Procurement Support Services to the Ministry of Health of Ukraine

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2018-2022, Ukraine
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
09/2020
Completion Date:
09/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
50,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToR_PSS_MoH_Evaluation.pdf tor English 2890.92 KB Posted 92
Download document Evaluation Report_MoH Ukr.pdf report English 3646.21 KB Posted 161
Title Procurement Support Services to the Ministry of Health of Ukraine
Atlas Project Number: 00090474
Evaluation Plan: 2018-2022, Ukraine
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 09/2020
Planned End Date: 09/2020
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Governance
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.1.2 Marginalised groups, particularly the poor, women, people with disabilities and displaced are empowered to gain universal access to basic services and financial and non-financial assets to build productive capacities and benefit from sustainable livelihoods and jobs
SDG Goal
  • Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
  • Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
  • Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
SDG Target
  • 10.2 By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status
  • 16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms
  • 3.8 Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all
Evaluation Budget(US $): 50,000
Source of Funding: Project budget; donor
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 79,800
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Nataliia Vehner Consultant, KPMG nvenher@kpmg.ua UKRAINE
Anton Shramko Consultant, KPMG antonshramko@kpmg.ua UKRAINE
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: UKRAINE
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Publishing of up-to-date information on the progress of procurement and deliveries
should become regular practice for UNDP. The format of the report/status file and update
frequency should be aligned with the MoH and include all necessary details to provide the fullest
picture on the procurement and delivery status starting from the bidding stage and onwards. The
file could also indicate the standard timing assigned for a specific action/procurement stage and
provide proper clarification when it is delayed. It is also advisable that the file is available both on
UNDP and MoH web sites, indicating the date of the current and next update.
 

2

UNDP could offer its procurement and supply chain expertise to the MoH to improve
quantification, budgeting and delivery planning. This revised approach could have a
significant effect on the procurement cycle, allowing procurement of larger quantities at once,
avoiding overlaps of budget years and reducing decision-making on budget and savings
(re)allocations. This is also likely to secure better prices for larger quantities, secure on-time
deliveries (primarily in cases when splitting procurement of medicines with long manufacturing
cycles or short shelf life in two or three rounds has in the past created gaps in deliveries and
stock-outs) and improve supply planning on manufacturers’ side. The revised delivery planning
approach should potentially consider stocks held in the central MoH warehouse and regional
hospitals, remaining shelf life of available medicines and medical devices, and those awaiting
dispatch, monthly need, minimum order/batch quantity, supplier and MoH distribution lead times.
These improvements could be in parallel replicated for SoE MPU as proved working practice.
 

3

Managing supplier performance after contract signature should be a priority. It is
advisable to develop a set of KPIs allowing the tracking and review of supplier performance
on a regular basis. Some of those may include targets for on-time deliveries, QA nonconformities, quality of shipping documents etc. and be fixed in supplier contracts. KPI reporting
should be also distributed to suppliers and provide for generation of mitigating actions/back-up
scenarios in the event of low performance by the supplier, both by UNDP and the supplier.
 

4

Non-price evaluation criteria may be introduced to strengthen decision-making on
bid evaluation and contract award. This would allow for proper consideration of supplier
performance under previous contracts and avoiding cases when poor performing suppliers are
awarded new contracts being technically qualified and offering the lowest price. Non-price
evaluation criteria could include on-time deliveries (with clarification on reasons for delays),
mitigating actions taken by a supplier, speed of reaction, QA compliance etc. A scoring scale and
score weight should be developed and assigned to each evaluation criterion, including price and
technical compliance. Thus, a contract will be awarded to a bidder having the highest score. A
sample scoring table allowing consideration of non-price criteria for bidders that have a proven
record of deliveries to UNDP is provided in Annex 21.
 

5

Supply security should be a focus both for MoH and UNDP. For cases when on-time
delivery may be at risk, for example, due to placing a conditional contract, and outstanding
registration of a new medicine or poor performance of a potential contract holder under previous
contracts, it may make sense to develop a dedicated approach to splitting quantities between two
or more suppliers guided by total cost of ownership principles in order to avoid delays and stockouts.
Taking into account the project set-up and the MoH’s role as a customer and often as the key
decision-maker most of the suggested recommendations on procurement part can be
implemented only on the condition that the MoH is directly involved and supportive.
 

