Report of the Portfolio Management and Procurement Committee: Portfolio Management: Appeals or Recou…
Approved by the Board on: 31 January 2003
Report of the Portfolio Management and Procurement Committee: Portfolio Management: Appeals or Recourse
The PMPC unanimously agreed the appeal mechanism should be impartial, objective, independent, simple, speedy and well accepted by all stakeholders. However, strict criteria must be applied to minimize the number of appeal proposals.
The PMPC decided that proposals rejected through the Secretariat screening, due to clear cut ineligibility criteria, are not eligible for appeal. Only those proposals in category three and four in both the current and the last Round (repeated failure cases) can appeal. The PMPC also agreed that CCMs only submit a new proposal on a different disease component than the one going through the appeal process (non-CCM proposals could only be submitted for a different disease component than the one going through the Appeal Process.)
The PMPC member unanimously agreed on the following criteria:
Appeals must have CCM endorsement, except in the event in which a non-CCM proposal was initially deemed eligible for TRP review by the Secretariat, in which non-CCM endorsement is required.
Applicant shall provide the specific grounds upon which it claims the TRP was in error regarding information contained in the proposal. It is not permitted to provide additional information or justification additional to that contained in its proposal.
The appeal panel should assess appeals using the same assessment criteria as used by the TRP.
To prevent unfair treatment to other failed applicants who do not appeal, and to safeguard appeal panel independence from unnecessary pressure, a face-to-face discussion, negotiation between appeal panel and applicants is not allowed.
The GF Board should endorse/reject the recommendation of the appeal panel via email.
GF Board decision on the appeal is final.
Appeal can be made only once.
The PMPC also endorsed a timeline for appeals, which allows CCMs to appeal within four weeks of notification, appeal process to be finalised within four weeks and Board endorsement within two weeks after the receipt of Panel recommendations.
The PMPC endorsed a fourth option (see below): Appeal Panel to be composed by three high level experts to be proposed by WHO, UNAIDS and the World Bank and two TRP members, one disease expert and one cross-cutting expert, who were not either the primary or secondary reviewer of that specific proposal.
Option 4: Appeal Panel
To be comprised by three high level experts to be proposed by WHO, UNAIDS and the World Bank. These would be joined by two TRP members, one disease expert and one cross cutting expert who were not either the primary or secondary reviewer of that specific proposal. The TRP members will change based on the proposal to be reviewed.
(Deferred) The PMPC asks the Board to acknowledge the need for increased contextual information to support the Technical Review process. Recognizing the need for more robust information and TRP deliberation, the PMPC will recommend to the Fifth Board meeting mechanisms to address this need.
(Deferred) The PMPC asks the Board to acknowledge the need for clarification of what the Global Fund means by "additionality". The PMPC will come up with suggested definitions for the Fifth Board meeting.
Request the Board to allow the PMPC to revise the Guidelines for Proposals for the Third Round without further endorsement from the Board.