REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

SECOND OUTCOMES AND IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE PILOT PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINES ADVANCE MARKET COMMITMENT(AMC)

DATED: 09/09/2020

043-2020-GAVI-RFP

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION..................................................................................42. RFP INSTRUCTIONS......................................................................................................42.2. RFP Rules.....................................................................................................................42.3. Time Plan......................................................................................................................52.4. RFP Process and Contact Information..........................................................................52.5. Required Proposal Format & Proposal Content............................................................62.6. Conflict of interest..........................................................................................................63. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR THIS EVALUATION............................................63.2. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.............................................................................................63.3 Background....................................................................................................................7The Pilot AMC for Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV)...............................................74. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION.......................................................................................84.2. Objectives......................................................................................................................84.3. Scope............................................................................................................................85. EVALUATION QUESTIONS...........................................................................................10

Request For Proposal043-2020-GAVI-RFP

5.2. Impact..........................................................................................................................105.3. Outcome......................................................................................................................105.4. Lessons learnt.............................................................................................................116. METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................117. DELIVERABLES.............................................................................................................138. EVALUATION CRITERIA...............................................................................................148.2. Evaluation Criteria.......................................................................................................149. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS......................................................................................149.2. Requirements for Technical Proposal.........................................................................149.3. Requirements for Financial Proposal..........................................................................1510. MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT.............................................................................1511. ANNEXES....................................................................................................................1511.2. Annex 1: Written Intent To Participate......................................................................1511.3. Annex 2: Q&A Form..................................................................................................1511.4. Annex 3: Financial Proposal Template.....................................................................1511.5. Annex 4 Gavi PCV Results Framework.....................................................................16

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

1. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATIONThe purpose of the end line outcomes and impact evaluation of the pilot Pneumococcal vaccines Advance Market Commitment (AMC) is two-fold:Summative: Explore the extent to which the pilot AMC has achieved its overarching goal of reducing morbidity and mortality from pneumococcal disease, as well as its four specific objectives. including the unintended effects.

Formative: Explore the effectiveness and efficiency of the AMC design and implementation to the extent that these processes contribute to explaining the extent that outcomes have been achieved. The evaluation will document lessons learned to improve the design of potential future AMCs or other relevant mechanisms. This end line outcomes and impact evaluation will cover the entire duration of the pilot AMC project- 2009 to 2020(official end date of the pilot project).

2. RFP INSTRUCTIONS2.2. RFP Rules

Gavi invites you as a Service Provider to submit a competitive bid by responding to this “Request for Proposal” (RFP) for the final evaluation of the pilot Pneumococcal vaccines Advance Market Commitment (AMC). Please follow these instructions in completing your bid.

i. This entire RFP and all related discussions, meetings, exchanges of information, and subsequent negotiations that may occur are confidential and are subject to the confidentiality terms and conditions of the Intent to Participate letter attached as Annex 1. All bidders are required to complete and return the Intent to Participate letter.

ii. The issuance of this RFP in no way commits Gavi to make an award. Gavi is under no obligation to justify the reasons for its supplier(s) choices as a result of this RFP. Gavi may choose not to justify its business rewarding decision to the participants to this tender.

iii. Gavi reserves the right to:- reject any proposal without obligation or liability to the potential Service Provider;- withdraw this RFP at any time before or after submission of bids, without prior

notice, explanation or reason;- modify the evaluation procedure described in this RFP;- accept other than the lowest price offer;- award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions or

requests for best and final offers;- decide not to award any contract to any Service Provider responding to this RFP,- award its total requirements to one Service Provider or apportion those

requirements among two or more Service Providers as Gavi may deem necessary.

iv. All bids must indicate that they are valid for no less than sixty (60) days from the quotation due date.

v. Faxed copies will not be accepted. Late quotations are subject to rejection.

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 3/15

vi. Gavi reserves the right to request additional data, information, discussions or presentations to support part of, or your entire bid proposal. Service Providers or their representatives must be available to discuss the details of their proposal during the evaluation process.

vii. All responses should be submitted in electronic version.

viii. The proposed time plan set out below indicates the process Gavi intends to follow. If there are any changes to this time plan, Gavi will notify you in writing.

