Every PWS responsibility · named lead · proven approach

3.1-a

Foreign-market branding playbook with host-government sensitivity classification

Scope: Country-by-country branding-risk grading; visibility protocols by host-country profile; safety-of-personnel framing.

Drawn from Maurice's six-country Foreign Service career and Kevin's overlapping FAS tenure. Diana's marking-and-branding-in-conflict experience leading the strategy for a USAID Iraq program — where branding decisions had personnel- and beneficiary-safety implications — informs the high-risk-setting methodology.

3.1-b

America First framing playbook anchored to the FY25 NOFO three reform priorities

Scope: Plain-language messaging connecting U.S. farmers, ranchers, and processors to the program's value chain; positions FFP within the FY25 NOFO's three reform priorities verbatim — 100% U.S. origin commodities, strict accountability against fraud/waste/abuse/diversion, and long-term dependency reduction through the off-boarding-and-graduating doctrine. The Enhanced Bellmon Framework operationalizes the America First framing at the commodity-decision level.

Kevin's current consulting practice transitioning international development programs from give-away to business-focused models anchors the framing. Audrey's Wall-Street capital-markets and Georgetown SFS International Economics credential brings the deal-architecture and Enhanced Bellmon strategic-alignment framing. Diana brings the FY25 NOFO three-reform integration and the indicator-architecture for measuring reform-aligned outcomes. Maurice's 2007–09 food crisis interagency task force grounds the institutional voice.

3.1-c

Beneficiary recognition framework

Scope: Mechanisms by which beneficiaries recognize the American people's role, consistent with host-country safety constraints.

Built from in-country execution experience across Pakistan, Afghanistan, Thailand, Nigeria, and China. Diana contributes the BHA beneficiary-data lens and her direct field experience across Africa and the Middle East.

3.2-a

Cargo Preference Act compliance trade-off analysis + Enhanced Bellmon Framework

Scope: Lifecycle cost of preposition vs. emergency-cycle procurement under Cargo Preference Act 1954/2005 amendments; commodity-monetization market-assessment overlay for non-emergency Title II; HSG's proprietary three-tier Enhanced Bellmon Framework applied to monetization-funded preposition draws (statutory recipient screen + third-country commercial-displacement screen + U.S. strategic-alignment overlay).

Maurice directly executed CCC GSM-102 commodity movement at scale ($300M) from Islamabad and brings 38-year bilateral-trade-policy career (Brussels EU Mission, Beijing, Bangkok, Islamabad, Lagos, Algiers) directly applicable to the Enhanced Bellmon Tier 2 third-country-displacement and Tier 3 strategic-alignment analysis. Kevin's Food for Progress monetization market-assessment methodology informs the destination-market analysis. Audrey's capital-markets portfolio-allocation discipline structures the multi-country composite scoring. Diana provides the Sphere 2018 ration-quantification baseline mandated by the FY25 NOFO.

3.2-b

Domestic specialty-formulated commodity manufacturing capacity

Scope: RUTF, fortified blended foods, specialty soy product availability; lead-times and surge capacity; alignment with FY25 NOFO Appendix C Eligible Commodities list.

Maurice's first P.L. 480 soybean program in Pakistan directly informs domestic specialty-soy product framing. Diana's PhD in Nutrition and Food Studies (NYU) and her direct commodity-distribution oversight across $920M of FFP programming anchor the specialty-nutritional-commodity quantification.

3.2-c

Positioning-site lifecycle costing and shelf-stability windows

Scope: Storage, rotation, depreciation, and write-off scenarios across major positioning archetypes.

Cost modeling tied to historical drawdown patterns and emergency-cycle activation triggers.

3.3-a

Risk assessment with limited information

Scope: Framework for scoping FFP operations where standard pre-engagement diligence is unavailable.

