Tender: T - Evaluation · Web viewTender: BCU-ITT-44025Tender for the Evaluation of Transforming Cancer Services Together Programme Contract Period: April 2020 – March 2021 (approximately)

Tender: BCU-ITT-44025

Tender for the Evaluation of Transforming

Cancer Services Together Programme

Contract Period: April 2020 – March 2021(approximately)

1

Tender BCU-ITT-44025

1. Introduction

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board in partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support wishes to invite proposals for the evaluation of The Transforming Cancer Services Together Programme.

The Transforming Cancer Services Together (TCST) Programme is one of Macmillan’s system redesign programmes, which aims to develop and deliver clear, seamless and accessible pathways of care that are accessed in a timely fashion and appropriately, across organisational and professional boundaries, based upon a robust holistic assessment of need, encompassing person centred conversations. The programme aims to bring about a change in attitudes and behaviours of not only health care practitioners, but also all other professionals who have a responsibility for treatment, support, information and advice to people with a cancer diagnosis, their families and carers.

To achieve this it is acknowledged a change in culture and new ways of working may be required which recognise the wider social issues facing those with a cancer diagnosis. The TCST Programme is an ambitious programme of pathway redesign, in this first phase focusing on urological, colorectal, breast and lung cancers, which accounts for 60% of all new diagnoses across the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. Whilst each individual tumour site has been identified as having different redesign priorities, there are some cross-cutting themes which include: workforce development, specifically this theme is concerned with understanding the changes to ways of working or resource requirements, transitions between acute, primary and community care, and recovery package interventions (see Appendix 1).Key to the success of the TCST programme will be ensuring that a co-productive, person centred approach between programme, project managers, healthcare professionals and patients is embedded and delivered. This model of delivery will inform improvement activity which is based on what patients want and need, improving their experience, coordinating and makes it easier for them to manage their future health and wellbeing.

Following the appointment of the TCST Programme Team (December 2018) individual tumour site priorities have been identified for redesign, focusing on the diagnostic, treatment and aftercare points on the pathways.

This invitation to tender is for the evaluation of Phase 1 of the programme, which commenced in 2019 and is scheduled to complete in 2021. We require a robust and

2


independent assessment of the overall programme and its constituent project’s impact, which also which draws out learning about what works, for whom and, in what circumstances. Given the nature of the TCST programme, we are looking for a provider who will work with us in a flexible and iterative way as the programme and projects evolve.

Background and Context Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board is the largest health organisation in Wales, providing a full range of primary, community, mental health and acute hospital services for a population of around 678,000 people across the six counties of North Wales (Anglesey, Gwynedd, Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire, and Wrexham).

The Health Board has a budget of £1.3 billion and a workforce of approximately 16,500. There are three main hospitals (Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd in Bodelwyddan and Wrexham Maelor Hospital) along with a network of community hospitals, health centres, clinics, mental health units and community team bases. The North Wales Cancer Treatment Centre is located on the Ysbyty Glan Clwyd hospital site. The Health Board also coordinates the work of 109 GP practices and NHS services provided by dentists, opticians and pharmacists in North Wales.

There have been significant changes in the treatment and care of people affected by cancer over the last thirty years. Many more people are surviving some cancers and its treatment. Some are cured, but many continue to live with the impact of their cancer and its consequences for many years after. Living with active, progressive or recurrent cancer is a reality for over 2.5 million people in the UK. In Wales, there are over 130,000 people living with cancer and this number is expected to rise to 250,000 by 2030. In 2014, 19,000 people were diagnosed with cancer and 8,900 people died of cancer in Wales1. The number of new cancer cases continues to rise at an average rate of almost 1.5% per year2.

North Wales has two significant features that predispose cancer, that of increasing age and population deprivation. These features, amongst others, underpin the fact that the cancer burden in North Wales remains generally higher than the average for Wales. This analysis most likely extends to chronic conditions in general and thus an increasing issue for patients with cancer is complexity caused by multiple co-morbidities.

