not to resort to implementation services” – what is exactly meant here?

AFD’s Procurement Guidelines apply to all contracts except the consortium members. Between the consortium members, sub-agreements is an acceptable way of cooperation.

4. Is it planned for this call for projects to use the lump sum audit?

The audit will have to be done for all project expenses, and not on a flat-rate audit.

Addressing security issues for CSOs

1. It is also mentioned “Understanding of safety exposure issues (coming from the entourage, the community or third parties) by CSO members working on this subject and adapted device according to the contexts (policy/charter/code of conduct/technological tools existing or to be developed at the level of the consortium leader).” – What is meant by “adapted device”?

The adapted device mentioned in the safety exposure issues is to be understood as the policy, charter, code of conduct, technological tools existing or to be developed at the level of the consortium leader.

3/ Details on the general framework of the Call for projects

Several applications

1. We kindly ask you to specify if the consortium members have the possibility to submit several applications or to apply for this call for projects on behalf of several consortia. Otherwise, is it required that our partners within our consortium participate exclusively in our application file?

Consortium members have the possibility to submit multiple applications or apply for this call on behalf of several consortia.

Schedule

1. Would it be possible to extend the deadline for submitting applications beyond August 31, which would allow us to finalize our grade with the desired level of quality?

The application deadline cannot be changed.

2. Around what time period would AFD expect an award to be issued to a successful applicant?

The successful application will be informed by the end of September and the amount is expected to be granted by the end of 2025.

Documents

1. In the main word document for the call for proposal, it is mentioned that “The members of the consortium will have to submit a modus operandi that will allow France to honor its international commitments in terms of aid localization, and demonstrate this in their project proposals and budget”. What is meant by modus operandi in this case? Is this like a form or attestation of some sort, or just proving our (the consortium member) experience/capacity in the proposal narrative?

The modus operandi mentioned in the call for proposals “that will allow France to honor its international commitments in terms of aid localization, and demonstrate this in their project proposals and budget” is the application of the consortium members on their experience/capacity. No further form is requested.

2. What is to be contained in the table of returns?

The table of returns is the 10th form of the call for proposals (p.28). It is a list of the member organizations of the consortium, where the candidate might indicate the amount of funds that each member will manage in the project.

3. Regarding the requirement that the consortium should submit a team suitable for project management, with the specified skills, could you please clarify whether AFD expects us to include detailed CVs of the proposed team members or whether job descriptions and role profiles will be sufficient?

There is no expectations to submit detailed CVs of the proposed team members now. Job descriptions and role profiles will be sufficient.

4. “VIII. THE INFORMATION SHEET RELATED TO THE PROJECT LEAD”, p21 asks for the submission of a “strategic document validated by the GA”. Can you confirm if a strategy document validated by an organization’s board fits this description, as some organizations do not have a General Assembly?

The strategy document mentioned in page 21 on information sheet related to the project lead is to be validated by the General Assembly or in its absence, by the board of the organization.

5. For the purpose of completing section 3 of the compliance questionnaire, please could you confirm whether the feminist CSOs in receipt of grants under component 1 are considered to be the beneficiaries in this case?

Feminist CSOs receiving grants under component 1 will be considered as beneficiaries in the compliance questionnaire.

6. In the document 'Instructions for filling out the budget', the sections mentioned do not have the same numbering and layout as those in the Excel budget template document.

There are inconsistencies that will be corrected for future calls for projects between the document « Notice to fill a budget » in annex 1 and the template budget in annex 2. The candidates can thus declare the audit, either in Heading 3 « Expenses for services, studies and external supplies » following the recommendations in Appendix 1, or in Heading 5 as provided in Appendix 2. Regarding external services for studies and capitalization services, it is recommended to declare studies for the project in Heading 3 « Expenses for services, studies and external supplies »; and those related to component 3 under heading 1 « Activities and programs » as part of component 3. The supplies for the activities are to be declared in Annex 2 under heading 3 « Expenses for services, studies and external supplies ».

Mapping of local feminist CSOs active in the fight against TFGBV

1. A footnote on page 45 indicates that “Note that a mapping of CSOs active in the fight against TFGBV as well as a detailed literature review of the phenomenon with a regional approach can be shared on request.” Can AFD please confirm if this is Annex 4 of the Call or if there is an additional document? If there is an additional document, we would like to request that it be shared.

The literature review quoted in footnote on page 45 is considered as annex 4 of this call for proposals. The mapping of CSOs active will be shared to the successful applicant.

2. On page 53, it is mentioned that a “preparatory mapping study carried out prior to this Call (see annex), which notably includes the identification of local CSOs working in this field in the countries covered.” but it’s not in the annex – can please share the annex?

The literature review quoted in footnote on page 53 is considered as annex 4 of this call for proposals. The mapping of CSOs active will be shared to the successful applicant.

Where would you like to connect?

Call for projects FSOF 2025 : Technology-facilitated gender-based violence

Course