2.3. Time PlanEvent Responsible Party TimelinesLaunch RFP Gavi September 9, 2020Send Intent to Participate letter Service Provider September 21, 2020Q&A sent to Gavi Service Provider September 21, 2020Conflict of Interest sent to Gavi Service Provider September 21, 2020Gavi open response to Q&A Gavi September 28, 2020

Proposals received by Gavi Service Provider October 12, 2020Service Provider Selection Gavi & Service Provider October 30, 2020Contract issued Gavi & Service Provider December 2, 2020Project start Gavi & Service Provider January 2, 2020

2.4. RFP Process and Contact Information

2.4.1. Instructions to Service ProvidersAny Service Provider may request further clarification on matters pertaining to this RFP by submitting its question(s) in writing to the individual identified below. Due date for Q&A submission is stated in Section 2, para 2.2 Time Plan. In order to keep the RFP competition fair, questions on the substance of the RFP will only be answered in a public document released as stated in Section 2, para 2.2 Time Plan. Please do not contact other Gavi staff to discuss the RFP. To address your questions, please use the form attached as Annex 2.

2.4.1. Confirmation of Intent / ConfidentialityPlease transmit your intent to participate using and signing the document in Annex 1. This RFP contains information that is confidential and proprietary as stated by the “Intent to Participate” document. Each Service Provider is required to transmit a written confirmation of intent or decline as stated in Section 2, para 2.2 Time Plan. Confirmations of intent should be submitted by email to the below mentioned contacts.

Acceptable means of transmission include computer file with digital signature.

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 4/15

Gavi RFP Contact Information

Question Type Contact Person Contact Role/Title Contact Information

ContractualRFP & Contract Terms & Conditions, Proposal Format, etc.

Romain Nicolas Procurement Manager

Phone: +41 22 909 71 68 Email: micolas@gavi.org

TechnicalRFP Deliverable Specifications & Requirements

Esther SavilleHead,

EvaluationsPhone: +41 22 909 6796Email: e saville@gavi.org

2.5. Required Proposal Format & Proposal ContentResponses to this RFP must consist of the following:

1. Cover letter, which includes: Name and address of the Service Provider Name, title, telephone number, and e-mail address of the person authorized to

commit the Service Provider to a contract Name, title, telephone number, and e-mail address of the person to be contacted

regarding the content of the proposal, if different from above A signature of this letter done by a duly authorized representative of your

company

2. Electronic copy Documents and spreadsheets in Office 2010 format. Diagrams and drawings in Visio 2010 or PowerPoint Office 2010 format

Please do not submit generic marketing materials, broadly descriptive attachments, or other general literature.

2.6. Conflict of interestNo members of the team may have been involved in the design, implementation, supervision or coordination of any intervention to be assessed. Please complete, sign and send this conflict of interest as stated in Section 2, para 2.2 Time Plan.

3. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR THIS EVALUATION3.2. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance

Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance was formally launched at the World Economic Forum in January 2000 and was constituted as an innovative international public-private partnership, which was created to

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 5/15

bring together the best of what key UN agencies, governments, the vaccine industry, private sector and civil society has to offer to further Gavi’s mission. Gavi’s mission is “saving children’s lives and protecting people’s health by increasing equitable use of vaccine in lower-income countries.”

Rather than duplicate the services of the many players in the field of health and vaccines, Gavi relies on country-based systems and works with partners with widespread field presence to deliver its programmes. Partners contribute to the Alliance through participation in strategy and policy-setting, advocacy, fundraising, vaccine development and procurement, country support and immunisation delivery.

Gavi provides support to countries to introduce new vaccines, to conduct supplementary immunization campaigns for specific vaccinations, as well as support for health system and immunization strengthening. Eligible countries develop and submit applications for support based on country plans. This application is then reviewed by the Independent Review Committee (IRC). The IRC recommends a course of action on the country application (approval or resubmittal) to the Gavi Executive Committee, Board and/or CEO who then approves the IRC recommendations and, in the case of approval, the funds or vaccines are sent to the country. For more information please visit the Gavi website: http://www.gavi.org/about/mission , http://www.gavi.org/support/

3.3 Background

The Pilot AMC for Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV)

Advance Market Commitments (AMC) for vaccines aim to encourage the development and production of affordable vaccines tailored to the needs of developing countries. Through a forward-looking binding contract from donors and international agencies guaranteeing a viable market for target vaccines, AMCs encourage vaccine makers to develop or build manufacturing capacity for urgently needed vaccines.

In June 2009, the Governments of Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Russian Federation, Norway and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, collectively pledged a total of US$ 1.5 billion to fund a pilot AMC against pneumococcal disease. The pilot AMC for pneumococcal vaccines completed its tenth year of implementation in 2018, having been launched in 2007 with an overall aim of reducing morbidity and mortality from pneumococcal disease by accelerating the development, availability, and uptake of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs). Specifically, the objectives of this pilot were to:

Accelerate the development of pneumococcal vaccines that meet developing country needs (e.g. serotype composition and vaccine presentation) as specified in the Target Product Profile (TPP).

