ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
ECW CORE RfP – Live Q&A Log
2
Partners submit questions during the call. ECW fills in replies and tracks status. Last updated:
3
4
#Partner NameStakeholder GroupQuestion CategoryQuestionECW ReplyStatus
5
1Finn Church AidINGOScopeThe ECW call identifies the target beneficiaries as ECCD, primary, and lower secondary learners, while the target age range is stated as 5–17 years. Since ECCD typically includes children younger than 5 years of age, could you please clarify whether children under the age of 5 are eligible beneficiaries under this call? If so, how should proposals address ECCD programming for this age group?The programme targets basic education and of age range 5-17 as indicated in the program document. The program design is at the grantee's discretion to propose. Answered
6
2People In NeedINGOScopeCould you please clarify whether the 12 million dollar reserved budget for the crisis modifier can be allocated to partners and geographical areas outside the initial consortium scope, or if it is strictly restricted to the pre-identified consortium members and the selected focal regions of Rakhine and Sagaing?The budget is 16 M and includes crisis modifier and should only be in the geographical areas of the programme. If there is an escalation in other parts of the country, then the cluster can request a rapid response. The funds for the crisis modifier are only for the consortium in the same geographical areas. Any potential funding for a new new emergency or escalation will be considered by ECW through another consortiumAnswered
7
3Finn Church AidINGOEligibilityAccording to the ECW CORE requirements, the consortium is composed of at least 50% local partners. Does this requirement apply to both the funding allocation between consortium members and local partners and the consortium composition in the proposal?Yes. Under the ECW CORE localisation requirements, the expectation is twofold:
Consortium composition: At least 50% of consortium members should be local and national actors (LNAs), demonstrating meaningful local leadership and participation in programme governance and implementation.

Funding allocation: In addition, at least 50% of programme funding should be allocated to formal local and national actor consortium members, reflecting genuine localisation and power-sharing, rather than only representation in the consortium structure.

Proposals should therefore demonstrate compliance with both the composition requirement and the resource allocation requirement, while clearly explaining the roles, decision-making responsibilities, and budget shares of local and national partners. where compliance is not meant, rationale with evidence should be provided by applying consortia 		Answered
8
4ADRA MyanmarINGOOtherThe two co-Lead Grantees - 1) Please elobrate further on two Co Lead Grantees, 2) both co -lead gurantees will be recieving funds from ECW or One will recieve and pass to other, 3) The two co-lead gurantees model will create unnecessary management layers and transaction cost high (which should be avoided as per guidence), 4) On page 11 of guidence its mentioned "In practice this means
membership of the Myanmar Education Sector (co-led by UNICEF and Save the Children and legal registration in Myanmar and registration" I think the sentence is not complete and please guide on legal registeration part?		Thank you for these important questions. The rationale for the co-Lead Grantee model is to strengthen equitable partnership and localisation by enabling shared leadership arrangements, particularly between international and local/national actors, where appropriate. The specific roles and responsibilities of each co-Lead Grantee should be clearly defined in the proposal and governance structure.
1) Could you elaborate further on the two Co-Lead Grantees?

The two co-Lead Grantees are expected to jointly provide strategic leadership, oversight, and accountability for programme delivery. The arrangement is intended to demonstrate genuine partnership and shared decision-making rather than a traditional prime-subrecipient model. Proposals should clearly articulate how responsibilities, governance, risk management, and decision-making authority will be shared between the two organisations.
2) Will both co-Lead Grantees receive funds directly from ECW, or will one receive and transfer funds to the other? Yes, both co-lead grantees will recieve funds directly from ECW.
3) Does the co-Lead Grantee model create additional management layers and transaction costs?

ECW recognizes the importance of maximizing resources for programme delivery and minimizing unnecessary overhead costs. The intention of the co-Lead model is not to add bureaucracy, but to support meaningful shared leadership and localisation. Applicants should therefore propose governance and management arrangements that are fit-for-purpose, efficient, and demonstrate value for money. Any coordination costs should be justified and proportionate to the added value generated by the partnership arrangement
4) Regarding page 11 of the guidance note, the sentence on Myanmar Education Sector membership and legal registration appears incomplete. Could you clarify the legal registration requirement?