1 Cancer in Wales Population cancer incidence, mortality and survival with latest 2014 data update2 Cancer in Wales Population cancer incidence, mortality and survival with latest 2014 data update

3


Though it is the case that new cancer cases have generally increased over the past decade and that North Wales has a greater burden than many other parts of Wales, it is also the case that the increase has been relatively limited with little significant impact year on year. The population of North Wales is 678,000. On average 4,500 new cancer diagnoses are confirmed annually across the health board and, in 2010 a total of 27,100 people were living with cancer. This is projected to increase to 48,830 people by 2030, meaning one in two people will receive a cancer diagnosis during their life. Cancer is no longer just an acute illness treated primarily by clinical staff in hospitals. People living with cancer and beyond need to have access to good quality care in their local community often before, during and after treatment for many years. Primary care, linked community professionals and secondary care professionals are vital components in providing continuous and ongoing care for people affected by cancer throughout their diagnosis, treatment and beyond. They have extensive knowledge of the support services that are available locally and can sign post people accordingly.

There is therefore an impetus to explore new models of care and ways of working that deliver earlier intervention and diagnosis, improved access and more integrated and personalised services, including alternative models of follow up care. The TCST Programme responds to the increasing prevalence and changing nature of cancer by recognising the ongoing needs of people who have had a cancer diagnosis and recognises that current models of care are unsustainable and may be of limited benefit to people affected by cancer.

TCST Programme Aims The six aims of the programme are outlined below:

1. Improve the quality of cancer patients’ experience, which are based on the principles of early intervention, preventing problems escalating through appropriate interventions at the earliest opportunity and empowering patients to be able to make informed decisions about their cancer care, treatment and life throughout their cancer journey.

2. Reduce inefficiencies in hospital follow up and streamline services.3. Enhance service coordination and integration.4. Workforce profiling and capability - Specialist Cancer Nurse Review project - redesign

and support new models of care and support.5. Patient experience and engagement - working with patients and the public to co design

services that meet peoples need and provide good experiences of care and support.

4


6. Share learning in relation to redesign of pathways and systems across both partner organisations and the wider healthcare community.

Current Programme and Project Delivery Plans 2019/20 The operational priorities are:

Priority Area 1. Agree the optimal self-management pathway and implement the Supported Self-Management (SSM) Prostate Cancer Pathway, including a remote PSA monitoring software package.

Priority Area 2. Integrate mpMRI (multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging) as part of the prostate diagnostic and active surveillance pathways, as recommended by NICE (NG 131).

Priority Area 3. Agree optimal care coordination and communication across the bladder cancer pathway and make recommendations for improvements.

Priority Area 4. Multidisciplinary workforce redesign with a particular focus on non-nursing and non-medical posts. The consequences of any proposed changes then contributing the subsequent changes in existing workforce roles/responsibilities/ capacity as part of the pathway redesign priorities leading to improved patient outcomes.

Priority Area 5. Support the continued implementation of elements of Recovery Package interventions (see Appendix 1).

Priority Area 6. Develop and implement a Self-Directed Aftercare (SDA) Pathway following completion of breast cancer treatment.

Priority Area 7. Develop and deliver the Communications and Engagement Plans aligned to the identified communications strategic objectives.

Priority Area 8. Ensure the increased implementation of Straight to Test (STT) for those referred with suspected colorectal cancer.

Priority Area 9. Agree optimal colorectal cancer follow up pathway, support design of follow up protocols and their implementation.

Priority Area 10. Review current care for patients admitted via Emergency Department and subsequently diagnosed with colorectal cancer aligned to the optimal pathway with appropriate links to Single Cancer Pathway and, make recommendations for improvements.

Priority Area 11. Support the continued implementation of elements of Recovery Package interventions.

Priority Area 12. (early) diagnostic lung pathway, which will include:

5


a. Interface between Primary and Secondary care including referral process and guidance

b. Reduce time between CXR and CT scanc. Early access for patients to a key workerd. Early access to financial & benefits advice for patients

Priority Area 13. Improve referral processes for lung cancer surgery.

Aims and Objectives of the Phase 1 EvaluationThe aim of the evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of the impact of the programme and its associated projects and to gather learning and insights to inform local as well as wider UK system redesign programmes.

Programme Evaluation and Projects: The work is being commissioned as an overall programme evaluation, as well as an evaluation of the constituent tumour related projects evaluation. Exploring the context and considering the transferability to other settings of these projects will be an essential element of the evaluation and consideration to this should be demonstrated in the proposals.