6

Updating the MoH PSS Project Document and submitting it to the Board Meeting
Although board meetings were held regularly, and with the participation of MoH, development
activities provided under the MoH PSS Project to the MoH since 2015 to date have never been
formally defined in sufficient detail by the parties, i.e. MoH and UNDP, in the Project Document.
This led to lack of ownership and monitoring on the part of the MoH. The evaluation team
recommends that UNDP updates the Project Document and submits it to the next Board Meeting
for MoH’s approval. No Board Meeting has taken place yet to examine the results from 2019. The
Project Document should also be updated to cover the extension of the PSS Project to March 31,
2022 to be in line with the relevant legislation covering procurement via international
organisations
 

7

Strengthen Results-Based Management
Currently, the Health & Transparency Programme is an emerging programme consisting of the
PSS and CCM project, and certain related health interventions (some very small-scale), rather
than a coherent and fully integrated programme. It is difficult to track the inputs on such
interventions and effectively monitor and evaluate them. There is visible lack of interlinkage
between interventions. The TA/CB provided by UNDP under the MoH PSS project has not been
registered with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MERT) as ITA
project/programme.
Actions proposed for the CO may include:
1) To develop a tracking and monitoring system at the programme level that would list all
health interventions of the H&T programme with a breakdown of key inputs (people, purchases,
etc.) that are required to deliver the outputs. This should include UNDP staff time, which must be
adequately estimated, costed and captured in the project budget.
2) To establish a clear procedure by which health intervention baselines, indicators and
targets are harmonised and aligned with those of the H&T Programme.
3) To strengthen collaboration between health interventions and consider potential synergies
and linkages between health interventions in order to track them and promote the highest level of
cooperation possible.
4) To arrange training for programme staff to ensure integrity and understanding of the H&T
Programme RBM, monitoring & evaluation principles.
5) To consider whether conducting registration of the TA/CB activities to the MoH//SoE MPU
as part of the H&T programme with MERT would provide additional benefits and contribute to
national ownership and MoH’s engagement in monitoring.
 

8

UNDP’s positioning
In health sector, UNDP should build up its position as a developmental technical adviser (as
opposed to the current perception of UNDP as a procurement agency) and promote its integrated
and coherent Health & Transparency Programme securing better positioning for UNDP as a
unique services provider.
This would be particularly relevant in view of the gradual transition from the medical procurement
model to the development model.
 

9

Capitalise on expertise gained from medical procurement to build up a development
service offering
UNDP has a unique experience in procurement for the MoH since 2015. UNDP should preserve
its niche proactively offering a value proposition to the MoH for the services it most needs,
including but not limited to capacity-building (anti-corruption) and sustainable procurement,
reviewing and improving nomenclatures, implementing a QA policy, HIV/AIDS-TB response
quantification, budgeting and delivery planning, cost-benefit analyses, and relationships and
negotiation with international manufacturers.
 

10

Support for local reform and de-centralisation
UNDP CO may capitalise on its effective performance on past projects at a local level, including
in managing the recovery of conflict affected areas (RPP, CBA and other programmes and
projects funded by the EU and other international donors). UNDP should engage in close working
relationships with national and local governments. Partnering with the EU and building on
successful community-based programming, UNDP will be able to support local governments to
strengthen public service delivery, focusing on the sustainable human development agenda,
engagement of civil society, gender equality, transparency and development processes, and can
thus use its power to forge effective partnerships with the private sector and community-based
organisations (including women’s organisations and civil society).
 