Diana's BHA portfolio oversight in fragile contexts (Yemen, Iraq, Sudan-adjacent operations, DRC) and her authored Emergency Indicator Handbook risk-assessment chapter anchor the methodology. Maurice's execution of the first U.S. wheat export to Taliban-led Afghanistan from his Islamabad post provides operational grounding for the most-difficult-end of the risk spectrum.

3.3-b

Third-party monitoring decision criteria

Scope: When third-party monitoring is appropriate; contract architecture; cost-benefit framework.

Diana directly oversaw third-party monitoring decisions across her $920M USAID Office of Food for Peace M&E Advisor portfolio and her $305M BHA Regional Humanitarian Advisor portfolio across 7 Southern Africa countries — and led 35+ M&E trainings teaching FFP/BHA staff how to evaluate when TPM is appropriate. Kevin contributes FAS cooperator-program oversight experience as the comparison framework.

3.3-c

USDA international field office relationship architecture

Scope: Where activities and field office reside in different countries, how the field office supports.

Six-country Foreign Service career provides direct operational fluency with the FAS posting network. Diana contributes field-office coordination experience from her BHA Regional Humanitarian Advisor role in Pretoria and her field deployments across 19 countries.

3.4-a

Stewardship methodology over the FY25 NOFO seven-country baseline + Enhanced Bellmon Framework calibration

Scope: Calibration of the Enhanced Bellmon Framework against the seven FY25 NOFO countries; documented entry-state classification against the NOFO's three statutory eligibility triggers (IPC Level 3, sudden-onset conditions, UNHCR declaration); Tier 2 commercial-displacement and Tier 3 strategic-alignment profile per country; four-stage graduation pathway stage classification (acute / sustained / recovery / graduation) operationalizing NOFO Reform 3.

Diana contributed to the FFP-OFDA merger exercise to reassess how to prioritize countries and allocate budgets by country — the direct analog past performance for this deliverable. She brings direct field experience in three of the seven NOFO priority countries (DRC, Kenya, Rwanda). Maurice's Deputy Administrator role at FAS Office of Global Analysis (75 analysts) anchors the FAS-side methodology lineage and his bilateral-trade-policy career anchors the Enhanced Bellmon Tier 3 analysis. Kevin's Food for Progress commodity-monetization market-assessment work contributes the destination-market dimension. Audrey's capital-markets portfolio-allocation discipline structures the Enhanced Bellmon composite scoring.

3.4-b

Ongoing-vet methodology + contingency-reserve formula

Scope: Reproducible spreadsheet model for refreshing the country list at future NOFO cycles; contingency-reserve formula incorporating historical drawdown patterns, seasonal risk windows, and supply-chain lead times — explicitly more than financial inputs per PWS §3.4.

Diana directly contributed to the FFP-OFDA merger reassessment of country prioritization and emergency-fund allocation methodology — the closest analog work to this deliverable. Quantitative framework with transparent inputs that USDA can audit, reproduce, and update at each NOFO cycle.

3.5-a

Stakeholder Relations Guide — FACG + IFRP + WFP

Scope: Food Aid Consultative Group, International Food Relief Partnership, and World Food Programme engagement architecture; PVO Registration disposition; WFP relationship migration to USDA stewardship under the $452M FY25 USDA-WFP MOU.

Kevin Latner's Cotton Council International and U.S. Grains Council experience translates directly to FACG/IFRP. Kevin Sage-EL contributes the FAS cooperator matching-grant program architecture from his FAS Branch Chief tenure (Sunkist; California pistachio industry; Eastern pecan growers) plus his operational WFP/FAO partnership experience from his 2016-2020 Agricultural Counselor posting in Nairobi. Diana's BHA partner-management experience across NGO and UN agency relationships informs the engagement-cadence design.

3.5-b

Programmatic Reporting Guide — FY25 NOFO nine standard indicators + Food Aid Quality Review

Scope: Statutory reporting cadence; FAQR reporting flow; congressional reporting touchpoints; methodology for ingesting, validating, and reporting against the FY25 NOFO's nine standard performance indicators plus custom indicators per NOFO §4.2.

