What was the envelope for the first Call for Proposals and how was it determined? Why was the envelope size relatively small compared to the resources that the Pandemic Fund has already raised?
The size of the envelope approved by the Board was up to US$350 million. The envelope was relatively small vis-¨¤-vis the total resources of the Pandemic Fund because the Board would like this first Call for Proposals to serve as a learning exercise. The Pandemic Fund aims to release another Call for Proposals by the end of 2023, taking into account lessons learned for the benefit of future applicants.
How many applications were received, covering how many countries, and for how much in grant requests?
In May of this year, the Pandemic Fund closed its first Call for Proposals and received a total of 179 applications from 133 countries with requests for over US$2.5 billion in grants (representing around eight times the resource envelope that had been set for the first Call). The proposals focused on the three priorities of the first Call, namely, strengthening disease surveillance, laboratory capacity, and the public health work force. This level of demand clearly shows that countries want to invest in pandemic prevention and preparedness.
How were proposals reviewed?
All submitted proposals underwent an initial eligibility check to ensure applications were complete and proposed projects working through eligible implementing entities in eligible countries (IDA and IBRD eligible countries). All 135 eligible applications were then reviewed by the Pandemic Fund¡¯s Technical Advisory Panel (TAP). The TAP is a panel of 21 independent multidisciplinary experts tasked with providing technical advice on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response to the Pandemic Fund Governing Board. The TAP reviewed all eligible proposals using a standardized scorecard, rating all proposals as highly recommended for funding, recommended for funding, and not recommended for funding based on the results of TAP expert review. Of the eligible applications, 49 were rated as recommended or highly recommended for funding under this Call for Proposals, 86 were rated as not recommended for funding.
What were the criteria used by the TAP to evaluate proposals?
The scoring criteria used by the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) to evaluate the proposals had six unique elements: context, rational, objectives & demonstrated need; scope, priority areas/core capacities/alignment with and contribution to the Pandemic Fund Results Framework/Monitoring and Evaluation; ownership, commitment and co-investment; co-financing and overall available funding; coordination, collaboration, and co-creation; and implementation.
Each of these sections had specific weights attached to them to equal a total score of 130. To ensure transparency in the process, the scoring criteria were posted on along with all other key application documents.
What were the criteria that the Board used to make its final decisions around funding allocation?
, the Board decided to use three criteria (listed in order of priority) to select from the proposals that were recommended by the TAP for funding and construct a diverse portfolio of projects to be funded under the first Call for Proposals:
- Geographical distribution (by World Bank Group regions);
- Income group (a mix of low-, lower-middle-, and upper-middle-income/high-income countries, with a priority for low- and lower-middle-income countries);
- Type of Implementing Entity (a mix of Multilateral Development Banks and United Nations organizations/global health initiative)
Fragile and Conflict-affected Situations (FCS) were factored in as a consideration as the Governing Board examined possible portfolio scenarios.