Bring forward the availability of effective pneumococcal vaccines for developing countries by guaranteeing the initial purchase price for a specific quantity of the new vaccines that represents value for money and incentivizes manufacturers to invest in scaling-up production capacity to meet developing country vaccine demand.

Accelerate vaccine uptake by ensuring predictable vaccine pricing for countries and manufacturers, including binding commitments by participating companies to supply the vaccines at low, long-term, and sustainable prices after the AMC finances are depleted.

Pilot the effectiveness of the AMC mechanism as an incentive for needed vaccines and to learn lessons for possible future AMCs.

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 6/15

Following a Monitoring and Evaluability assessment study conducted in 2008, a monitoring and evaluation framework with four components was adopted:

A baseline study to determine the point of comparison for future M&E, including the development of counterfactuals. The baseline study was completed in 2010 and included an assessment of potential counterfactuals, proposed indicators, and industry and country-level interviews to characterise the PCV market environment prior to the pilot AMC launch.

Annual monitoring of both the AMC and the complementary activities required to support the public health goal of the AMC. Annual Reports have been completed covering the period June 2009-December 2019 here with information on the status of implementation and selected process and outcome indicators.

A process and design evaluation two years after the launch of the AMC to assess whether the AMC mechanism was working as expected and to obtain information on the AMC design issues. The process and design evaluation was completed in 2013 and assessed how this pilot AMC’s design and implementation features have enabled or constrained progress towards intended AMC-specific objectives, and identified future challenges here.

Outcome and impact evaluations every four years after the signing of the first AMC Supply Agreement to assess the extent to which the AMC has achieved its goal and objectives; The Gavi Secretariat commissioned the first Pneumococcal AMC pilot outcomes and impact evaluation in 2015. Other evaluation activities relevant to the AMC include a 2011 analysis of lessons learned in relation to the AMC design and process that provides important background on design-decisions taken. An overall results framework outlining the theory of change and performance indicators for Gavi support for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine were also developed.

All AMC background documents and reports can be found on the Gavi website at:https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/innovative-financing/pneumococcal-amc

4. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION4.2. Objectives

This RFP is for the second and end line outcome and impact evaluation. The main objectives of this evaluation are:

1. To explore the extent to which the pilot AMC has achieved its overarching goal of reducing morbidity and mortality from pneumococcal disease through the mechanisms proposed on its theory of change, as well as its four specific objectives.

2. To explore the effectiveness and efficiency of the AMC design and implementation to the extent that these processes contribute to explaining the extent that outcomes have been achieved and document lessons learned to improve the design of potential future AMCs.

The results of this end line evaluation of the pilot AMC mechanism will be critical for both learning and accountability to all AMC stakeholders. The recommendations based on lessons learned will also inform potential AMCs or other relevant mechanisms.

4.3. ScopeThe evaluation will be retrospective, covering the entire period of the pilot AMC mechanism implementation 2009-2020 and will build upon the M&E work that has already been done, including the outcome and impact study undertaken in 2015.

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 7/15

As proposed in the AMC M&E framework, the second outcomes and impact evaluation will focus on the achievement of AMC outcomes and will assess causal linkages between the AMC intervention and results achieved through comparisons with appropriate counterfactuals. The second outcomes and impact evaluation should be informed by, but is not limited to, the proposed counterfactuals in the baseline study. The evaluation should propose updates to these counterfactuals, or development of new counterfactuals as needed, with justification1.

Using a theory-based approach, issues related to AMC design processes, design elements, and implementation should be explored as explanatory factors for observed and estimated changes in outcome and impact measures. As such, the evaluation should build upon rather than replicate work of the process and design evaluation completed in 2013.

The evaluation should explore changes—positive and negative, intended and unintended—generated by the AMC. As such, it is expected that the evaluation review the overall status of key performance indicators related to the AMC outcomes and impact included in the Results Framework for Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (Annex 4).

