Timetable and Budget
| Description | Deadline/Limit |
|---|---|
| Deadline for full application | 18 January 2024, 1 PM |
| Notification of outcome of Stage 2 Application | March 2024 |
| Project Start | March/April 2024 (dependent on contract) |
| Project Duration | 12 Months |
| Budget | Up to £550,000 |
Introduction
The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (PRP) invites applications for a single research project to conduct an evaluation on the first phase of the UK Vaccine Network Project.
Background
The UK Vaccine Network (UKVN) Project was established in 2015 to support the development of vaccines to tackle diseases of epidemic potential that predominantly impact low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It is funded through the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) and supported by an expert advisory group. It primarily focuses on the earlier stages of vaccine research and development (R&D), particularly supporting the transition from pre-clinical development into early clinical trials as well as innovations in vaccine manufacturing focused on LMICs.
Eight research competitions were designed under the first phase of the Project and established on the advice of the UKVN expert group. These competitions were run through experienced cross-government delivery partners, who now manage the funded research projects. The delivery partners are:
- Innovate UK ,
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC),
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)
The portfolio under the first phase consisted of over 90 R&D projects, focusing on pre-clinical and early clinical development of vaccines for the UKVN’s 12 priority pathogens, as well as technologies for vaccine manufacture and distribution, and associated epidemiological research. It was originally anticipated that all projects would complete by March 2021. While many have achieved this, the COVID-19 pandemic has meant a number required extensions to meet their original objectives. The impact of the pandemic on vaccine R&D limited the capacity available for other vaccine research resulting in delays. These extensions were granted where appropriate; the new overall endpoint for the current phase of the UKVN Project was March 2022.
All reporting and governance documents are published in accordance with the International Aid Transparency IATI standard. Since 2020, all UKVN Project documentation has been published directly to the UK Vaccine Network page on the development portal. You can find additional information about the project’s activity there including the project’s annual reviews and previous evaluations (see links below).
The second phase of the UKVN was launched at the UN General Assembly in September, committing up to £103.5m over the next five years. So far two competitions have launched under UKVN 2.0:
- £40m vaccine development competition, run by Innovate UK, which is funding 24 projects tackling vaccine development for diseases of epidemic potential.
- £33m competition, run by EPSRC, funding four vaccine manufacturing research hubs which partner between UK academics and vaccine developers across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
We are seeking to commission a process and impact evaluation of the UKVN investments to assess the design, implementation, and emerging outcomes of the portfolio and to inform the development and delivery of the next phase of the portfolio.
Research priorities
The purpose of the evaluation is to:
- Assess whether the first phase of the UKVN has achieved its intended impacts through the outputs and outcomes set out in the UKVN Theory of Change, and to identify any learning which can inform the development and delivery of future iterations of the project.
- Provide accountability for the UKVN’s performance to date.
The specific research questions which have been developed based on the UKVN Theory of Change (ToC) include:
- To what extent have the intended outcomes and impact on the vaccine development pipeline, as set out in the ToC been observed or are on track to be achieved and why? To what extent and how has the programme contributed to these outcomes and impacts?
- How beneficial has this research been for LMIC populations? If this cannot yet be assessed, how likely is this research to benefit LMIC populations?
- What barriers remain for UKVN funded projects in progressing vaccine candidates further down the development pipeline?
- Has the UKVN allocated resources effectively to priority areas where there are gaps in the R&D landscape?
- How effective is the UKVN delivery model? Does the current delivery model and the choice and performance of delivery partners allow the UKVN Project to maximise its impact and meet its objectives???Are there opportunities to improve the delivery model or ways of working to improve efficiency/effectiveness??
- What additional benefits has UKVN funded work enabled such as scientific advances and capacity building? E.g., benefits outside of TofC such as COVID-19 impact.