The specific objectives for work are: 1. Determine the impact of the TCST Programme, and the extent to which it has supported

patients and professionals (from a range of disciplines and care settings) to diagnose, care for and appropriately support people affected by cancer.

2. Draw out lessons learned on what works (and what doesn’t work), for whom, why and in what circumstances – to inform learning and possible future phases.

3. To identify innovative system design with regard to early diagnosis and support through treatment and beyond by evaluating the individual project priorities.

4. To understand the value of such a strategic partnership between the two organisations.5. To work collaboratively with the projects and key partners to share learning, and

support key stakeholders to understand what the findings means for them.6. Provide recommendations regarding the future of such programmes within both Wales

and the implications for Macmillan’s work across the UK.7. To understand to what extent the principles of coproduction have been embedded in

the programme and projects and how has this benefitted the organisations, patients and professionals.

8. To understand to what extent the programme has delivered its Communication Strategy.

6


The TCST Programme evaluation will be required to answer the following key questions.

Impact To what extent has the programme been successful at influencing attitudes, behaviours

and priorities related to cancer in primary, community and secondary care across North Wales?

To what extent has the programme enhanced service integration and coordination between primary and secondary care?

To what degree has the programme improved the insight and understanding of practitioners in supporting people affected by cancer?

To what extent has the programme improved the ability for patients to self-manage and to access support and information when needed? Is there parity in this aspect? Is not what are the barriers?

How successful have the projects been in delivering innovation? What are the lessons learned regarding what works (and what doesn’t work), for whom, why and in what circumstances and what is the potential to replicate the projects across Wales and the UK?

To what extent will the impact of the programme and the work it is funding be sustainable in the longer term?

What existing/future barriers do stakeholders perceive to the success of the programme and how can they be mitigated for?

What, if any, has been the added value and impact of Macmillan’s role in the TCST programme?

Process What have been the benefits and drawbacks of the TCST design, including the

dissemination of learning through communication, engagement activity and delivery of training to a range of cancer and non-cancer staff?

How successfully has coproduction taken place and how has it been used to influence programme and project development?

What were the barriers/enablers of coproduction and how were these mitigated for exploited?

What are the key contextual and organisational factors that have enabled the success of the programme?

7


What are the key challenges in the delivery of the programme at a local level and how and to what extent have they been overcome?

How well have the partners worked together to deliver the programme, and what could have been done differently?

What are the key lessons learnt and recommendations for the TCST programme and wider stakeholders?

Proposed Approach and MethodologyWe are looking to appoint a provider who has carefully considered matching the right methods for data collection and analysis with the purpose of the enquiry. The methods and sample indicated need to be relevant to generate reliable data and the outlined analysis approach should be systematic and support the generation of convincing conclusions and distinct evidence-based recommendations.

We will also be seeking proposals where the risk of bias has been minimised by triangulation of data sources. We are interested in establishing how change happens, and contribution of our programmes and factors outside the intervention in explaining change – we will look for the demonstration of this understanding in the proposals we review.

We will look to the expertise of the successful evaluation provider to design a robust but pragmatic evaluation. However, it is expected that the evaluation team will:

Work with the programme team iteratively to refine the methodology by attending an inception meeting.

Familiarise themselves with the programme by reviewing key programme documentation and management information.

Conduct a brief and focused literature review of healthcare system redesign programmes in the last 3 years to inform the evaluation framework to surface similarities and differences.

Work closely with the programme team to use, review and develop the existing Theory of Change (TOC) for the TCST Programme, to inform programme and evaluation framework development.

Adopt a mixed methods approach, including both qualitative and quantitative methods, such as including surveys and interviews with patients, partners and key stakeholders. The proposal must detail sample sizes, ensuring that a broad range of patients and stakeholder are engaged. We are keen to ensure the evidence generated through appropriate methods that are justifiable.

8


Conduct project level evaluations for each tumour group in addition to a whole programme review.

Include illustrative case studies of project work and where appropriate individuals/teams.

Utilise the quantitative/qualitative evaluation data and management information collected by the TCST team.

Consider any sources of external secondary data (e.g. official statistics) that could be reviewed to determine the impact of the programme and report on this data.

Present pricing options, which consider the innovative/creative dissemination of findings, such as videos, workshops, patient involvement in presentations etc.

