REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Transcription

1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT OF REPORTS ON GAPS IN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE RESEARCH AND IMPLEMENTATION IN LOW AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES TO ACCELERATE IMPROVEMENT Proposals for: Development of a report and manuscript on priority PHC gap and research plan Maximum amount: $20,000 USD Closing Date/Time: Friday November 3, :59 GMT 1.! Background In collaboration with the Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) and the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research ( the Alliance ) at the World Health Organization, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), Ariadne Labs is developing a Primary Health Care Measurement and Implementation Research Consortium. This Consortium will bring together researchers and policymakers from multiple disciplines representing academic institutions, government agencies, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations to accelerate progress in primary health care (PHC) research in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). The ultimate goal of the consortium is to develop a robust PHC global research network structure and to secure the resources needed to carry out prioritized and policy-relevant PHC research to support better measurement, implementation, and improvement efforts in four priority areas for PHC in LMIC. This research will support country and global efforts to build the high-quality PHC systems that are needed to reach effective universal health coverage (UHC) and the health-related sustainable development goals (SDGs). In July 2017, a group of international PHC researchers and policy makers convened in Boston to identify the priority research areas that will be the initial focus of the consortium. This meeting was informed by a rapid scoping review of PHC research in LMIC and resulted in the prioritization of four areas that represent the biggest gaps in knowledge in intervention or implementation and where research is most likely to catalyze improvements in PHC performance (Table 1). For each priority area, the expert group identified specific areas in which knowledge is needed as potential targets for new research. Additionally, the expert group generated an initial list of potential research questions related to each priority area (Annex 1). A meeting report describing the proceedings of the July 2017 priority-setting meeting can found here.

2 Table 1: Priority and research areas identified during the July 2017 Priority Setting Meeting Prioritized Research Areas Specific Areas identified for Research 1) Quality, Safety, and Performance Management Data use Quality management Learning systems 2) PHC Policies and Governance Community engagement Social accountability 3) Organization and models of care Workforce and team development Scale New models for management 4) PHC Financing Market structure Political economy Uptake of evidence This RFP is being released to solicit proposals to produce reports that will further define key gaps in knowledge about how to measure and improve PHC, develop potential research implementation plans to support initial work of the research consortium, and create a manuscript inclusion in a proposed journal supplement. Grantees selected through this request will develop reports in one of the four areas identified as high priority for future research (see Table 1). The reports will identify existing gaps and priority research questions and outline approaches to begin to address identified knowledge needs. The reports developed by grantees selected through this RFP will form the basis of the initial work of the Research Consortium and will be published as part of a special journal supplement in Each final report will be expected to include three core components:! A mapping of existing gaps in knowledge in the chosen priority area, including areas where there is evidence of what works to improve the gap and where there are major gaps in evidence regarding how to measure and/or improve the area;! Based on the results of the gap map, a list of prioritized research questions for the chosen topic area selected. This list should build upon questions identified during the expert convening (see Annex 1).! A research implementation plan that proposes how to answer at least three of the prioritized research questions and defines how research whether primary, synthesis, or knowledge uptake/translation would be conducted to answer the questions within a network structure. Research implementation plans should include specific aims, study design, targeted geographic regions, potential research team and partners, overview workplan, and estimated total budget needed to conduct the research. After development of the report, grantees will be expected to generate a manuscript for inclusion in a planned journal supplement. 2

3 While selected grantees are developing reports, Ariadne Labs and the Alliance will generate a proposal for how a Research Consortium will be structured to carry out the priority PHC research, potentially including the work described in grantees Research Implementation Plans. To facilitate this process, during the grant period, grantees will participate in virtual convenings to ensure that opportunities for intersectoral and crosscutting research are identified and to help inform the network structure for the Consortium. We anticipate formally launching the Research Consortium in October Format 2.! Proposal Requirements Proposals should be a maximum of 8 pages single spaced (not including cover page, references, CVs, budget, budget justification, or letters of support). Please use an 11 or 12 point font, 1 inch margins, and 8 1/2 by 11 inch format. All submissions should be electronic in a PDF as a single document with the exception of the budget which should be submitted according to excel template provided here. Content Bidders should select a priority area (from Table 1) for the proposal. The proposal needs to describe how the bidder would develop the final report and include the following sections: 1.! Cover page (not included in page count): Title, contact details for the bidder ( project leader ) including institutional name, administrative s, and telephone numbers 2.! Specific aims and motivation: Specific aims and a motivation statement, including the team s rationale for bidding 3.! Background: Describe background initial knowledge of the chosen gap and existing work to address measurement and improvement in PHC. This should illustrate the respondent s familiarity with the priority area chosen 4.! Proposed methodology for generating report: Please state the methodology the team would take if selected as a grantee to develop the components of the report, including: a.! Knowledge and research gap map: Including the approach you will take to identify where there is evidence of effective approaches and interventions designed to address the area of focus and where there are significant knowledge gaps in which additional research is needed. b.! Priority research questions: How you will work from, and build upon, the initial list of prioritized research questions (see Annex 1), using the knowledge obtained through the Gap Map, to develop a list of specific priority research questions in the topic area? This section should include information about what stakeholders you will engage and how prioritization will occur. c.! Research Implementation plan: Describe how you will choose the top three focused priority research questions and develop a research implementation plan for them. The approach should also include identification of potential data sources and any preliminary primary or secondary analyses that would be done to support development of the plan. d.! Plans for development of the report into a manuscript for inclusion in the Consortium supplement. e.! Engagement with LMIC stakeholders: Please describe how the team will engage with or include policymakers and stakeholders in LMIC throughout the process of developing the report, as well as how the research described in the research implementation plan would involve policymakers, researchers, and/or stakeholders from LMIC. 3