1. Recommendation:

Publishing of up-to-date information on the progress of procurement and deliveries
should become regular practice for UNDP. The format of the report/status file and update
frequency should be aligned with the MoH and include all necessary details to provide the fullest
picture on the procurement and delivery status starting from the bidding stage and onwards. The
file could also indicate the standard timing assigned for a specific action/procurement stage and
provide proper clarification when it is delayed. It is also advisable that the file is available both on
UNDP and MoH web sites, indicating the date of the current and next update.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

UNDP accepts this recommendation. All agreements signed between UNDP and the MoH for implementation of national health programmes foresee a regular reporting mechanism to the MoH (on weekly basis for the implementation of the 2020 budget). These reports contain exhaustive and detailed information about the progress of the procurement and delivery status for each contracted programme. In addition to this, the project prepares Delivery Schedule reports for each State Budget year procurement cycle monthly to be published on the UNDP Ukraine website. The report presents information about the actual or expected medicines delivery dates along with contracted quantities and total contract amount. Based on the recommendation provided, UNDP will consider including the additional information on procurement status (actual procurement status/ bidding stage/ delivery status) and scheduled next update to the Delivery Schedule report. In addition, in line with UNDP Programme and Operations Policies and Procedures, UNDP Ukraine publishes all contract awards that exceed 100.000 USD on https://procurement-notices.undp.org/view_awards.cfm.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. To agree the updated format of Delivery report, containing information on the procurement status with the patients organisations.
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/04/06]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/02 Completed The updated format of delivery report was agreed during the meeting with patient organizations. History
1.2 To implement the updated format of Delivery Schedule report published by UNDP.
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/04/06]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/02 Completed The updated format of Delivery Schedule was implemented and published on UNDP website https://www.ua.undp.org/content/ukraine/en/home/projects/procurement-support-services-to-the-MOH.htm History
2. Recommendation:

UNDP could offer its procurement and supply chain expertise to the MoH to improve
quantification, budgeting and delivery planning. This revised approach could have a
significant effect on the procurement cycle, allowing procurement of larger quantities at once,
avoiding overlaps of budget years and reducing decision-making on budget and savings
(re)allocations. This is also likely to secure better prices for larger quantities, secure on-time
deliveries (primarily in cases when splitting procurement of medicines with long manufacturing
cycles or short shelf life in two or three rounds has in the past created gaps in deliveries and
stock-outs) and improve supply planning on manufacturers’ side. The revised delivery planning
approach should potentially consider stocks held in the central MoH warehouse and regional
hospitals, remaining shelf life of available medicines and medical devices, and those awaiting
dispatch, monthly need, minimum order/batch quantity, supplier and MoH distribution lead times.
These improvements could be in parallel replicated for SoE MPU as proved working practice.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

UNDP partially accepts this recommendation due to its terms of contract with MoH. The quality of medicines quantification, budgeting and delivery planning process is a key challenge for timely procurement and supply cycle. Bad quality of initial TORs that the MoH provides results in multiple revisions of the documents, significant underspends and budget deficits. Any changes of TORs during the procurement process require the decisions of the MoH working groups on specific disease areas which often cannot be done in a timely manner. This is a procedural requirement and legally UNDP cannot intervene in it as it opens the door for a conflict of interest situation where UNDP may support the procurement of certain vendors and not others. On the other hand, all quantifications and delivery timing should be planned and explicitly indicated in the initial TORs before procurement tenders are announced. It is expecting that the digitalization of the medicines procurement cycle, as part of the health reform, will contribute significantly to the improvement of the procurement and delivery process. Thus, the Procurement Support Services to the MoH Project has already started developing a digital system “Management of Medicines and Medical Products” (eStock). The main objective of this software solution is to establish an integrated platform for automation and management of the processes related to the supply, logistics and stock management of medicines in Ukraine. The System will be used by the MoH, SoE Medical Procurement of Ukraine, Regional Healthcare Departments, medical institutions and other entities responsible for the stock planning, management and delivery of medicines to minimize the administrative costs, time and resources in the aforementioned processes.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1. To develop together with MoH a concept paper on eStock (digital stock management platform) and agree it with the MoH.
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/03/18]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/02 Completed Health and Transparency Programme developed and agreed with MoH the concept paper on eStock (digital stock management platform). History
2.2. The development of the MoH eStock system started.
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/04/06]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/03 Completed The development of the eStock system has been initiated. As of March 2021, the development of the technical terms of reference is in progress. History
2.3. eStock system handed over to MoH
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/12 Not Initiated
3. Recommendation:

