STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF WAVE 5 RCC PROPOSALS

Author:

Bernard Rivers

Article Type:

Article Number: 5

ABSTRACT In its report to the Global Fund Board on the results of Wave 5 of the Rolling Continuation Channel, the TRP identified the key strengths and weakness of the proposals submitted.

In its report to the Global Fund Board on the results of Wave 5 of the Rolling Continuation Channel (RCC) (see previous article), the TRP identified the key strengths and weakness of the proposals submitted.

The key strengths identified by the TRP were as follows:

• The proposed interventions clearly build on the achievements of the expiring grant and demonstrate additionality and complementarity to existing Global Fund and other funding.
• There is a clear focus on vulnerable or most-at-risk populations.
• The proposed interventions fit within the country’s overall health policy and development framework, and are consistent with international guidelines and best practice.
• The proposed activities are developed from a sound assessment of country-specific and epidemiological context.
• The proposals contain performance frameworks representing robust plans for monitoring and evaluation of activity outputs, outcome and impact of interventions.
• There is an appropriate level of detail in the financial gap analysis and needs assessment.
• The budget request includes clear unit costs and assumptions.
• The development of the proposal is based on a broad participation of stakeholders.
• The proposed PR has a proven track record for implementation.
• There is demonstrated commitment from the national government, not only financially, but in terms of forward-looking strategic plans.

The key weaknesses identified by the TRP were as follows:

• The proposal objectives lack adequate level of detail, such as information on responsibilities for implementing the pertinent activities under them.
• There is a lack of detail regarding the synergies among the proposed activities and those currently supported by the Global Fund, the national government, or other donor resources.
• The coordination of proposed TB/HIV activities is left undefined or not included.
• There are inconsistencies among different budget tables within the proposal, as well as large budget items that are insufficiently justified.
• There are unclear expenses, such as overhead, management fees, planning and administration.
• There are weak definitions of the relationships and coordination efforts among PRs, SRs and other implementing bodies.
• There is inappropriate or inadequate disaggregation of key targets and performance indicators.