4 5.! Short institutional profile(s) and profiles of anticipated team members: This includes the relevant experience related to the priority research areas and activities, the team assembled, and any relevant previous work and capacity. This should include connections to policymakers and implementers to ensure a multidisciplinary approach to development. Full CVs up to 5 pages each should be annexed to the proposal and are not included in page count. 6.! Budget and timeline (not included in page count): Budget should be submitted using the template provided, which includes the following line items: a.! Personnel expenses (broken down by role, time covered, salary and fringe amount) b.! Non-Personnel costs c.! Other expenses (e.g. consultants, sub-contracts) d.! Institutional indirect fees 7.! Budget justification (not included in page count): Budget justification should explain all budget line items in detail and not exceed 3 pages. 3.! Eligibility: Non-profit, government, and academic institutions are eligible to apply. Proposals must have leadership by and/or substantial representation from researchers and/or policymakers from LMIC. While participants of the July 2017 Priority Setting Meeting are encouraged to apply, no priority will be given to meeting participants in the selection process. The following scoring will be used in reviewing proposals: 1.! Applicant capacity (30%) 2.! Description of proposed approach to develop the report and manuscript (30%) 3.! Budget and budget justification (30%) 4.! Overall quality and completeness of submission (10%) 4.! Funding The maximum amount of funding is USD 20,000 direct costs, plus IDC up to 15% depending on the type of the lead agency and requirements of our funder (see budget template). Agreements will be concluded with a single entity, which will have the right to sub-contract to others if necessary. 5.! Timeline of RFP and Report Date November 3, 2017 at 23:59 GMT December 20, 2017 March 31, 2018 May 1, 2018 May 15, 2018 May 31, 2018 July 31, 2018 Action Proposals due Selected bidders notified Draft of Gap Map and priority question list First draft of full report Review by funders Final draft of report Development of report into manuscript format for submission as part of the supplement 4

5 6.! Further Instructions to Bidders Closing Date for Submission of Proposals Proposals must be received by Ariadne Labs at the address: no later than Friday, November 3, 2017 at 23:59 GMT with the subject line RFP Submission: [your name]. Communications during the RFP Period A prospective bidder requiring any clarification on technical or contractual matters can contact Brooke Huskey, bhuskey@ariadnelabs.org. All questions and provided responses will be posted here. Amendment of the RFP Ariadne Labs may, at any time before the closing date, for any reason, whether on its own initiative or in response to a clarification requested by a (prospective) bidder, modify the RFP by written amendment. Amendments could, inter alia, include modification of the project scope or requirements, the project timeline expectations and/or extension of the closing date for submission. All prospective bidders that have submitted a Proposal with regard to the RFP will be notified in writing of all amendments to the RFP and will, where applicable, be invited to amend their Proposal accordingly. Clarification of a submitted Proposal Ariadne Labs may, at its discretion, ask any bidder for clarification of any part of its submitted Proposal. The request for clarification and the response shall be in writing. No change in price or substance of the Proposal shall be sought, offered, or permitted during this exchange. 7.! Award Process External Review of Proposal The Ariadne Labs/Alliance/BMGF team will commission an external review of all proposals received to select grantees. However, Ariadne Labs reserves the right to: A.! Award the contract to a bidder of its choice, regardless of budget so long as below the stated limit B.! Accept or reject any proposal, and to annul the solicitation process and reject all proposals at any time prior to award of contract, without thereby incurring any liability to the affected bidder or bidders and without any obligation to inform the affected bidder or bidders of the grounds for Ariadne Labs action; C.! Award the contract on the basis of Ariadne Labs particular objectives to a bidder whose proposal is considered to be the most responsive to the Organization s needs and the activity concerned; D.! Not award any contract at all. Ariadne Labs has the right to eliminate bids for technical or other reasons throughout the evaluation/selection process. Ariadne Labs shall not in any way be obligated to reveal, or discuss with any bidder, how a proposal was assessed, or to provide any other information relative to the evaluation/selection process or to state the reasons for elimination to any bidder. NOTE: Ariadne Labs is acting in good faith by issuing this RFP. However, this document does not obligate Ariadne Labs to contract for the performance of any work, nor for the supply of any products or services. 5