Managing supplier performance after contract signature should be a priority. It is
advisable to develop a set of KPIs allowing the tracking and review of supplier performance
on a regular basis. Some of those may include targets for on-time deliveries, QA nonconformities, quality of shipping documents etc. and be fixed in supplier contracts. KPI reporting
should be also distributed to suppliers and provide for generation of mitigating actions/back-up
scenarios in the event of low performance by the supplier, both by UNDP and the supplier.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

UNDP fully accepts this recommendation. Currently, UNDP uses KPIs for assessing LTA suppliers on regular basis. Evaluation is conducted on ad hoc basis in case of bad performance. In case of negative results of the evaluation, UNDP conducts debriefing with suppliers, publishes its negative opinion on UNGM and informs HIST and LSO. This approach could be expanded to one-time purchases with performance evaluation conducted on an annual basis of all suppliers. Nevertheless, this step requires additional analysis and discussion within UNDP to avoid possible risks of delayed delivery, price increase and inability to purchase specific medicines produced by monopolists, for example. In addition, to the currently used KPIs (order acknowledgement and confirmation, timeliness of delivery, completeness of delivery, communication and status updates), an indicator on the ability to resolve issues and replacement of medicines may be introduced.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.3. To assess the impact of introduced KPIs and when feasible upscale to all health procurement processes.
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/04/16]
PSS MoH project, Phase II 2021/05 Overdue-Initiated Due to the emerging need for more time to assess the impact of introduced KPIs, it is suggested to change the due date to May 2021. Additional 1,5 months will allow KPIs to be tested on several procurement processes in parallel. History
3.1. To develop KPIs for regular procurement processes (non-LTA) based on current supplier performance evaluations.
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/04/06]
PSS MoH project, Phase II 2021/03 Completed The KPIs for regular procurement processes have been developed. History
3.2. To add performance KPIs to critical tenders (with previous experience of delayed deliveries, to suppliers with quality concerns and to new suppliers).
[Added: 2021/02/04]
PSS MoH project, Phase II 2021/05 Overdue-Not Initiated
4. Recommendation:

Non-price evaluation criteria may be introduced to strengthen decision-making on
bid evaluation and contract award. This would allow for proper consideration of supplier
performance under previous contracts and avoiding cases when poor performing suppliers are
awarded new contracts being technically qualified and offering the lowest price. Non-price
evaluation criteria could include on-time deliveries (with clarification on reasons for delays),
mitigating actions taken by a supplier, speed of reaction, QA compliance etc. A scoring scale and
score weight should be developed and assigned to each evaluation criterion, including price and
technical compliance. Thus, a contract will be awarded to a bidder having the highest score. A
sample scoring table allowing consideration of non-price criteria for bidders that have a proven
record of deliveries to UNDP is provided in Annex 21.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

Based on the best international procurement practices, and in line with the Programme and Operations Policies and Procedures (POPP), UNDP procures medicines using the procurement method, which combines both price and non-price qualification criteria. The applied non-price evaluation criteria cover administrative and technical requirements, including but not limited to the record of timely and satisfactory performance with their clients. Correspondence to these criteria is mandatory and is checked for each procurement processes on a pass/fail basis. The overall evaluation process incorporates such stages as:

  1. Preliminary Bid Examination, during which UNDP determines whether the bid is complete with respect to minimum documentary requirements, whether the documents have been properly signed, and whether the Bids are generally in order, among other indicators that may be used at this stage;
  2. Evaluation against minimum Eligibility and Qualification requirements set in the bidding documents including:
    • Non-presence in the UN Security Council 1267/1989 Committee's list of terrorists and terrorist financiers, and in UNDP’s ineligible vendors’ list;
    • Good financial standing and have access to adequate financial resources to perform the contract and all existing commercial commitments;
    • Existence of a necessary similar experience, technical expertise, production capacity, quality assurance certifications and other resources applicable to the supply of goods and/or services required;
    • Full compliance with the UNDP General Terms and Conditions of Contract and UNDP Quality Assurance Policy;
    • Non-having of a consistent history of court/arbitral award decisions against the Bidder; and having a record of timely and satisfactory performance with their clients. Technical evaluation: at this stage UNDP reviews and evaluates the Technical Bids on the basis of their responsiveness to the Schedule of Requirements and Technical Specifications, applying the procedure indicated in the tender documents. At this stage is assessed the compliance of the offered medical goods to the UNDP Quality Assurance Policy for Health Products.  The quality of the offered goods is endorsed by the UNDP Global Health Procurement Center (HQ/BPPS/HHD). The lowest-priced offer among the technically compliant/responsive offers is selected at this stage.
  3. Price evaluation is the last stage of evaluation and is performed only after passing all aforementioned stages, which allows UNDP to have a sufficient supplier performance background and its responsiveness or non-responsiveness to the evaluation criteria, including for the offered product. In addition to the above-mentioned, during the contract management stage, the tracking of on-times deliveries is ensured. Based on the supplier’s performance a contract performance evaluation record is prepared which is used as an evidence base for future procurement processes.                                                                                                                                                                                              According to POPP provisions, a scoring scale and score weight may be applied during the evaluations of Requests for Proposals, used mainly for procurement of services and cannot be used for the procurement of goods. However, the abovementioned procedures ensure sufficient performance evaluation tools to allow a well performing, technically qualified and lowest priced bidder to supply its products in the country.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 Ensure continuous compliance to UNDP’s bidder evaluation criteria and update the current record of supplier performance evaluations under the Project.
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/05/06]
PSS MoH project, Phase II 2021/06 Initiated The key action required more time to be completed, due to reliance on completion of other actions, hence the due date is changed to June 2021. History
5. Recommendation:

Supply security should be a focus both for MoH and UNDP. For cases when on-time
delivery may be at risk, for example, due to placing a conditional contract, and outstanding
registration of a new medicine or poor performance of a potential contract holder under previous
contracts, it may make sense to develop a dedicated approach to splitting quantities between two
or more suppliers guided by total cost of ownership principles in order to avoid delays and stockouts.
Taking into account the project set-up and the MoH’s role as a customer and often as the key
decision-maker most of the suggested recommendations on procurement part can be
implemented only on the condition that the MoH is directly involved and supportive.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

UNDP partially accepts this recommendation. Supply security is an ongoing focus for UNDP and the organization is constantly focused on improving the planning and identification of solutions to improve the efficiency of health procurement activities. UNDP Ukraine is supplying health goods based on the ToRs provided in advance by the Ministry of Health, which are developed based on a planned collection of needs from final beneficiaries and a planned budget, estimated based on the results of the previous procurement cycles. However, this particular recommendation related to splitting the award to several vendors may be used when there is an urgent need to supply a particular product and should be foreseen prior to the initiation of the procurement process and clearly described in the procurement strategy. Before implementing such an approach sufficient budget should be available, as it usually leads to procuring the required product at a higher price. Also, since supply delays become evident only after the contract is awarded, special measures should be introduced to ensure supply security (improved planning and supplier identification, conditional contract award, outstanding registration, thorough contract management). Nevertheless, mitigating the mentioned risks for improving the procurement process would be considered.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 To develop an algorithm of actions with special measures related to procurement planning and needs assessment, to ensure the security of uninterrupted supply of medical goods (in particular for non-registered health products).
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/05/06]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/04 Completed The algorithm of actions was developed. History
6. Recommendation:

Updating the MoH PSS Project Document and submitting it to the Board Meeting
Although board meetings were held regularly, and with the participation of MoH, development
activities provided under the MoH PSS Project to the MoH since 2015 to date have never been
formally defined in sufficient detail by the parties, i.e. MoH and UNDP, in the Project Document.
This led to lack of ownership and monitoring on the part of the MoH. The evaluation team
recommends that UNDP updates the Project Document and submits it to the next Board Meeting
for MoH’s approval. No Board Meeting has taken place yet to examine the results from 2019. The
Project Document should also be updated to cover the extension of the PSS Project to March 31,
2022 to be in line with the relevant legislation covering procurement via international
organisations
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