The below table provides a detailed breakdown of the main questions and themes this evaluation should explore.Category
| Category | Main Question | Sub Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Impact | To what extent have the intended outcomes and impact on the vaccine development pipeline, as set out in the ToC been observed or are on track to be achieved and why? To what extent and how has the programme contributed to these outcomes and impacts? | How effective has the UKVN portfolio of investments been in achieving its intended outputs (as set out in the ToC):
What impact has the UKVN's policy products had both domestically and globally, including on policies such as the 100-day Mission?' To what extent are the net benefits of the portfolio likely to continue beyond the funded period? |
| LMIC | How beneficial has this research been for LMIC populations? If this cannot yet be assessed, how likely is this research to benefit LMIC populations? | Has UKVN work and priority areas appropriately considered LMIC needs? Is UKVN funding contributing to vaccine development or manufacturing capacity in LMICs themselves? To what extent have LMIC-based researchers and vaccine developers been supported by UKVN funding? What are the barriers to LMIC-based participation in UKVN research calls? |
| Barriers | What barriers remain for UKVN funded projects in progressing vaccines down the development pipeline? | What barriers prevent vaccine developers funded by UKVN from receiving follow-on funding from other sources, both during and in advance of disease outbreaks? What are the non-funding related barriers that exist for vaccine developers? |
| Coherence | Has the UKVN allocated resources effectively to priority areas where there are gaps in the R&D landscape? | Has UKVN allocated resources strategically towards potentially high impact activities aligned with global priorities, taking into consideration needs and gaps not already well filled by others, and considering UKVN’s comparative advantages and goals? How are UKVN's objectives and funded projects distinct from other organisation and research programmes in the vaccine development space? |
| Effectiveness and efficiency | How effective is the UKVN delivery model? Does the current delivery model and the choice and performance of delivery partners allow the UKVN Project to maximise its impact and meet its objectives???Are there opportunities to improve the delivery model or ways of working to improve efficiency/effectiveness?? | How effective is UKVN’s operating model of working through competitions delivered by NIHR/UKRI delivery partners? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this model compared to other delivery mechanisms used in this sector (e.g. product development partnerships or a more closely managed portfolio)? How does this vary between delivery partners/funding objectives? (e.g. NIHR vs Innovate UK) To what extent is the UKVN portfolio ensuring value for money in how research activities are being undertaken in line with the 4Es approach (economy, efficiency, effectiveness, equity)? What impact has the stop-start nature of UKVN funding had on vaccine developers? Are there ways to mitigate this? How is ODA funding viewed by researchers? |
| Benefits | What additional benefits has UKVN funded work enabled such as scientific advances and capacity building? E.g., benefits outside of TofC such as COVID-19 impact. | What was the return on UKVN investment in the ChAdOx1 platform, considering its contribution to the development of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine? What was the Cost-benefit analysis of this funding |
Eligibility
Standard eligibility rules for NIHR PRP funding are laid out in our Standard Information for Applicants.
This funding opportunity is restricted to applicants that are already registered as suppliers on the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) Global Evaluation Monitoring Framework Agreement (GEMFA).
Given the urgency of this work applicants must demonstrate that they can readily offer the required expertise for this work, and have available capacity to start work without delay following communication of the funding outcome (the project is expected to start in March/April 2024 dependent on contract negotiations). Applicants should carefully consider this requirement before applying, as this readiness to deliver the research within the stated tight time frame of the project is a key selection criterion for this funding opportunity.
Technical requirements / Expertise required
As there is no obvious counterfactual, we recommend that applicants use theory-based evaluation approaches such as Contribution Analysis, Process Tracing, Outcome Harvesting and Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cost Benefit analysis should ideally be used to answer question 6.
However, we are open to other approaches if they are methodologically robust and can provide findings that appropriately answer the research questions.
We expect the evaluation to adopt a mixed methods approach. Bidders will need to consider the most appropriate methods for responding to the evaluation questions. Suitable methods may include: programme documents review, secondary literature review, surveys, focus groups, in-depth interviews, field visits, case studies. We are open to additional and innovative methods being used.
We expect the evaluators to engage with the following stakeholders:
- DHSC UKVN project team
- Delivery partners from phase 1
- Research teams that received funding from phase 1
- Applicants who applied but were not funded in phase 1
- Expert Group members
- CEPI
The following skills and expertise are considered particularly important for this evaluation (required skills are highlighted in bold):
Synthesis & Evaluation
- Design and application of theory-based impact evaluation methods
- Design and application of process evaluation methods
- Assessing the impact of R&D funding
- Track record of managing and delivering similar-scale R&D programme evaluations
Sectoral experience and working with ODA
- Undertaking global health related research
- Understanding of infectious diseases and vaccine development process
- Understanding of early-stage vaccine/medical research
- Expertise in evaluating multifaceted ODA programmes
Bidders should clearly set out the skills and expertise provided by each member of the proposed project team that meet the requirements. Each team member must also possess a high-level of relevant research and analytical expertise that will allow them to deliver the research tasks.