Thank you for flagging this. The Secretariat will review the wording in the guidance note. The intention is that eligible organisations should be active participants in the relevant education coordination architecture and possess the legal status or registration required to operate and receive funding in the relevant context, in accordance with applicable national requirements. Any clarification or correction to the wording will be communicated through the official Q&A and guidance updates		Answered
9
5AAR Japan Myanmar OfficeINGOEligibilityWe would like to clarify our eligibility and the programme scope regarding the following points:
①Registration & Cluster Membership: Our organization has deep expertise in special needs education and is an active member of the Disability Inclusion (DI) and Protection clusters. However, we are currently not part of the Education cluster, and our legal registration is with the Department of Social Welfare (not the Ministry of Education). Given that we meet all other eligibility criteria, does this specific registration status disqualify us from applying?
②Programme Scope: Could you please clarify if projects focused on inclusive education for children with disabilities and special needs education are eligible for funding under this call?		① Registration & Cluster Membership:
No. Registration with the Department of Social Welfare and membership in the Disability Inclusion and Protection clusters do not automatically disqualify an organization from participating. However, applicants must meet the eligibility requirements specified in the country guidance note. Organizations with relevant expertise that are not currently members of the Education Cluster/Sector are encouraged to engage with education coordination mechanisms to get clarity and may participate through consortium arrangements where applicable.
② Programme Scope:
Yes. Inclusive education for children with disabilities and special needs education are eligible and strongly aligned with ECW's commitment to equity, inclusion, and reaching the most vulnerable learners. Such interventions may be proposed provided they contribute to the CORE programme objectives and requirements outlined in the guidance		Answered
10
6INGO
11
7Cambridge UniversityINGOEligibilityCould ECW please clarify whether an organisation may participate in consortium applications in more than one country under the 2026 CORE call? For example, could an INGO be part of a consortium application in Myanmar with one local NGO partner and also be part of a separate consortium application in Afghanistan with a different local NGO partner? Or does the restriction on INGOs participating in multiple consortia prevent applications across multiple country calls as well?Yes. An organization may participate in consortium applications in more than one country under the 2026 CORE call, provided it meets the eligibility requirements and partnership criteria for each respective country call.

The restriction on participation in multiple consortia applies within a given country call, and does not prevent an organization from being part of separate consortium applications in different countries. Therefore, an INGO could participate in a consortium in Myanmar with one local partner and in a separate consortium in Afghanistan with different partners, subject to compliance with the requirements of each call and the organization's capacity to deliver on its commitments.