A new Project Document for the PSS MoH project, Phase II (2020-2022) was prepared and signed by UNDP and the MoH. Therefore, new procurements (funded by state budget 2020 and onwards) will be performed within a technically new project with a new ProDoc. The detailed plan of development activities for each year will be proposed at the Board Meeting.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 To prepare and finalize ProDoc (2020-22) for the PSS MoH project, Phase II
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/03/18]
Health and Transparency Programme 2020/11 Completed The ProDoc (2020-22) for the PSS MoH project, Phase II has been prepared and finalized. History
6.2 To conduct LPAC meeting to approve the ProDoc (2020-2022) for the PSS MoH project, Phase II
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/03/18]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/02 Completed LPAC has been conducted on 25 February 2021 and the Prodoc approved. History
6.3 To participate in the competition and sign CSA agreement with MoH for medicines procurement for 2020 budgetary year
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/03/18]
Health and Transparency Programme 2020/11 Completed The CSA agreement with MoH for medicines procurement for 2020 budgetary year signed. History
6.4 To participate in the competition and sign CSA agreement with MoH for medicines procurement for 2021 budgetary year
[Added: 2021/02/04]
PSS MoH project, Phase II 2021/12 Not Initiated
7. Recommendation:

Strengthen Results-Based Management
Currently, the Health & Transparency Programme is an emerging programme consisting of the
PSS and CCM project, and certain related health interventions (some very small-scale), rather
than a coherent and fully integrated programme. It is difficult to track the inputs on such
interventions and effectively monitor and evaluate them. There is visible lack of interlinkage
between interventions. The TA/CB provided by UNDP under the MoH PSS project has not been
registered with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MERT) as ITA
project/programme.
Actions proposed for the CO may include:
1) To develop a tracking and monitoring system at the programme level that would list all
health interventions of the H&T programme with a breakdown of key inputs (people, purchases,
etc.) that are required to deliver the outputs. This should include UNDP staff time, which must be
adequately estimated, costed and captured in the project budget.
2) To establish a clear procedure by which health intervention baselines, indicators and
targets are harmonised and aligned with those of the H&T Programme.
3) To strengthen collaboration between health interventions and consider potential synergies
and linkages between health interventions in order to track them and promote the highest level of
cooperation possible.
4) To arrange training for programme staff to ensure integrity and understanding of the H&T
Programme RBM, monitoring & evaluation principles.
5) To consider whether conducting registration of the TA/CB activities to the MoH//SoE MPU
as part of the H&T programme with MERT would provide additional benefits and contribute to
national ownership and MoH’s engagement in monitoring.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

UNDP accepts this recommendation with reservation. Being fully funded by the MoH (in accordance with the project document) the Project has not been an ‘international’ technical assistance activity as such and as a result cannot be registered under the Regulation of the CMU #153 of 5 February 2002 (with amendments). UNDP has been working with its portfolios to ensure programme versus project approach to its programme interventions. As regards to the health activities, they are based on the UNDAF/CPD planning cycle and shared between Recovery and Peacebuilding portfolio working in the East and Democratic Governance portfolio. As correctly stated by evaluators, except for the medicines procurement project, the DG health programme activities are diverse, often small in scope and have a short planning framework. Initially, the project was meant to conduct procurement activities only, but this is changing now. Currently, the Project falls under the Democratic Governance Portfolio and steps towards linking it closely with the healthcare reform and anti-corruption activities are being made while a more comprehensive approach is being developed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.4 To arrange a training for capacity building of project staff for improving the RBM language and M&E activities.
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/04/15]
Strategic Planning, Partnership and RBM 2021/03 Completed The project staff participated in the training on RBM and M&E, organised by RBEC and conducted on 7 April 2021. The training focused on refreshing the understanding of the basic concepts and approaches in results management, including main elements of the results cycle: planning, monitoring, evaluating, and communicating results. History
7.1 Prepare Health and Transparency Programme Document in line with UNDP POPP
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme; DG Portfolio; Strategic Planning, Partnership and RBM 2021/07 Not Initiated
7.2 To conduct consultations between UNDP projects with health components and strengthen collaboration between them, including creating synergies and linkages between health interventions to achieve the highest impact level.
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/07 Not Initiated
7.3. To establish a clear procedure by which health intervention baselines, indicators and targets are harmonized and aligned with those of the H&T Programme.
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/08 Not Initiated
8. Recommendation:

