NBA Survey of the Australian Blood Sector Suppliers Summary of Responses and Feedback

Q3. Are you interested in learning more about other work that the NBA does? 43% responded “yes” and of those, interest included understanding more about: –the landscape in relation to funding forecasts –the future relationship between jurisdictions and the NBA –future tender processes, including timelines –NBA processes –where responsibility lies for decision-making (including policies) and the committees that participate –all matters relating to IVIg –post-market activities –ABDR, BloodNet & data collection on product usage

Q4. When contacting the NBA, how useful do you find its website for locating the information or contact person you need? In rating the usefulness, responses were as follows: –46% very good –31% good –23% satisfactory There were several suggestions, including: improving navigation of site more frequent update of NBA contact names addition of a contents page and a glossary of terms

Q5. If given a point of contact (e.g. a contract manager), how accessible is the contact? For those respondents where this question was relevant, responses were as follows: –50% very good –33% good –8% satisfactory –8% unsatisfactory Comments included: timely receipt/acknowledgement of correspondence would be of assistance if the contact person is unchanged, accessibility is generally good, however a high staff turnover can have a negative impact

Q6. Do you usually get a prompt to your enquiry? In rating promptness, responses were as follows: –31% very good –61% good –8% unsatisfactory The only comment related to the need for more timely receipt/acknowledgement of correspondence.

Q7. How would you rate the adequacy of the response, in terms of having it clearly and fully explained to you? In rating performance in this area, responses were as follows: –31% very good –46% good –7% satisfactory –15% unsatisfactory Comments included: high staff turnover can result in staff not properly trained some simple questions cannot be answered satisfaction varies depending on the type of request, however general questions are responded to adequately questions referring to specific deliverables generally tend to be vague, with no clear deliverables or timelines

Q8. How well do you feel the NBA understands your organisation? Responses to this question are as follows: –33% very good –42% good –8% satisfactory –17% unsatisfactory Comments include that the NBA: may not have a good understanding of an organisation’s role apart from its role as a supplier to the NBA needs to work closer to align processes and to share information Needs a greater understanding of the implications of its demands on an organisation’s business operations

Q9. How well do you feel the NBA understands the industry you operate in? Responses are as follows: –46% very good –15% good –39% satisfactory Comments include that: The NBA needs to work closer to align processes and improve dialogue & information sharing with partners to foster a more collaborative partnership The NBA process in the case of diagnostic reagents appears to have limited overall benefit to stakeholders

Q10. Do you think the NBA is well informed about potential or emerging suppliers in the Australian Blood Sector? Responses as follows: –15% very good –61% good –15% satisfactory –8% unsatisfactory Comments include that the NBA needs to: Provide distributors with greater guidance during the transition process Give thought to the process for diagnostic reagents as it appears difficult for new technologies to be considered, limiting competition

Q11. Are you comfortable about raising concerns or offering feedback to the NBA regarding its performance to you as a supplier? All respondents answered in the affirmative. Comments included that the organisation: –had a good relationship with the NBA and the contract manager –was comfortable in raising issues, but did not always receive feedback or outcome resolution –had fairly good dialogue and collaboration with the NBA

Q12. If you participated in one of the tender processes in , how useful was the consultation process conducted by the NBA prior to the tender: Responses as follows: –22% very good –22% good –44% satisfactory –11% unsatisfactory Comments include: following information-gathering by the NBA, it would be useful for suppliers to be advised of relevant issues raised and then to be considered by the NBA in the tender process

Q12. (comments continued) Comments (continued) –it would be useful to understand the issues the NBA is facing and likely impacts on tender outcomes –disclosure of how and what weightings will be used by the NBA in making decisions –consultation was limited –relevant NBA staff were freely available –short notice for consultation meeting was inconvenient

Q13. If you participated in one of the recent tender processes, did the information in the RFT document give you a clear understanding of the products and support services the NBA was seeking? Responses as follows: –25% very good –75% good Comments include: it was very clear pricing indicators in the RFT could have been misleading

Q14. If you participated in one of the recent tender processes, how well did the RFT outline expectations for the contract? Responses as follows: –38% very good –50% good –12% unsatisfactory Comments include: Improved transparency of evaluation criteria and process, including weightings [relates more to 13?]

Q15. If you have been a tenderer, and took up the opportunity of a Tender Debrief, how would you rank it? Responses as follows: –33% very good –50% satisfactory –17% unsatisfactory Comments include: the debrief does not allow for useful and open dialogue the NBA should consider videoconferencing for debriefing the process should be more detailed

Q16. If you have been a supplier of blood products under a contract with the NBA, was/is the NBA’S contract management consistent with the terms of the contract? Responses as follows: –40% very good –50% good –10% satisfactory

Q17. Were the NBA’s decisions made under the contract clearly communicated to you? Responses as follows: –18% very good –82% good

Q18. How would you rate the NBA’s responsiveness to handling your queries and other communications throughout the duration of the contract? Responses as follows: –45% very good –45% good –9% unsatisfactory Comments include: Good responsiveness to day-to-day inventory related issues, however there can be delays in relation to complex broader issues, which is understandable timely receipt/acknowledgement of correspondence would be of assistance

Q19. How would you rate the NBA’s knowledge about blood products and patient needs? Responses as follows: –18% very good –36% good –45% satisfactory Comments include: better training for NBA staff departure of Principal Medical Officer has reduced NBA knowledge knowledge of blood products is good, but patient needs less well understood general knowledge sufficient, however specific use of bypassing agents is limited

Q20. How would you rate the NBA’s capability in forecasting demand for blood products in Australia? Responses as follows: –8% very good –58% good –33% satisfactory Comments include that the NBA: does a good job, but could communicate more frequently to suppliers has capability in forecasting accurately

Q21. Do you think that the NBA is consulting enough with suppliers to inform the annual National Supply Plan and Budget? Responses as follows: –16% very good –58% good –25% satisfactory Comments include: It would be beneficial if NBA information was also shared with suppliers to improve accuracy in forecasting and improved efficiency in operations

Q22. As suppliers may have new types of products, how easy is it for you to access information on the process for applying for new, or variations to, types of products and services funded under the National Blood Agreement (known as the Schedule 4 process)? Responses as follows: –16% good –58% satisfactory –25% unsatisfactory There were many comments relating to the current process, including:

Q22. (continued) Comments (continued) preference for a standard document outlining the process and expectations of the NBA and various committees to approve new products it is complex and unclear, particularly where complex product changes are under review it requires significant effort to inform/educate the NBA who are inclined to commence the process by blocking change there is a backlog of applications approval for new technologies is not clear

Q22. (continued) Comments (continued) clear definition and consensus on the process(es) for funding of a new plasma product is required from government. This needs to include a structured evaluation process with a clearly defined evaluation timetable is an intensive, somewhat vague process and timeliness of deciding outcomes is unclear