Suggest a communications plan for the dissemination of findings. The evaluator must have and detail in their proposal, previous experience of evaluating

coproduction models of system change to support this evaluation.

The successful bidder will be required to work with the partnership in a collaborative, iterative and flexible way. The programme will continue to develop and evolve over time and so we would welcome bids from providers that are able to demonstrate flexibility in their approach to the evaluation and working with us. Evidence of working previously in this way this will be looked for in proposals.

Reporting and Dissemination TransparencyReports will need to clearly disclose the details of the data sources and methods used, the results achieved, and any limitations in the data or conclusions. Transparency and openness underpin strong evidence. It is not possible to assess whether evidence is accurate or representative, identify any gaps or potential bias, or assess the logical validity of the analysis, unless the data and the process used to collect and analyse it are clearly presented, including any problems and limitations.

Risk Management Applicants should submit with their bid a summary explaining what will be the key risks to delivering their evaluation and what contingencies they will put in place to minimise them. A risk is defined as any factor which may disrupt, delay or prevent the full achievement of a project objective. We are particularly interested in how the supplier will achieve any stated sample for focus groups, interviews or surveys.

9


Ethics and Sensitivity Bids should consider if their methodology requires formal ethical process to be followed; though it is unlikely. However, regardless of the need for formal approval, we would look to proposals to consider the ethical implications of each phase of the work and how these will be mitigated.

Interim and Final ReportsAn interim report and a final report, both with executive summary, will be required. All reports will be submitted in draft until an acceptable iteration is signed off by TCST Programme Manager who will be the lead for this programme of work.

An interim report will be required to be submitted fiscal Quarter 2 2020/21 A final report will be required on or before March 2021

Emergent FindingsThis is a longer-term and formative evaluation; the research team will be encouraged to feed emergent findings into the programme team, to shape approach and delivery more immediately, as appropriate. Methods of doing this should be suggested in your proposal.

Clear Conclusions and RecommendationsReports will be required to summarise clear, evidence-based conclusions, followed by actionable recommendations. Applicants are reminded this is a pragmatic, service- focused evaluation required to facilitate change and improvement for people living with cancer.

Effective, Solution Focused DisseminationEffective ways to disseminate findings to stakeholders in North Wales, Wales and the UK will be looked for in applications. Turning knowledge into action (Knowledge into Action – ‘K2A’) and making recommendations for the way forward are a key part of ensuring value for money from the evaluation process.

Engaging, participative and creative dissemination will be looked for in proposals. Workshops, particularly involving frontline staff, patients and public in the dissemination of findings should be considered.

10


Timescale for the Evaluation

TCST Programme: Phase 1 Evaluation - Key Milestones

Indicative Timescales Item Phase

January-February 2020 CommissionSelection and inception

appointment

March 2020 Interviews

April 2020 Inception meeting with supplier

April 2020 Methodology refinement

April-May 2020Theory of change refinement/familiarisation/document review

April-June 2020Instrument development Fieldwork/analysis/report drafting

July-September 2020 Interim report submission (1)

July-September 2020 Dissemination

Interim reportJuly-September 2020 Fieldwork/analysis/report drafting

July-September 2020 Final report submission (2)

March 2021 Dissemination Final report

Management ArrangementsThe evaluators will report directly to Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Macmillan TCST Programme Manager will be the project manager for the evaluation. However, the Programme Manager will be supported by a member of Macmillan’s UKO based Evidence and Impact Team. The evaluation team will be required to provide monthly written updates and attend quarterly face-to-face review meetings during the course of the evaluation. In addition to describing progress, these will allow for any necessary revision to the planned methodology, setting down milestones for the next reporting period.

11


The successful applicant will be expected to provide strong project management for the work, including a consistent key point of contact, project plan with milestones and RAG rated quarterly management update.

The successful bidders will also be expected to work collaboratively with the Evaluation Advisory Group of the Transforming Cancer Services Together Programme Committee.