UNDP’s positioning
In health sector, UNDP should build up its position as a developmental technical adviser (as
opposed to the current perception of UNDP as a procurement agency) and promote its integrated
and coherent Health & Transparency Programme securing better positioning for UNDP as a
unique services provider.
This would be particularly relevant in view of the gradual transition from the medical procurement
model to the development model.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

UNDP fully accepts this recommendation. Recently, UNDP has been working on expanding its programme/development work as well as strengthening its communication work.  Specifically, the PSS MoH project structure has been strengthened with additional staff members dealing with communication and programmatic work. However, strengthening UNDP’s positioning requires adequate planning and funds availability at least in midterm perspective.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.4 To prepare a consolidated Health and Transparency Programme publication document which will bring together all the interventions in the health field (procurement, CB, COVID-19 response etc.).
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/03/18]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/02 Completed The consolidated Health and Transparency Programme publication document prepared. History
8.1. To launch a multifaceted communications campaign, including both digital and media components, to raise awareness about the transformative changes in the healthcare procurement in Ukraine resulting from the successful MoH cooperation with UNDP.
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/06 Not Initiated
8.2 To conduct opinion surveys to measure public knowledge and perception of UNDP health activities and their impact on the patients’ lives.
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/08 Not Initiated
8.3 To strengthen cooperation with key patients organizations, businesses and media and conduct at least three joint activities and advocacy events.
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/10 Not Initiated
9. Recommendation:

Capitalise on expertise gained from medical procurement to build up a development
service offering
UNDP has a unique experience in procurement for the MoH since 2015. UNDP should preserve
its niche proactively offering a value proposition to the MoH for the services it most needs,
including but not limited to capacity-building (anti-corruption) and sustainable procurement,
reviewing and improving nomenclatures, implementing a QA policy, HIV/AIDS-TB response
quantification, budgeting and delivery planning, cost-benefit analyses, and relationships and
negotiation with international manufacturers.
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

UNDP fully accepts this recommendation. The project team has been working actively with the MoH, SoE MPU, patients organizations, business representatives to provide a value-based proposition on supporting all aspects of the sustainable and efficient medicines procurement and health reform.  This work will be intensified while preparing programme/development activities to be implemented by UNDP in 2021.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
9.1 To agree with the MoH and the SoE MPU implementation of new common development projects based on the results of the forward-looking evaluation and the SoE MPU capacity assessment to be implemented in 2021.
[Added: 2021/02/04] [Last Updated: 2021/04/15]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/03 Completed The agreement on the implementation has been reached. History
9.2 To further develop the partnership with patients organizations and identify common project ideas in order to sustain the health reform in Ukraine in 2021 - 2022.
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme 2022/06 Not Initiated
10. Recommendation:

Support for local reform and de-centralisation
UNDP CO may capitalise on its effective performance on past projects at a local level, including
in managing the recovery of conflict affected areas (RPP, CBA and other programmes and
projects funded by the EU and other international donors). UNDP should engage in close working
relationships with national and local governments. Partnering with the EU and building on
successful community-based programming, UNDP will be able to support local governments to
strengthen public service delivery, focusing on the sustainable human development agenda,
engagement of civil society, gender equality, transparency and development processes, and can
thus use its power to forge effective partnerships with the private sector and community-based
organisations (including women’s organisations and civil society).
 

Management Response: [Added: 2020/10/07] [Last Updated: 2021/02/04]

UNDP fully accept this recommendation. The UNDP health project has been capitalizing on its successful work in the area of democratic governance and reform, local development, recovery and peacebuilding since its start.  This work will be intensified in the following annual planning cycles.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
10.1 To identify linkages between the health programme and other UNDP Ukraine programmes in order to contribute to the strengthening of health governance at the local level, including building health procurement capacities, health crisis response and coordination with the central public administration, patients NGOs, development partners and international organisations.
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/07 Not Initiated
10.2 To conduct consultations with donors and other UN agencies on possible cooperation in the healthcare field for supporting the implementation of health reform at the regional and local levels.
[Added: 2021/02/04]
Health and Transparency Programme 2021/09 Not Initiated

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org