6 Ariadne Labs Right to enter into Negotiations Ariadne Labs reserves the right to enter into negotiations with one or more bidders of its choice, including but not limited to negotiation of the terms of the proposal(s), the price quoted in such proposal(s) and/or the deletion of certain parts of the work, components or items requested for under this RFP. Signing of the Contract Within 30 days of receipt of the contract, the successful bidder shall sign and date the contract and return it to Ariadne Labs according to the instructions provided at that time. If the bidder does not accept the contract terms without changes, then Ariadne Labs has the right not to proceed with the selected bidder and instead contract with another bidder of its choice. Payment Schedule Compensation shall be paid to the grantee, per the schedule below. Total invoicing by the Grantee shall not exceed $20,000 plus the applicable indirect cost. Payment Schedule Amount to Due Date Deliverable be paid 50% Upon signing of award (December or Fully-executed award January 2018) 20% March 31, 2018 Gap Map and three research questions. 20% May 31, 2018 Final draft of report all components of the report 10% July 31, 2017 Report modified into requested manuscript format suitable for submission as part of the supplement 6

7 Annex 1: Prioritized Research Areas and Questions Prioritized Research Area 1) Quality, Safety, and Performance Management 2) PHC Policies and Governance 3) Organization and models of care Specific Areas of Research Innovation Data use Quality management Learning systems Community engagement Social accountability Workforce and team development Scale New models for management 4) PHC Financing Market structure Political economy Uptake of evidence Potential Research Questions 1.! What is the current state of facility management? 2.! What are individual competencies at the individual, facility, and system levels for effective leadership/management at PHC facility levels? How do we measure these three levels? 3.! How do we understand how context impacts how well good management can result in targeted outcomes including PHC functions? 4.! How do you improve management? 5.! What are the most effective ways to improve technical and social competence? 6.! What is the minimum skill set and competency with new delivery models/systems 7.! How does a PHC systems ensure a growing degree of fit between need and competency required? 8.! How can competent HCWs be recruited and retained? 9.! What changes are needed to ensure newly graduated HCWs are competent? 1.! What are good models of mixed health systems for PHC? 2.! How do we build governance models to support mixed health systems? 3.! What is the real situation with rural and urban workforce management? Is there a shortage of workforce in rural areas or an overflow in urban? 4.! How can we assess social accountability? 5.! How do we improve both internal and external accountability? 6.! What tools are needed to effectively set priorities at the local level? 7.! How are priorities being designed and executed? Can there be new ways of gaining resources while decreasing dependence on external aid? 8.! How can we improve strategic purchasing at the local level? 9.! What information is needed to address corruption at the local level? 1.! What is the taxonomy of models of care across different settings? 2.! Range of effective service delivery models in urban areas? 3.! Use patterns in PHC for a set of functions/conditions? 4.! Referrals/transitions of care? How do we measure these? 5.! What does a PHC maturity model look like? 6.! What is the taxonomy of PHC service delivery models? Setting, provider, user, integration 7.! What are dynamic empanelment models? Insured; risk stratification linked with information systems 8.! What are better team structures? How to help teams work together? How do they work together? 1.! How does the presence of private sector provider influence the quality of public sector providers (and vise versa)? 2.! What are requirements for successful public-private partnerships that allow scaling up of quality care in LMIC? 3.! What is role of private sector in scaling up quality in PHC in LMIC? 4.! What do we know about best practices to level the playing field for quality and safety of PHC services between public and private sector? 1

8 Prioritized Research Area Specific Areas of Research Innovation Potential Research Questions 5.! Is there knowledge and evidence about how to mobilize private sector to reach last mile populations? 6.! How do we make sure private sector is able to receive payment? 7.! How to best improve managerial capacity in ministries of health for contract management? 8.! How do different UHC schemes affect health equity? 9.! Does PHC need pooled funds against financial risk in LMIC? 10.! What are appropriate payment systems for quality PHC depending on maturity model of PHC system and capacity to manage and implement payment systems with different levels of complexity? 11.! How to develop provider payment mechanisms to promote vertical integration of care? 12.! How do we make supply-side financing from governments more efficient? 13.! What commodities can be deemed cost-efficient? 14.! Why do countries not scale/implement what they ve identified as policy or best practices? 15.! Alignment of incentives at facility level. Should facilities have a bank account? Should they have the autonomy to use it? 16.! What are the funding flows for PHC? How to ensure flow of funding to facilities are efficiently used? 17.! Is there a minimum level of spending for PHC that should be an international benchmark? 2