RFP for Congenital Syphilis Investment Case

We highly recommend that you refer to the formal RFP here.

1. About Evidence Action

Evidence Action Evidence Action is a global nonprofit scaling proven health and development solutions to reduce the burden of poverty for hundreds of millions of people. From fighting parasitic worms and providing millions with safe water access to enabling treatments to prevent anemia and congenital health issues, our evidence-based interventions provide the greatest impact for communities per dollar spent.

Our expertise in cost-effective programming, continuous improvement, and commitment to results has allowed us to reach more than half a billion people with our programs over the past decade. We work in nine countries and counting, with 900+ staff- and in some geographies, values-aligned partners – delivering transformative outcomes.

1. The RFP Timeline

Intention to bid notifications: Accepted on a rolling basis

Your questions on the RFP are due by: 17 April 2026

Questions will be answered by Evidence Action on or before: 22 April 2026

Your RFP response is due via email by 5 pm EDT on: 1 May 2026

These dates are subject to change. You will be notified via email of any adjustments made to the timeline.

1. Background, Purpose, Deliverables & Methodology

Background

Congenital syphilis causes over 390,000 adverse outcomes annually—including 150,000 stillbirths and 70,000 neonatal deaths—yet remains severely underfunded relative to its burden. The problem is worsening: babies born today are 11% more likely to be exposed to congenital syphilis than eight years ago.

The solution is straightforward and highly cost-effective. Screening pregnant women using HIV/syphilis dual rapid tests (costing just $0.15 more than existing HIV tests) combined with same-day benzathine penicillin treatment (less than $0.20) prevents over 80% of these devastating outcomes. Yet despite proven interventions and recent progress through Global Fund investments, congenital syphilis receives a fraction of the attention and resources proportional to its impact, leading to significant gaps. While new HIV infections among children under five have declined dramatically, falling by 62% from 310,000 in 2010 to approximately 120,000 in 2024, the global burden of congenital syphilis remains high, with the WHO estimating 700,000 cases globally in 2022.

The Global Coalition for the Elimination of Congenital Syphilis has been established with Gates Foundation support, convened by Evidence Action in partnership with WHO, PATH, Unitaid, and other stakeholders.

The coalition seeks to leverage the existing implementation evidence, cost-effectiveness modelling, and global data to establish an investment case for philanthropic and bilateral funding to eliminate congenital syphilis in a focused group of high-burden countries selected through a multi-criteria process.The investment case will also address opportunities for domestic resource mobilization, positioning new external funding as complementary to national government investment.

Purpose

Goal 1: Develop a comprehensive, donor-oriented investment case that calculates the investment required to achieve elimination of congenital syphilis in a focused group of high-burden countries selected through a multi-criteria process and clearly articulates the burden, health outcomes averted, costs saved from prevention over treatment, proven solutions, financial requirements, and expected return on investment to drive resource mobilization.

Goal 2: Develop a complementary investment case structured to speak to domestic government audiences by presenting scenarios that illustrate what current investment levels will achieve versus what becomes possible with increased investment.

Primary audiences:

• Philanthropic funders (global health foundations, MNCH/HIV/STI portfolios)
• Bilateral donors (USG, FCDO, Global Affairs Canada, others)
• Multilateral funders (Global Fund, Unitaid, Gavi)
• Domestic government audiences (Ministries of Finance and Health in key countries)

Note: An advocacy strategy for congenital syphilis elimination will be developed in parallel to this investment; see here. The content of the investment case may influence the advocacy strategy and vice versa. Interested individuals / firms are welcome to submit a single proposal encompassing both RFPs. If you are doing so, please indicate that in your RFP submission.