Diana authored the USAID Food for Peace Emergency Indicator Handbook (199 indicators) — the predecessor framework from which the FY25 NOFO's nine standard performance indicators descend. She also co-authored the BHA Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Guidance establishing institutional standards for performance reporting, compliance verification, and accountability across U.S. government emergency food assistance programming. Kevin's three FAS MAP/FMD UES submissions inform federal-reporting cadence discipline.

3.5-c

Non-Emergency Programming Planning Guide — including Title V Farmer-to-Farmer, monetization-funded programming, and bilateral co-investment architecture

Scope: Non-emergency Title II + Title V Farmer-to-Farmer integration; McGovern-Dole adjacency; Food for Progress monetization analog; deal-architecture template for time-bound, jointly-financed FFP agreements with declining U.S. share over a glide path to recipient-country self-reliance (FFP 2.0 / Adaptation option in the optioning framework).

Kevin Latner led the commodity-monetization piece of USDA's Food for Progress program — the closest operational analog to the non-emergency Title II programming USDA will inherit. Kevin Sage-EL's FAS Branch Chief tenure supervising $30M+/yr in U.S. cooperator matching-grant programs is the direct precedent for the cooperator architecture USDA inherits with FFP. Audrey contributes the capital-markets deal-architecture pattern. Diana contributes the M&E framework for non-emergency programming evaluation.

3.5-d

Programmatic Infrastructure Guide — IT systems and data architecture

Scope: IT infrastructure assessment; system-needs definition methodology; data-handling architecture supporting the FY25 NOFO nine-indicator reporting and counterpart-contribution accounting.

Co-led by Diana given her M&E data-infrastructure expertise — Diana authored the sample size estimation calculator, target-setting toolkit, and Performance Indicator Reference Sheets published on USAID.gov, and is conversant with STATA, SPSS, Power BI, Qualtrics, and ODK/KoboToolbox. HSG's AI-augmented delivery methodology informs the technology-platform recommendations.

3.6.1

Biweekly reports (Deliverable 2)

Scope: Submitted by close of business on the last business day of each two-week period.

Reports mirrored to ffp.housestrategiesgroup.com for transparent in-flight visibility. Diana provides M&E and deliverable-progress content; Jelani consolidates and submits to the COR.

3.6.2

Monthly COR dialogue

Scope: Written or virtual monthly engagement with the COR to discuss progress, upcoming, and issues.

Diana joins on-site for COR dialogue (her Wednesday on-site day is the preferred scheduling target). Maurice serves as senior-escalation contact.

3.6.3

Technical Issue Coordination protocol

Scope: Formal written escalation; no scope expansion without contract modification.

Documented in the biweekly report cadence and in the AI/Expert Reconciliation Log.

3.7-a

Process-guide-anchored training curriculum

Scope: One training module per Deliverable 3–10 process guide.

Diana designed, redesigned, and led the technical M&E training programs for USAID FFP and BHA staff over a near-decade — including Contracting Officers, CORs, AORs preparing for field monitoring visits, and partner-staff trainings across 5 countries (Senegal, Niger, DRC, Kenya, Washington DC). She also delivered training to U.S. Defense Department and intelligence officers at AFRICOM (Stuttgart) and to State Department, CDC, and NGO partner staff. Maurice and Kevin co-deliver SME-anchored modules from their FAS career experience.

3.7-b

Competency assessment instrument

Scope: Random sampling of 80% of USDA staff engaged on FFP; 90% pass threshold.

Diana's authored sample size estimation tool (published on USAID.gov, adopted by 8 partner projects in 4 countries) and her target-setting toolkit anchor the assessment-instrument design. Assessment instrument developed during months 7–9 in parallel with curriculum development.

3.7-c

Post-engagement reference archive

Scope: All process guides, training materials, and assessment instruments archived to portal for USDA post-engagement reference.

Section 508 / WCAG 2.1 AA conformant; deliverables transferred to USDA per PWS 9.0.