Analysis scope:

Counterfactuals

Assessment of the suitability of previously defined counterfactuals and proposing alternatives with justification as needed:

Markets for PCV and other new vaccines in non-AMC-eligible developing countries

Markets for PCV in AMC-eligible countries graduated or graduating from Gavi-support

Markets for other new vaccines in AMC-eligible countries Modelled market scenario analyses

Outcome

Progress toward outcomes should be assessed using historical and projected vaccine supply and demand estimates and forecasts, including but not limited to:

Vaccine supply and demand estimates from 2009 to-date Projected vaccine supply forecasts through 2020 Projected Gavi demand and coverage forecasts through 2020 Competition and new manufacturers entering the market

Impact

Comprehensive assessment of existing empirical evidence and model-based estimates of disease burden and vaccination impact, including but not limited to:

Empirical evidence of changes in pneumococcal disease burden and impact of PCV vaccination

Modelled vaccine impact estimates from 2009-2020 Indirect and broader effects (e.g. herd effects, equity, child mortality, broader

social and economic effects)

Lessons learned, replicability and recommendations

Detailed documentation of lessons learned and considerations for future AMC

Components of the design that are replicable in similar mechanisms What worked well, why and how? Evidence based actionable recommendations for future potential AMC or

other similar mechanismsCounterfactuals Assessment of the suitability of previously defined counterfactuals and proposing

alternatives with justification as needed: Markets for PCV and other new vaccines in non-AMC-eligible developing

countries

1 For example, counterfactuals from 2008-9 may no longer be in the same SES bands and so should be reviewed for suitability.

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 8/15

Markets for PCV in AMC-eligible countries graduated or graduating from Gavi-support

Markets for other new vaccines in AMC-eligible countries Modelled market scenario analyses

Outcome

Progress toward outcomes should be assessed using historical and projected vaccine supply and demand estimates and forecasts, including but not limited to:

Vaccine supply and demand estimates from 2009 to-date Projected vaccine supply forecasts through 2020 Projected Gavi demand and coverage forecasts through 2020 Competition and new manufacturers entering the market

Impact

Comprehensive assessment of existing empirical evidence and model-based estimates of disease burden and vaccination impact, including but not limited to:

Empirical evidence of changes in pneumococcal disease burden and impact of PCV vaccination

Modelled vaccination impact estimates from 2009-2020

Lessons learned, replicability and recommendations

Detailed documentation of lessons learned and considerations for future AMC

Components of the design that are replicable in similar mechanisms What worked well, why and how? Evidence based actionable recommendations for future AMC mechanisms

5. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 5.2. Impact

1. To what extent has the AMC contributed to the reduction of morbidity and mortality from pneumococcal disease in Gavi eligible countries?

o During implementation of the project and at the end of current or future agreements with manufacturers?

o To what extent has the AMC contributed to equitable reduction of morbidity and mortality from pneumococcal disease in Gavi-eligible countries?  (Please refer to the equity dimensions represented in the Gavi indicators frameworks for the 2016-2020 period)

o To what extent has the AMC contributed to indirect and broader effects (e.g. herd effects, equity, child mortality, broader social and economic effects)?

o What are the identified mechanisms for the proposed impact? How reliable are estimations of impact in terms of other potential factors?

5.3. Outcome2. To what extent can the causal path from the AMC Theory of Change be validated?

What were the main contributors (and relative weight of different components) to the long-term outcome of the pilot AMC according to the available data?

To what extent have internal and external factors (e.g. changes to Gavi policies, certain elements of AMC design, the role of the Bank) impacted the execution and results of the pilot AMC?

3. To what extent has the AMC led to an acceleration of investment in additional manufacturing capacity and availability of supply of suitable pneumococcal vaccines for Gavi‐eligible countries?

o To what extent did the AMC accelerate investments by manufacturers in research and development of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines meeting the Target Product Profile?

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 9/15

o To what extent did the AMC result in a change to vaccine manufacturer perceptions / assessment of the viability of the market in developing countries?

4. Whether, why and how has the AMC resulted in the availability of affordable and sustainable PCV for Gavi-transitioning and transitioned (fully self-financing) countries?

o To what extent has AMC achieved proper balance between supply and demand for PCV?

o What factors facilitated or hindered achievement of forecasted targets?o Whether and how the AMC contributed to increased uptake of PCV and sustained

coverage in countries?o To what extent did the AMC mechanism result in a donor-driven prioritization at

eligible countries in terms of their budgeting? o To what extent did the AMC pilot modify countries policies related to budgeting and

financing for health in general and vaccines in particular? 5. What were the key positive and negative unintended consequences of the pilot AMC for

Gavi, donors, manufacturers and countries and how did they impact AMC objectives?