Deliverables

• Executive Summary (2 pages): Global burden statistics, proven solutions, total investment required for elimination, cost per outcome averted, call to action. Burden and investment data may be presented using a tiered country structure, for example a primary focus group of highest-burden and most-ready countries, a second tier of high-potential countries, and a broader group of countries where impact is possible, to demonstrate the full scale of the opportunity to donors and reflect the multi-criteria selection approach
• The Case for Prioritizing the Focus Countries (3-4 pages): Identification of the focus countries, collective burden data (% of global cases, adverse outcomes), rationale for focused elimination approach, potential for demonstration effect and global momentum. Country selection should be validated against a multi-criteria framework that includes not only epidemiological burden but may also include political tractability, government interest and buy-in, health system readiness, existing domestic and external investment levels, and proximity to elimination. A consultative process with Ministries of Health in countries may inform final selection.
• Proven Solutions and Implementation Model (4-5 pages): Evidence-based interventions (dual HIV/syphilis testing, benzathine penicillin treatment), cost-effectiveness analyses, alignment with existing health system infrastructure (PMTCT, ANC), existing scalability evidence from countries that have closed gaps in syphilis screening & treatment. This section could include at least one concrete real-world country example with implementation costs and practical lessons learned, drawing on national programs that have made meaningful progress.
• Elimination Framework for the Focus Countries (8-10 pages):
  • Elimination criteria and targets (based on WHO guidelines)
  • Country-by-country baseline assessment (current burden, screening coverage, treatment coverage, health system capacity)
  • Intervention packages required by country (commodities, training, systems strengthening, M&E)
  • Timeline to elimination by country (3-5 year roadmaps)
  • Total investment requirements with detailed cost breakdowns:
    • Commodity costs (tests, treatment), presented in a modular way so that funders who do not cover commodities can still identify their relevant entry point
    • Health system strengthening (training, supervision, quality assurance)
    • Monitoring and evaluation systems
    • Technical assistance
    
    
  • Projected health outcomes (adverse outcomes averted, lives saved) by country and collectively.
  • Scenario-based projections: present at minimum two scenarios, (a) maintaining current investment levels and the resulting outcomes, and (b) achieving the full elimination investment and the additional cases, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths averted. This framing is intended to resonate with both donor and domestic government audiences.
  
  
• Financing Landscape and Gaps (3-4 pages): Current funding for congenital syphilis (philanthropic, bilateral, multilateral), funding gaps for focus country elimination, opportunities for donor engagement (Global Fund alignment, bilateral country programs), potential for pooled funding mechanisms. This section should also capture the current footprint of existing funding so new investment is clearly framed as additive. It should include an assessment of domestic financing opportunities and examples of countries where national government investment has been central to progress. It should include a data-driven analysis of how the funding landscape is shifting, including quantified reductions or changes in historically significant funding streams to make the evidence-based case for diversifying the funding base and identifying new financing sources.
• Call to Action (2-3 pages): Specific investment asks by donor type, country-specific and regional funding opportunities, coalition engagement opportunities, implementation timeline, accountability and monitoring framework. The dollar ask should be clearly tied to the number of cases, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths that investment would avert.

2-3 pages each for the focus countries (level of detailed to be determined for each tiered set of countries) detailing content such as:

• Country burden data and epidemiology
• Current screening and treatment coverage gaps
• Specific intervention packages and costs
• Projected timeline to elimination
• Expected health outcomes (adverse outcomes averted, cost per outcome averted)
• Alignment with national strategies
• Existing domestic and external investment levels, and how new funding would be complementary, which can include domestic resource mobilization at national level and subnational level .

• 2-page executive summary (standalone)
• One-page fact sheets (burden, cost-effectiveness)
• PowerPoint deck (10-15 slides)
• Infographic visualizing key messages
• A version of the one-page fact sheet and/or PowerPoint deck tailored for domestic government audiences (e.g. Ministries of Finance, Ministry of Health)
• Note: Advocacy assets may be translated into French, Spanish, and Portuguese

Potential Methodology

• Identification of Focus Countries:
  • Use WHO global burden estimates and epidemiological data to generate a list of candidate countries with high absolute number of congenital syphilis cases and/or high prevalence.
  • Apply a multi-criteria selection framework to evaluate and prioritize candidate countries, incorporating: epidemiological burden, political tractability, government interest and buy-in, health system readiness, existing domestic and external investment levels, and proximity to elimination.
  • Conduct pre-consultation with stakeholders (Ministries of Health, CSOs, peer NGOs) in candidate countries to assess willingness and capacity before finalizing country selection
  • Present findings in a tiered structure to demonstrate the wider scale of impact possible beyond the priority focus
  • Validate country selection with coalition working group and technical partners
  
