1. Round 10 proposal process
Key elements for a successful application

2. Overview Proposal development process & eligibility requirements
TRP and the proposal review process
What makes a good proposal?
Results for the region
Q&A

3. Proposal development process & eligibility requirements

4. Proposals Process: Overview
Board: Call for Proposals
Applicant: Proposal Development
PR: Grant Agreement Negotiations
Secretariat: Screening
Signature &
First Disbursement
TRP: Technical Review
1 - Recommended
Board Approval
2 – Rec. Minor changes
Phase 2: Extension of initial 2 yr Funding
3 - Re-submission
CCM: TRP clarifications (as required)
4 - Rejected

5. Board: Call for Proposals
Normally once per year
Proposal forms and guidelines prepared for each Round
Clearly established submission deadline
Clearly established eligibility criteria
4 - Rejected

6. Applicant: Proposal Development
Start early
Consult broadly and inclusively
Identify barriers
Share potential priorities
Invite contributions
Consolidate knowledge
Review the application

7. Secretariat: Screening
Pre-Technical Review
Secretariat: Screening
6 minimum eligibility requirements reviewed at proposal
submission
Members representing the non-government sectors must be selected by their own sector
Evidence of membership of people living with and/or affected by the diseases
Have documented and transparent processes to:
Solicit and review submissions of proposals for possible integration into a consolidated national proposal
Ensure the input of a broad range of stakeholders
Nominate the Principal Recipient (s)
Conflict of Interests plan in place

8. Technical Review Panel & the proposal review process

9. Technical Review Panel
TRP: Funding recommendations to the Board
Who:
Group of independent technical experts appointed by the Board.
Diverse geographic and programmatic backgrounds
Consists of disease experts and cross-cutters, and experts with gender and sexual minorities experience
Review:
The TRP looks for proposals that reflect:
Soundness of approach
Feasibility
Potential for sustainability & impact

10. TRP: Funding recommendations to the Board
Budget review
TRP: Funding recommendations to the Board
Specialist independent review of budgets, as in Round 9
TRP may request an independent budget review during clarifications
TRP requested through its TORs to review Value for Money
TRP to examine under spending in existing grants

11. TRP review process Small groups of 4 members:
2 disease experts + 2 cross-cutters
Plenary session of 40 members:
Recommendations discussed & finalized
If necessary, second review:
Additional TRP members asked to provide 2nd recommendation
Final plenary :
Last day for quality assurance + lessons learned

12. Timeline clarifications
TRP recommendation categories
Category
Description
Timeline clarifications 1
Recommended for funding with no or only minor clarifications
Within 8 weeks of notice 2
(incl. 2B)
Recommended for funding provided that clarifications are met within a limited time frame
(2B: weaker on grounds of technical merit, issues of feasibility, likelihood of effective implementation)
6 weeks for initial response & then up to a further 3 months to complete clarifications process 3
Not recommended for funding in its current form but encouraged to re-submit a revised version of the same proposal
N/A 4
Rejected

13. Successful Proposals

14. What makes a good proposal?
Input from a broad range of stakeholders, based on a national strategy
Interventions respond directly to current, documented, epidemiological situation
Coherent strategy with robust gap analysis
Appropriate implementation arrangements
A clear plan for how to monitor activities and evaluate the impact of interventions
Detailed budget and clear work plan
The Board will accept proposals from Non-CCMs in certain cases
For more information: TRP Reports from Rounds 8 and 9.

15. Key weaknesses (in no particular order)
Proposal sections not well aligned or incomplete
Strategies proposed for major scale-up without prior testing/evaluation
Weak demonstration of Value for Money
No gap analysis
Inappropriate Performance Frameworks and quality indicators
Problems with budgets
Unclear additionality/complementarity
Missing or inadequate M&E Plan
Problems with PR/SR and implementation

16. Results for the region

17. 2 Year Recommended (US$) 5 Year Recommended (US$)
Round 9 Outcomes – MENA
Disease proposal
Number eligible
Number recommended
Success
rate
2 Year Recommended (US$)
5 Year Recommended (US$)
HIV 7
(only the HSS part of 1 HIV proposal) 0%
27 m
53 m TB 6 2
33%
26 m
54 m
Malaria 5
40%
34 m
Total 18
28%
87 m
159 m
Key Messages:
Most applicants submitted more than 1 disease
Low success rate for proposals
No HIV proposal recommended for funding 17

18. Recommended Proposals – MENA
Country
Disease
Category
Funding Upper ceiling, 2 years (US$)
Funding Upper ceiling, 5 years (US$)
Sudan, Southern Sector
HIV/HSS
(only HSS approved) 2
27 m
53 m
Chad M
30 m
44 m
Djibouti 2B
3 m
10 m
Yemen TB
11 m
25 m
Iraq
15 m
29 m
TOTAL
87 m
159 m

19. Middle East & North Africa - Rounds 1 to 9

20. Top 10 weaknesses for MENA: Cat 3 & 4 proposals
The budget information was inaccurate, questionable and/or not sufficiently detailed
56%
Proposed activities are inappropriate
44%
Sections of the proposal are unaligned and/or incomplete
39%
Budget is imbalanced compared to the proposed program
Proposed indicators are inappropriate
33%

21. Top 10 weaknesses in MENA: Cat 3 & 4 proposals
Proposed activities are insufficiently described
33%
Program is too ambitious and unrealistic
Financial Gap insufficiently analyzed
28%
Additionality / complementarity with existing grants is not clearly described
No strategy presented and lack of information regarding strategic approaches

22. Q & A ?