The Global Fund has issued a request for expressions of interest (EOI) from organizations willing to serve as a contractor for local fund agent (LFA) services for a period of six years.
OIG investigation of Global Fund PR in Bangladesh reveals fraud and misuse of funds amounting to about $100,000
Staff from the National Tuberculosis Control Program (NTP) in Bangladesh falsified documents to support training-related expenditures between July 2015 and September 2016, according to an investigation conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The NTP was principal recipient (PR) for a TB grant (BGD-T-NTP) worth $31.7 million.
On 10 January, we published an article with the headline “Global Fund LFA tenders will be for six years instead of the current four.” There were two errors in the article.
Until the Global Fund defines its risk appetite, it can’t know what level of assurance is required: OIG audit
“The work on defining risk appetite is in its early stage and until [it is] sufficiently advanced, there is limited guidance on the required level of assurance.” This is one of main conclusions of an audit by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of in-country assurance.
The Global Fund Board has adopted a set of “principles” governing the selection of LFAs (some of the principles are really policies); has delegated to the Audit and Finance Committee (AFC) the authority to modify the principles; and has delegated to the Secretariat the authority to establish the procedures for procurement of LFA services. The principles were recommended by the Secretariat and endorsed by the AFC.
An investigation by the Office of the Inspector General has found evidence of systematic embezzlement of program funds, fraudulent practices, and collusion by staff of a sub-recipient for an HIV grant to Nigeria. The OIG released a report on investigation on 3 May.
Both watchdogs and the OIG are having trouble accessing useful and complete country-level data to track and verify grant budgeting, expenditure and results data. There are also significant obstacles keeping implementers from meeting requirements for reporting to national oversight structures. These two conclusions drove two days of strategic discussions at an Aidspan roundtable in early August drawing participants from 10 countries.
The Global Fund recently released a wide-ranging Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document on how to implement decisions made by the Global Fund Board in November 2009 concerning cost-cutting measures and the new grant architecture. The document is entitled "Grant Signing Frequently Asked Questions," though in fact it covers many issues beyond those related to grant signing.
The role of the CCM in overseeing the implementation of grants is not well understood by most CCMs. As a result, CCM oversight is not working in most countries.