  
• Evidence Synthesis:
  • Leverage existing economic analyses and cost-effectiveness studies (WHO, published literature, GBD data, IHME estimates, Evidence Action’s CEA modeling).
    • Note: the objective is not to commission new cost-effectiveness modeling but rather to synthesize existing analyses
    • Note: The methodology and underlying data architecture should be designed to be interoperable with and buildable upon by complementary investment cases being developed by coalition partners later in 2026 and 2027. The consultant may align methodology, metrics, and data sources with these parallel workstreams where possible to avoid duplication and ensure the cases can be used together coherently to support integration with investment cases made for other triple elimination areas of focus.
    
    
  • Incorporate program data and implementation learnings from countries that have closed gaps in syphilis screening & treatment with a deliberate breakdown between countries where domestic financing has been central to progress (e.g. Brazil, China) and countries where donor financing has been the primary driver, to ensure the investment case speaks credibly to both financing pathways and the audiences associated with each
  • Review country-specific data from WHO Global AIDS Monitoring (GAM) reports and national health information systems
  
  
• Country-Level Costing and Planning:
  • Conduct country-by-country baseline assessments (burden, current coverage, health system capacity, best practises)
  • Develop standardized intervention packages with detailed cost breakdowns
  • Calculate country-specific investment requirements and present resources allocated to syphilis using activity-based costing
  • Model timeline to elimination and projected outcomes by country
  • Aggregate total investment requirement in focus countries
  • Develop scenario-based projections (status quo versus increased investment) for both donor and domestic government audiences
  
  
• Stakeholder Engagement:
  • Phase 1: Country Selection Consultations. Before finalizing the focus countries, conduct a structured consultative process with key stakeholders to ensure selection is grounded in both data and country reality. This can include:
    • Ministries of Health in candidate countries, to assess willingness, government buy-in, and readiness to engage
    • Coalition working group members and technical partners, to validate epidemiological data and apply the multi-criteria selection framework
    • PAHO, WHO technical experts and country focal points to identify where country-level momentum exists
    • Implementation partners with in-country presence, who can provide ground-level insight on health system capacity and political tractability
    
    
  • Phase 2: Investment Case Design Consultations. Once the focus countries are identified, conduct 5-10 key informant interviews to shape the structure, framing, and metrics of the investment case itself. The goal of this phase is to ensure the document resonates with its intended audiences before it is written. This can include:
    • Donor representatives (philanthropic, bilateral, and multilateral), to understand which metrics, framing, and investment scenarios are most compelling for each donor type, and to identify where previous investment case approaches have fallen flat
    • Domestic government representatives (Ministries of Finance and Health in focus countries), to understand what scenarios and indicators would be most persuasive for national budget allocation decisions, recognizing that their framing needs differ substantially from external donor audiences
    • Global health advocacy experts and comparable MNCH and STI campaign leads, to draw on lessons from investment cases in adjacent areas such as HIV, where infections averted and stillbirths averted have proven particularly persuasive
    • Private sector representatives, to assess opportunities for private sector financing that a public-sector-only model would not capture
    • Coalition working group review of draft versions, particularly country-specific data, costing, and scenario-based projections
    
    
  • Note: Throughout the development of the investment case and related assets, the Coalition working group will review draft versions to provide guidance and input.
  
  

How to apply

We highly recommend that you refer to the formal RFP here.

1. Proposal Requirements

Requirements

This section details the requirements you must address and support in your RFP submission.