Applicants should refer to the specific country guidance notes for any country-specific limitations or requirements.		Answered
12
8Save the ChildrenINGOOtherCan we get any specific guidance document or note from ECW on Crisis Readiness / Outcome 3? A country specific crisis rediness guidance is expected to be published.refer to the Country guidance note for applying consortia Section 4:
Overview of Outcome 3: Crisis-Ready and Responsive Education Sector (10–15%) pages 5-7. 		Answered
13
9 I would like to confirm whether a competed PSEA assessment is required to submit a proposal (at the start of the process) or only to be awarded a grant (at the end of the process)?A valid and completed Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) assessment is a mandatory prerequisite at the grant award stage. According to the UN Common Partner Assessment Framework, a partner must score "Full Compliance" or "High Capacity" to clear the granting stage without strict risk-mitigation constraintsAnswered
14
10While the call states that “at least one consortium partner must meet ECW's Host eligibility criteria” i.e. hold a competed PSEA assessment. Is this to be understood as the consortium lead / the contracting party, must hold a valid PSEA?ECW requires that BOTH Consortium Lead organization to meet all minimum due diligence requirements, including a valid PSEA assessment, HACT assessment and CORE assessment, prior to grant award. Answered
15
11Given past discussions on the challenges faced, in some situations, for non-current-UN partners to secure PSEA in a timely manner. Can you share what measures ECW has taken to ensure that non-UN partners civil society groups interested in leading a consortium can secure a PSEA in time to enable them to compete?ECW recognises that some non-UN civil society organisations may face challenges in obtaining the required due diligence assessments, including PSEA assessments. In the current host arrangements, it is not feasible for ECW to undertake these assessments for applicants, although this could potentially change in the future with a new host. Organisations applying for funding must complete all applicable due diligence requirements prior to grant award. Therefore, along with a valid HACT microassessment with a low rating, a valid and completed Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) assessment is a mandatory prerequisite at the application and grant award stage. According to the UN Common Partner Assessment Framework, a partner must score "Full Compliance" or "High Capacity" to clear the granting stage without strict risk-mitigation constraints
In addition, ECW requires the Consortium Lead or Co-Lead to assess the PSEA capacity of consortium members through a PSEA activities checklist that mirrors the UN Common PSEA Assessment. 		Answered
16
12Norwegian Refugee CouncilINGOEligibilityBeyond the Co-leads and Consortium members, is it acceptable for consortium members further to sub-grant another local actor that is not part of the original consortium? Or any actor participating in the project needs to be originally member of the consortiumRefer to country consortia guidance note Section 5: consortium roles and responsbilities states that The consortium structure is limited to two tiers:
• Tier 1: Two Co-Lead Grantees
• Tier 2: Named Consortium Members (Sub-Grantees)
Further sub-granting below the consortium member level is not permitted. 		Answered
17
13Phoo Pwint Wai ThiCSO/NGOOtherDo consortium partners participate during the application preparation stage with lead consortium?Yes. Consortium partners are expected to be actively involved in the application development process. CORE proposals should be jointly designed by consortium members, with partners contributing to the needs analysis, programme design, budget development, governance arrangements, and localisation approach. Early and meaningful participation of all consortium members is strongly encouraged to ensure genuine partnership and shared ownership of the proposal
18
14CSO/NGOEligibility
19
15OtherWhen I created an account in the ECW Grants Management System (GMS) last week, I received the following automated email:
Thank you for registering at ECW-Grants Management System. Your application for an account is currently pending approval. Once it has been approved, you will receive another email containing information about how to log in, set your password, and other details.
— ECW-Grants Management System team

As my account is still pending approval, could you please share the contact information for the appropriate person or team we can reach out to check on the status of the account activation?		In case this is not yet solved, please reach out directly to our GM teamAnswered
20
16PPWTCSO/NGOScopeCould you please clarify how many consortiums ECW expects to fund in Myanmar under this call for proposals? This information would help applicants better understand the overall scope of the funding opportunity.Only one consortium will be awarded/funded under the joint CORE programme in Myanmar. thank youAnswered
21
17WFPUN AgencyImplementationAre sub-grantees of the consortium members prohibited/not allowed from partnering with local CSOs/NGOs to deliver assistance in the most hard-to-reach areas?The leads (Grantees) can sub-grant national or international NGOs, there is no restriction. However, subgrantees are not allowed to sub grant further down the lineAnswered
22
18Please clarify expectations on what can be included in the 20% overhead costs.There are 20% allocated to support costs, logistics, operations, ... and 7% which are admin fees.Answered
23
19INGOImplementationWe would like a bit more definition around direct implementation responsibilities in the statement in the consortium section of the call instructions:

Every consortium member, including the lead Grantee, must have a clearly defined and active role in implementing programme activities at the school and/or community level; partners that only receive funds without direct implementation responsibilities do not meet this requirement.

For example, would provision of key technical trainings / mentoring by one consortium partner to local implementing partners be considered as direct implementation as the result would impact at community / school levels? 		Direct implementation involves using funds to carry out activities, whereas outsourcing (Sub-granting) involves transferring funds to another organization to perform the activity.
24
20AAR JapanINGOEligibilityWe would like a bit more definition around direct implementation responsibilities in the statement in the consortium section of the call instructions:

Every consortium member, including the lead Grantee, must have a clearly defined and active role in implementing programme activities at the school and/or community level; partners that only receive funds without direct implementation responsibilities do not meet this requirement.

For example, would provision of key technical trainings / mentoring by one consortium partner to local implementing partners be considered as direct implementation as the result would impact at community / school levels?
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100