TCST Evaluation – Major Deliverables

1 Inception meeting attendance (face to face)

2 Interim Report

3 Interim verbal presentation/workshop with PowerPoint slides

4 Final report

5 Debrief on both interim and final reports to upon submission of initial drafts

6 Attendance at Evaluation Advisory Group and Programme Committee to update on progress

7 Submission of final report with accessible executive summary

8 Final verbal presentation/workshop with PowerPoint slides

9Any survey data in format of our choice (EXCEL/ACCESS/ SPSS etc.) with fully labelled variable data (where appropriate)

10 Timely updates on progress, at intervals as agreed with Programme and Project Managers

11 Attendance at project meetings as appropriate (as specified)

12


Resources Available to Support the Evaluation

Resources that will be available for utility throughout the evaluation will include:

The support of the Macmillan TCST Programme Team and Macmillan Cancer Support personnel throughout the evaluation.

The support of the TCST Steering Group and Programme Committee. Guidance and input from the Evaluation Advisory Group, which will include NHS

professionals and people affected by cancer. Access to a wide range of expertise and resource from Macmillan’s departments,

including but not restricted to the ongoing support of the Evidence Advisor for Wales and the UKO Evidence Department.

13


Scoring

The tender will be scored on a 80% quality/20% cost basis. The section below highlights the areas in which your bid will be assessed. Your ‘Response to Requirements’ submission is scored out of 60 points, but is worth 80% of the overall weighting:

Section Weighting Maximum Points Available

Section A: Award Criteria 0% For Information Only

Section B: Read & Agree 0% To Be Agreed

Section 1: Organisational Details 0% For Information Only

Section 2: Declaration of Good Standing 0% Pass/Fail

Section 3: Supplier Acceptability 0% Pass/Fail

Section 4: Business Practices 0% For Information Only

Section 5: Data Protection & F.O.I 0% For Information Only

Section 6: Economic & Financial Standing 0% Pass/Fail

Section 7: Insurance 0% For Information Only

Section 8: Response to Requirements 80% 60

Commercial Section 20% 10

100% 20

Response to Requirements14


We ask bidders to upload an attachment – a ‘Response to Requirements’, which clearly addresses the requirements. Proposals should be a maximum of 20 A4 pages and CVs can be included as a 1 page appendix. The proposal should (within the page limit) cover the following: A succinct summary of the proposal Details of the approach and methods to be used, including your rationale for choosing

this approach and methodology Your organisation’s experience of evaluation, particularly in the health/cancer sector in

Wales Details of the personnel to be involved including their role for this evaluation and their

previous experience (CV to be included as an appendix) Arrangements for managing this work and quality assuring outputs, including how you

would work with the programme during the evaluation A detailed budget, including a breakdown of time and costs per activity and per team

member. The budget should be inclusive of VAT and cover the following areas: Details of how people affected by cancer will be involved in the planning, design,

conduct and dissemination of the evaluation, via their membership of the Evaluation Advisory Group

Criteria for Selection We are looking for the following criteria upon which to make our selection: A clear and well-presented proposal. A detailed and appropriated methodology. A strong appreciation of what we’re looking to achieve in the project and what we want

to get from the evaluation. A suitably qualified and experienced team, with strong experience in evaluating similar

programmes, ideally in the Welsh health and social care sector. A good understanding and knowledge of the wider Welsh health and social care landscape and policy and political context would be an asset.

A proposal that represents value for money. Adopting a method which is flexible and will suit changing circumstances. Experience of working collaboratively with stakeholders. Experience of making robust evidence-based conclusions and recommendations in

services related settings.ScoringYour bid will be evaluated on the below criteria

15


Criteria Weighting Score

Method: A clear and well-presented proposal that demonstrates a detailed and robust methodology and approach. 20% 10

Understanding: A strong appreciation of what we’re looking to achieve in the project and what we want to get from the evaluation. 10% 10

Experience: A suitably qualified and experienced team, with strong experience in evaluating similar programmes, ideally in the Welsh health and social care sector. A good understanding and knowledge of the wider Welsh health and social care landscape and policy and political context would be an asset.

20% 10

Flexibility: Adopting a method which is flexible and will suit changing circumstances 10% 10

Iterative working: Experience of working collaboratively with stakeholders and helping them to collect data 10% 10

Evidence based conclusions/recommendations: Experience of writing clear evidence-based conclusions and recommendations for programme development.

