Periodic Review ccm request template

A summary of the measures and/ or mechanisms with reference to procurement and supply management follows:

• 
  NRASD carries out centralised procurement for both PR and SR and uses the well-established procurement unit and comprehensive procurement policies and procedures of Stellenbosch University (as described in the PSM Plan, NRASD Annex 4, Sections 2 and 3).
  
• 
  Among the items to be procured are HCT kits, HBC kits and deworming medication.
  
• 
  The PR has outsourced the responsibility of storage and distribution of the HCT and HBC kits to the supplier.
  
• 
  Every quarter, NRASD will place an order based on anticipated SR consumption.
  
• 
  Upon receipt of stock, signed delivery notes from the supplier's courier company and goods received notes from the SR's is to be sent to the NRASD in order for NRASD to confirm delivery, to perform reconciliation, and to action payment.
  
• 
  A mechanism for evaluating the performance of suppliers is to be developed in order to inform decisions for renewed contracts or for alternative suppliers. NRASD is to assess supplier performance periodically on criteria like quality of products supplied, timeliness of delivery, responsiveness and flexibility, price competitiveness, etc.
  
• 
  Stock management system is to be strengthened by incorporating modules that track stock re-order levels based on consumption rates, delivery lead times and available storage space, expiry dates, and wastage rates.
  
• 
  Storage facilities at SR level need is to be assessed.
  
• 
  The random testing on HCT test devices at various points in the supply chain is to be addressed.
  

In order to address the possibility of pharmaceuticals and other health products that do not meet required minimum quality standards being provided to end-users, the NRASD is proposing the application of technical assistance to assess and strengthen the capacity of the PR and SR's to store and distribute health products. In addition, the NRASD also proposes that the training programme of Health Workers, Counsellors and Care Givers (accredited training) be sustained.

The PSM Plan is attached as NRASD Annex 4.

	6.2 Financial Proposal
6.2.1 Resources available to finance the grant/SSF after cut-off date Line c reflects funds brought forward for SSF grant and extension period respectively Line h includes funds brought forward from extension ($1,605,536) 6.2.2 Summary funding request from cut-off date to end of next Phase/Implementation Period Table 42: Summary funding request from cut-off date to end of next Phase/Implementation Period
	6.2.3 CCM Budget Request for the next Phase/ Implementation Period

Lessons learned from current phase:

Economy: Economy has always been an integral part of the approach of our implementing partners, having to achieve maximum output with limited resources, especially implementing partners from the Religious Sector. Consistent efforts are made to source the least expensive goods/ service which meet the required quality. In addition, the costs of resources are lowered via linkages to local community-based structures that allow use of infrastructure (office space, church halls) at a significantly-reduced cost and often for free.

Efficiency: NRASD programme and implementing partners place particular emphasis on performance (output) at the lowest possible cost. To this end, the NRASD have managed to exceed output performance targets, despite periods of limited funding. Comparisons are also drawn between the implementation and cost models of implementing partners, in order to achieve outputs at the lowest cost. Procurement and supply management systems deliver the correct quantification and type of health products, to the correct locations in the right conditions and at the right time. Linkages with strong systems render access to lower negotiated goods/ services.

Effectiveness: The NRASD works with key partners that have proven implementation models that are consistently revised based upon experience. The NRASD has excluded or reprogrammed activities where such activities were deemed to be ineffective in Phase 1 of implementation.

Progress is assessed as satisfactory for the current Phase/ Implementation Period until the cut-off date as all targets have been met as at 31 December 2012.

With cognisance to the fact that 68% of grant funds intended for the first two-year term of the programme was only received during the final two quarters of the programme, it is reasonable that under-expenditure is noted by 31 December 2012. It is also remarkable that performance on targets exceeded expectations.

The life-cycle of the programme has placed the NRASD and SR’s in precarious situations where implementing partners performed on targets in order to honour the Grant Agreement with the Global Fund, despite periods where funds were not disbursed to the NRASD and SR’s. These situations called for measures to scale down on activities, retaining only the essential services to beneficiaries, and implementing in areas (spatially) where costs would be lower. The disrupted life-cycle of the grant is not due to the performance or non-performance of the NRASD and SR’s. A life-cycle of the grant in line with the budget and time frames would have yielded planned targets and budgeted expenditure.