Outputs
Applicants are asked to consider the timing and nature of deliverables in their proposals. Policymakers will need research evidence to meet key policy decisions and timescales, so resource needs to be flexible to meet these needs. A meeting to discuss policy needs with DHSC officials will be convened as a matter of priority following communication of the funding outcome.
The Supplier will be expected to produce several different outputs as summarised in the table below. Further detail will be clarified during the inception phase of the evaluation.
| Deliverable | Due Date |
|---|---|
| Inception report | 1 month after commencement |
| End-of-fieldwork workshop | 4 months after commencement |
| Final evaluation report | 7 months after commencement |
Inception phase
The project will commence with a one-month inception phase, which will culminate in the production of an inception report. The report will set out the project plan, the detailed evaluation methodology and sampling strategy, interview topic guides, draft outline of the final report, quality assurance provisions and a risk register. DHSC expects the production of this report to be collaborative, with input from the UKVN programme team and delivery partners. DHSC suggests that this involves:
- A kick-off meeting, with all parties invited to attend all or part of the meeting, to ensure the programme and evaluation requirements are fully understood.
- Regular contact and sharing early drafts with DHSC’s UKVN team.
- A workshop or presentation (virtual as default, but with opportunity for some parties to be present in the same meeting space) with DHSC’s UKVN team to get feedback on the proposed approach.
Sign-off of the inception report will be at the discretion of DHSC, and the Supplier should account for sharing a skeleton outline of the document (such as an indicative contents page), followed by one round of substantial review and therefore two rounds of drafting before sign-off. In the unlikely event that DHSC does not accept the inception report, the contract will be terminated early. During the inception stage, a use and influence plan will be developed by DHSC. This plan will include stakeholder mapping and a dissemination plan for the evaluation outputs. The Supplier is expected to consider this plan in the inception report and ensure the evaluation deliverables will allow DHSC to communicate the findings effectively to stakeholders identified in the plan.
DHSC expects regular (i.e. at least fortnightly) virutal meetings with the Supplier following an initial kick-off meeting (this may be increased or reduced at the discretion of DHSC and will be determined by activities and performance of the Supplier). DHSC will make available to the Supplier documents that can assist in developing this understanding.
End of field work/ interim workshop
The purpose of this workshop is to provide DHSC with a high-level overview of emerging findings from the fieldwork and allow an opportunity for feedback and an indication of specific areas of interest for further analysis. Materials should be provided prior to the workshop itself to allow DHSC an opportunity to review.
Final report
The final report should be no longer than 40 pages, excluding annexes, and include an executive summary. It must be suitable for publication and follow the DHSC style guide, paying particular attention to accessibility. The outline of the final report will be agreed between the Supplier and the UKVN team during the inception stage.
Budget and duration
The maximum budget for this evaluation is £550,000 for a duration of 12 months.
Costings can include up to 100% full economic costing (FEC) but should exclude output VAT. Applicants are advised that value for money is one of the key criteria that applications will be assessed against.
Management arrangements
A research advisory group including, but not limited to, representatives of DHSC, other stakeholders across government and academia, and the successful applicants for the research should be established. The advisory group will provide guidance, meeting regularly over the lifetime of the research. The successful applicants should be prepared to review research objectives with the advisory group, and to share emerging findings on an ongoing basis. They will be expected to:
- Provide regular feedback on progress
- Produce timely reports to the advisory group
- Produce a final report for sign off
Research contractors will be expected to work with nominated officials in DHSC, its partners and the NIHR. Key documents including, for example, research protocols, research instruments, reports and publications must be provided to DHSC in draft form allowing sufficient time for review.
The application
Applications for this funding opportunity will be assessed through an accelerated single stage process:
- Applicants should complete a full NIHR Standard Application Form and submit this by the stated deadline. There is no preliminary shortlisting phase.
- Eligibility checks will be completed to ensure applications meet the requirements for this funding opportunity.
- Eligible applications will be shared with members of the NIHR PRP core committee and additional subject experts and for review and assessment.
- The Committee will meet to discuss applications and will provide funding recommendations to DHSC