5.4. Lessons learnt 6. To what extent is the pilot AMC model still relevant given the changes in the market

environment?7. Whether and how changes in the pilot model would have contributed to more effective

execution and better results?8. What are the key lessons learned from this pilot that could be used to inform development of

similar initiatives in the future?o What are the learnings at country level in terms of budgeting and financing?o Are there specific lessons that could inform the use of AMC-type mechanisms to meet

critical goals for vaccine development, production and rollout related to vaccines against emerging and re-emerging pandemic and epidemic prone diseases like Ebola and Covid-19?

9. To what extent is the AMC pilot replicable? Based on the validation of the AMC ToC and causal pathways, are there aspects of the model that are seen to be most critical if replicating for other vaccines?

10. To what extent does the AMC pilot compare with other similar mechanisms and what could have been the implication if other mechanisms were tried instead of the AMC approach?

Bidders may propose additional evaluation questions to the above list of evaluation questions as part of their proposals, with justification.

6. METHODOLOGYIn order to respond to the above questions and provide a high-quality report, bidders are expected to employ a range of evaluation methods and to pursue innovation where possible. Firms bidding on the evaluation are strongly encouraged to propose innovative methodological approaches in response to the evaluation questions. They should also describe their strategy for safeguarding the quality and credibility of the evaluation, including their proposed verification strategy and methods for determining and estimating contribution with justification, and strengths and limitations of counterfactuals. As noted above, the evaluation design should demonstrate how it will build upon the previous studies.

Bidders should describe their approach and considerations to overcome the limitations highlighted in the first outcomes and impact evaluation:

Challenges inherent in isolating the influence of the AMC from all the other concurrent factors

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 10/15

Limitations to understanding the true and precise mortality and morbidity impact of immunisation

The bidder should include the feasibility of/approach to undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of the AMC in their proposal. At a minimum, bidders should elaborate on the following methods and data collection and suggest additional methods as part of their proposal:

Counterfactuals:The incremental contribution of the AMC to any observed and estimated changes in outcome and impact measures will be assessed through counterfactual analysis. The bidder should consider a wide range of counterfactuals including but not limited to counterfactuals recommended in previous AMC evaluations. If counterfactuals defined in earlier evaluations are deemed no longer to be suitable, alternatives can be proposed with justification. Criteria for selection of counterfactuals should be stipulated with a description of strengths and limitations.

Impact:Comprehensive assessment of existing empirical evidence and model-based estimates of disease burden and vaccination impact, including but not limited to:

Empirical evidence of changes in pneumococcal disease burden and impact of PCV vaccination

Modelled vaccination impact estimates from 2009-2020.

Outcome:Progress toward outcomes should be assessed using historical and projected vaccine supply and demand estimates and forecasts, including but not limited to:

Vaccine supply and demand estimates from 2009 to-date Projected vaccine supply forecasts through 2020 Projected Gavi demand and coverage forecasts through 2020 Actual vaccine uptake trend in AMC eligible countries Competition and new manufacturers entering the market

Review of literature and available data:This evaluation should capitalise ongoing and past findings. The evaluation should build on the findings and recommendations of all previous AMC assessments and all AMC annual reports available on the Gavi website. The role of the pilot AMC should be interpreted in the context of overall national government and donor support for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in Gavi-eligible countries, as outlined in the Gavi pneumococcal vaccine Results Framework.

The evaluation should leverage other ongoing complementary work including; pneumococcal impact studies, Gavi transition assessments etc. Broader immunisation and health data should also be utilised. This includes, but should not be limited to:

WHO-UNICEF and Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates of national immunization coverage;

Dates of introduction of new vaccines available at both WHO and Gavi Available mortality/morbidity data, including special studies relevant to pneumococcal and

other vaccines; Disease burden estimates generated by the WHO Global Burden of Disease/Global Health

Estimates Project, the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation Global Burden of Disease project, and the UN’s Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation.

Interviews:

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 11/15

Relevant AMC stakeholders (including initial design team) members should be interviewed to ascertain their views and perception on whether the AMC has successfully achieved its objectives and contributed to positive outcomes and impact. Bidders should provide an indication of scope and scale of stakeholder interviews in the proposal.

Finally, to ensure credibility, the AMC Outcome Evaluation should be conducted in accordance with the following principles: 1) independence and impartiality; 2) involvement of stakeholders(including external participants (countries, manufacturers, CSOs, experts in different AMC fields like economic theory, innovative financing, manufacturing etc.; 3) transparency; and, 4) reference to international norms and definitions such as the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) principles.