Applicants are requested to submit proposals in MS Word or PDF (narrative) and Excel (budget), covering the following:

• Overview: Brief overview of the individual / firm and experience with performing similar assignments with international organizations, particularly not-for-profit organizations. Not to exceed 2 pages.
• Proposal: Approach to producing the investment case and proposed deadlines / activities. Not to exceed 4 pages
• Team: Staff who will work on this project (include brief bios/CVs that are max 1 page for each staff member)
• Budget: Detailed budget breakdown, including a breakdown of hourly / daily rates for all assigned staff, the expected number of hours and any reimbursable expenses
• References: Three references that can be contacted regarding relevant previous work. If you are selected as a finalist, Evidence Action will contact these references. They must be active customers, or customers whom you have served within the past 12 months.

Qualifications

Your proposal materials should demonstrate:

1. Proven track record developing donor-facing investment cases or resource mobilization materials in global health
2. Experience with country-level health program costing and financial planning
3. Deep familiarity with HIV, STI, and/or MNCH funding landscape
4. Experience synthesizing epidemiological evidence and cost-effectiveness analyses for non-technical audiences
5. Ability to work with country-level health data and national health information systems
6. Excellent writing and visual communication skills

Proposals and any clarifying queries arising on the RFP should be channeled through the following e-mail addresses: rfp@evidenceaction.org and anna.konstantinova@evidenceaction.org. Any questions for clarification on the RFP document or process should be received no later than the date specified in the above timeline (17 April 2026).

This is an invitation to offer and does not commit Evidence Action to accepting any of the proposals received or award the contract to any of the bidders including but not limited to the lowest bidder.

Evidence Action strongly promotes free and fair competition in all its procurement in a transparent manner.

1. Overview of the Evidence Action RFP Process
2. Proposal / Submission Format

Your submissions should be provided electronically via email to the primary contacts listed on the cover page (rfp@evidenceaction.org and anna.konstantinova@evidenceaction.org). No hard copies are required.

1. Clarification to RFP Information

Please share any questions or concerns regarding this RFP document or the RFP process with rfp@evidenceaction.org and anna.konstantinova@evidenceaction.org as soon as you have them. If you discover any ambiguity, error, conflict, or discrepancy in this RFP, you should notify us immediately. In the event that it becomes necessary to provide clarifying data or information, or to revise any part of this RFP, those changes will be provided to all vendors who have submitted a notification to bid.

1. Award Decision

Evidence Action will form an internal RFP review team comprised of representatives from the program. The coalition working group may also be consulted.

The team will evaluate all responses and score them based on a common set of criteria. The evaluation process may or may not include a second round of submissions and/or in-person or virtual meetings. Some elements may be added during the process, in which case all participants will be notified and provided with reasonable time to plan and accommodate the requests.

Following the award decision, all bidders have the opportunity to request and receive feedback on their performance. We recognize that you will expend time and resources in pursuit of this business opportunity, and we owe you the chance to understand where you can improve your offering and increase your success rate in the future, with Evidence Action or other prospective customers.

Contract Negotiation & Additional Notes

Vendors must be willing to negotiate a contract with Evidence Action in good faith and in a prompt, efficient, and cooperative manner. The successful Vendor will be required to agree to Evidence Action’s standard vendor contract, including all of the terms and conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Please note that the terms set forth in Exhibit A are minimum required terms and that Evidence Action reserves the right to modify such terms, in whole or in part, at any time prior to any final contract execution.

The successful vendor should not make any reference to Evidence Action in any literature, promotional material or sales presentation without prior written consent from Evidence Action’s CEO.

Evidence Action may make any and all inquiries as to the abilities of the individuals or organization to satisfy requirements of the RFP and to perform the work. This RFP is not an offer to enter into an agreement with any party but rather, it is a request to receive proposals from respondents interested in providing the services specified herein. Evidence Action reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted and to contract in the best interests of Evidence Action. Evidence Action is not responsible for any costs or damages associated with Vendor’s response, including copyright or other rights, regardless of the award or rejection of a proposal.

The Vendor and all relevant staff will be required to sign nondisclosure, conflict of interest and intellectual property agreements as part of its response to this RFP.

Tagged as: Agriculture, Food Security and Livelihoods