10% 10

Evaluation Process

In order for the Tender to be processed for evaluation all sections must be completed or marker as non-applicable and all supporting evidence must be submitted by the deadline. The Evaluation Team will score each section or response as indicated in the scoring section above. All questions will be evaluated in line with the methodology below and the score given will reflect the level of confidence in the response(s) being considered. The generic interpretations of the criteria for the various levels of assessment are summarised in the following table:

Description Score

16


Excellent Response: Exceptional demonstration by the Potential Bidder of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource & quality measures required to provide the Services. Response identifies factors that will offer potential added value, with evidence to support the response

10

Good Response: Satisfies the requirement with minor additional benefits. Above average demonstration by the Potential Bidder of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the Services. Response identifies factors that will offer potential added value, with evidence to support the response

8

Acceptable Response: Satisfies the requirement. Demonstration by the Potential Bidder of the relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the Services, with evidence to support the response

6

Partial Response: Satisfies the requirement with minor reservations. Some minor reservations of the Potential Bidder’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the Services, with little or no evidence to support the response

4

Poor Response: Satisfies the requirement with major reservations. Considerable reservations of the Potential Bidder’s relevant ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the Services, with little or no evidence to support the response

2

Unacceptable Response: Does not meet the requirement. Does not comply and/or insufficient information provided to demonstrate that the Potential Bidder has the ability, understanding, experience, skills, resource and quality measures required to provide the Services, with little or no evidence to support the response

0

Commercial BidThere is a maximum budget for the full evaluation of £90,000 (including VAT and expenses), this includes dissemination and reporting of results. We expect bidders to upload a detailed

17


breakdown of costs, including details of tasks allocated to each staff member broken down by day rate/ # days /per activity or output. The process to decide which proposal to support will include discussion on proposed costs and value for money.

The Bidder with the lowest total price will be awarded the maximum marks available, marks thereafter will be awarded as a percentage difference to the winning score, i.e. a supplier who, for example, is 10% more expensive overall will receive 10% less marks and so on.

Priority Supplier Programme

NHS Wales is committed to developing its approach to working with key suppliers and has introduced a Priority Supplier Programme. The service aims to improve the ordering, invoice management and payment processes for the benefit of all parties. As a result of improvements made to payment processes, we may be able to pay invoices early. In return for paying participating suppliers ahead of standard payment terms a small rebate is deducted from each invoice that is paid early. Full details of the Programme are available at http://response.oxygen-finance.com/NHSW-Home-en (English); http://response.oxygen-finance.com/NHSW-Home-cy (Welsh). Suppliers will be given a score that relates directly to the percentage rebate they offer. For example, if the 2% option was selected then a 2% weighting score would be applied, and so on.

Shortlisting / Interview and Presentations

18


http://response.oxygen-finance.com/NHSW-Home-cy

http://response.oxygen-finance.com/NHSW-Home-cy

http://response.oxygen-finance.com/NHSW-Home-en

On completion of the evaluation of the Tender Applications providers achieving at least 6 points may be shortlisted to attend an interview – pre-awarded scores may be adjusted following the interview session.

The evaluation panel will consist of:

Caroline Usborne - Clinical Director Iris Wilmshurst- Macmillan Project Manager Adele Oddy - Evidence Advisor, Wales Ann Camps or Dawn Cooper - Macmillan Partnership Team Val Wakefield - Patient/Carer Rep

Also present will be Deborah Evans, Procurement Business Manager, who will not be awarding a score.

Indicative Project Timetable

19


Date Activity

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Tender Open via Bravo Solutions

Friday 6th March 2020 Tender Submission Closing Date

W/C 9th March 2020 Evaluation of Tenders

W/C 16th March 2020 Interviews (if required)

W/C 23rd March 2020 Contract Recommendations

W/C 30th March 2020 Contract Authorisation

W/C 6th April 2020 Contract Award

W/C 13th April 2020 Contract Start Date

The proposed procurement timetable is intended as a guide and, whilst the Health Board does not intend to depart from the above schedule, it reserves the right to do so at any time if circumstances dictate.

Appendices

20


Appendix 1 Recovery PackageAppendix 2 Theory of Change Narrative

Appendix A Priority Supplier InformationAppendix B Priority Supplier Participation AgreementAppendix C Summary of Regulation 57Appendix D Declaration of Good StandingAppendix E NHS Terms & Conditions of Services

21


Documents

Tender: T - Evaluation · Web viewTender: BCU-ITT-44025Tender for the Evaluation of Transforming Cancer Services Together Programme Contract Period: April 2020 – March 2021 (approximately)