Gavi is committed to learning and adapting based on findings and recommendations from evaluations. Bidders should build a learning approach into the proposal to ensure that opportunities for learning throughout the evaluation, as well as from the findings, lessons learned, and recommendations are maximised. As such, bidders are expected to explicitly describe their communication, learning and engagement modes to foster utility of evaluation results.

7. DELIVERABLESAll reports should be provided in English.

Deliverable DateMonthly meetings and minutes, including with the Steering Committee of the evaluation

Ongoing throughout the evaluation

Inception Report with Power Point presentation, including a Theory of Change for evaluation purposes, a communication and learning plan for the AMC evaluation

February 15, 2021

Preliminary findings with Power Point presentationFacilitate recommendation cocreation meeting / workshop – Gavi Secretariat

April 30, 2021

Draft Reports (1-2 as needed) with Power Point presentation, including Lessons learned and recommendations co-created with AMC stakeholders

May 31, 2021

Final Report with Power Point presentation June 30,2021Presentations of evaluation results at Gavi Secretariat TBDPolicy Brief summarising the main findings and lessons learnt June 30, 2021At least two peer reviewed journal articles TBDOther communication, learning and engagement approaches June 30, 2021Underlying datasets used for impact estimates June 30,2021

8. EVALUATION CRITERIA8.2. Evaluation Criteria

The decision to award any contract as a result of this RFP process will be based on Service Provider’s responses to this RFP, quality of recommended expert resources and any subsequent negotiations or discussions.

The decision-making process will consider the ability of Service Provider(s) to fulfil Gavi requirements as outlined within this RFP, and cost of the review proposals will be evaluated as appropriate against the following criteria:

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 12/15

Technical criteria:o Evaluation framework and designo Demonstrated understanding and operationalization of the evaluation questionso Appropriate methods proposed for undertaking the work o Ability of the bidder to carry out scope of work (based on qualifications of the team,

including CVs of key experts). o Understanding of, and ability to meet, Gavi’s requirements and deliverables;

Preference will be given to local / regional institutions or those partnering with local / regional institutions of Gavi countries.

o Service Provider’s qualifications, reputation and backstop support;o Experience with similar projectso Track record of conducting high quality evaluations.

Pricing:o Overall costo Realistic costing of the proposal

If a Service Provider would like Gavi to consider any other criteria during the decision making process, it should notify Gavi in writing when confirming intent to participate (See intent to participate letter attached in Annex 1).

9. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

9.2. Requirements for Technical Proposal

Following the issuance of the RFP, all interested contractors are invited to submit a proposal that describes:

evaluation framework with the key questions to be addressed detailed description of the evaluation methods, and approaches detailed work plan budget and timeline to conduct evaluation quality assurance plan that covers all key steps of the evaluation process statement of potential conflict of interest

The evaluation team should demonstrate qualification, experience and competencies in the following areas:

a) Professional background and competency in complex analyses and public health;b) Experience conducting evaluations, including extensive experience with appropriate

evaluation design and methods;c) Advanced knowledge of and experience with epidemiology;d) Excellent communication skills, including writing and presentation skills; e) Experience working in Chad (as noted above, preference will be given to local / regional

institutions or those partnering with local / regional institutions);f) Ability to meet tight deadlines with quality products.

Bidders are encouraged to include links to any similar previous work products available on-line that demonstrate their relevant experience and expertise.

9.3. Requirements for Financial ProposalThe financial proposal should be a standalone document (using excel). This should:

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 13/15

i. Provide full details of your financial offer. This should include fixed costs and any variable costs.

ii. Indicate the components of your financial offer.iii. We recommend using the template inserted as Annex 3.

Please note that in accordance with Gavi’s Headquarters Agreement with the Swiss Government Gavi is exempt from VAT, as well as customs taxes and duties in Switzerland. Consequently, your prices will have to be submitted to us net of any tax and in US$. The necessary documents will be sent to the selected provider(s) upon the ordering procedure.

10. MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHTThis evaluation will be outsourced in its entirety to external Service Providers. In accordance with Gavi Board instituted process for conducting evaluations, the Gavi Secretariat will conduct a procurement exercise to recruit the Service Providers and assume responsibility for day-to-day management of the evaluation.

11. ANNEXES

11.2. Annex 1: Written Intent To Participate

11.3. Annex 2: Q&A Form

11.4. Annex 3: Financial Proposal Template

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 14/15

11.5. Annex 4 Gavi PCV Results Framework

043-2020-GAVI-RFP 15/15