Workplan - Eligible Costs Flashcards
“The issue of eligible costs to be included in the AWP is very important. We are really facing challenges in working with INGOs on the field as they require us to pay part of their personnel that not part of the direct implementation of activities. Sometimes, we don’t have a choice but to work with them, particularly in the humanitarian context. How can we address that?
“
We encourage you to reach out to me (via ISD: programme, implementation & monitoring, workplans or email) when you may need help. We do allow for some apportionment of costs for their personnel directly linked to an activity. But, per our guidance note, for partners whose headquarters are located outside the country of implementation, any costs incurred by the headquarters which is not listed as an actual activity in the workplan is ineligible. Similarly, no headquarter costs can be included as an apportioned cost for implementing partner personnel. If needed, we can discuss at the HQ level with the IP so please don’t hesitate to reach out.
“In your example about timing (the WP is signed on 12 March and, as you rightly clarified, can only start from 12 March), are expenses incurred before that date (ie: rent, salaries for January/February) eligible? Can they be approved retroactively?
“
No. Any costs incurred prior to the signature of the workplan are ineligible.
“Are the eligible direct programme costs presented applicable to both CSOs and Government IPs ?
“
Yes. The type of eligible direct programme costs are applicable to both CSOs and government.
“Are utilities for a dedicated office to provide services to beneficiaries under IP execution considered eligible cost?
“
Yes, this is a direct eligible cost because the services to beneficiaries is an activity on the workplan.
Could we support the salary of staff of IPs who are engaged 100% of his time to produce direct results of UNFPA Programme (Midwives recruited to delivery FP services; )
Yes - we pay whatever percentage the person is spending on the UNFPA activity.
“With TTF funds Budget is allocated late, and WP entered late However, IP staff are already working. Salaries are paid retroactively.
“
“This should not happen. At no point can we commit or spend funds prior to the signed workplan and the approved cash transfer request. Our financial regulations and rules state any non-core funds must be ““fully funded”” before being implemented. Fully funded means ““cash received, an irrevocable letter of credit, or or, subject to guidelines established by the Executive Director, an agreement signed by UNFPA and the donor”.
Even if a workplan is signed, the policy for management of cash transfers to IP requires confirmation that funding is available to cover expenses before authorizing an IP to start incurring expenses. If an office experiences cash flow issues (i.e. funding is depleted but new installment is yet to be received from the donor), the office may refer to the risk management guidelines to request pre-funding (if qualified). “
WPs might not be signed on the first day of its implementation period for many good reasons but there could be personnel hired from the on going programme supported solely by UNFPA. How do we handle the salaries of these personnel?
It’s important to make sure the process is initiated well in advance so this doesn’t happen. Any expenditures incurred prior to the signing of a workplan and approval of the cash transfer request is considered ineligible.
Once a Face form is approved can the IP begin implementation of activities prior to receipt of funds?
Yes
How do we treat salary costs for previous period in case of delays in signing WP?
If they were not covered under a valid workplan, they are ineligible.
If a workplan has been signed by both UNFPA and the IP but the FACE form has not been approved/signed yet, can the IP start incurring costs that are eligible to be charged to UNFPA?
IP agreement and valid workplan are important prerequisites, however for IP to start incurring costs, UNFPA authorization is required. UNFPA authorization is typically granted in the form of FACE or reimbursement authorization request approval. Therefore unless FACE form is approved, IP cannot start incurring costs.
“Maybe the IPs use their fund and when the fund is available UNFPA just reimburse.
“
The comment was regarding a FACE form where the IP requested funds for funds spent prior to the signing of a workplan. UNFPA cannot reimburse an IP for those expenses because there was not a valid workplan in place nor was there an approved cash transfer request for those expenses incurred.
If a workplan has been signed by both UNFPA and the IP but the FACE form has not been approved/signed yet, can the IP start incurring costs that are eligible to be charged to UNFPA?
IP agreement and valid workplan are important prerequisites, however for IP to start incurring costs, UNFPA authorization is required. UNFPA authorization is typically granted in the form of FACE or reimbursement authorization request approval.
At times due to internal processes, the WP gets signed in time, IP submits the request in time, but payment of advance is done late. Then the IP choses to use their own resources whilst awaiting the advance from UNFPA. pls advise of this is allowed.
As you know IP agreement and valid workplan are important prerequisites, however for IP to start incurring costs, UNFPA authorization is required. To answer your question, if request submitted by IP had been approved, IP can start implementation
