Nigeria: Assessment of the Transportation System and Distribution Costs for Family Planning Commodities

Publication date: 2003

Nigeria Assessment of the Transportation System and Distribution Costs for Family Planning Commodities Prepared for the Federal Ministry of Health, Nigeria Tim O’Hearn Mike Healy March 2003 Nigeria: Assessment of the Transportation System and Distribution Costs for Family Planning Commodities Prepared for the Federal Ministry of Health, Nigeria Tim O’Hearn Mike Healy March 2003 DELIVER DELIVER, a five-year worldwide technical assistance support contract, is funded by the Commodities Security and Logistics Division (CSL) of the Office of Population and Reproductive Health of the Bureau for Global Health (GH) of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Implemented by John Snow, Inc. (JSI), (contract no. HRN-C-00-00-00010-00), and subcontractors (Manoff Group, Program for Appropriate Technology in Health [PATH], Social Sectors Development Strategies, Inc., and Synaxis, Inc.), DELIVER strengthens the supply chains of health and family planning programs in developing countries to ensure the availability of critical health products for customers. DELIVER also provides technical support to USAID’s central contraceptive procurement and management, and analysis of USAID’s central commodity management information system (NEWVERN). This document does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of USAID. It may be reproduced if credit is given to John Snow, Inc./DELIVER. Recommended Citation O’Hearn, Tim, and Mike Healy. March 2003. Nigeria. Assessment of the Transportation System and Distribution Costs for Family Planning Commodities. Arlington, Va.: John Snow, Inc./DELIVER., for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Abstract This report provides a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the costs for distributing family planning commodities in Nigeria. The distribution study analysis is intended for review by the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH), USAID/Nigeria, John Snow, Inc./DELIVER, and other key stakeholders involved in all aspects of family planning in Nigeria. The report reviews the background information, that led to the family planning distribution cost study, and describes the study assessment process, study methodology, and presentation of six family planning distribution options. The report also addresses the estimated costs associated with each option and the study team's recommended options. DELIVER John Snow, Inc. 1616 North Fort Myer Drive, 11th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 USA Phone: 703-528-7474 Fax: 703-528-7480 Email: deliver_project@jsi.com Internet: deliver.jsi.com Contents Contents . iii Figures . iv Tables. iv Acronyms .v Acknowledgements. vii Executive Summary. ix I. Introduction.1 Background.1 II. Assessment Process .3 III. Study Methodology .5 Availability of Data .5 Basis for the Study .5 IV. Transportation Options.7 Transportation Concerns.7 Options Considered .8 V. Methodology Option.9 Overview and Discussion of Transport Legs .9 VI. Transportation Option Cost Comparison .13 VII. Recommended Options .15 VIII. Private Sector Involvement .17 IX. Pilot States .19 Appendices .21 A. People Contacted.25 B. Sample .29 C. Sites Visited and Contacts .41 D. Seed Kits—Quantity, Volume, and Weight .45 E. Transportation Options .50 F. Information and Commodity Flows and Sample Documentation.68 G. Suggested Process for Reviewing/Hiring Contractors at the State Level.76 H. Primary Delivery Routes.80 I. Delivery Routes for Pilot States.83 J. Example of Standing and Operating Cost .87 iii Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Figures 1. LGA’s Illustrated Principals . 10 2. Information and Commodity Flows, Option B. 68 3. Information and Commodity Flows, Option C. 69 Tables 1. Summary of Transport Costs per Two-Month Cycle . 13 iv Acronyms AMC average monthly consumption CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CLMS contraceptive logistics management system COC combined oral contraceptive CS Central Stores cu. mt. cubic meter DCDPA Department of Community Development and Population Activities DFID Department for International Development FMOH Federal Ministry of Health FPLM Family Planning Logistics Management (project) FP family planning HIV/AIDS human immunodefiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome JSI John Snow, Inc. LGA local government area LIAT Logistics Indicators Assessment Tool LMIS logistics management information system LSAT Logistics System Assessment Tool NPHCDA National Primary Health Care Development Agency NGO nongovernmental organization PHC primary health care POD proof of delivery PPFN Planned Parenthood Federation of Nigeria RH reproductive health RHCS reproductive health commodity security RIF requisition information form SDP service delivery point SFH Society for Family Health/Population Services International SMOH State Ministry of Health SOW scope of work SPARHCS Strategic Pathway for Reproductive Health Commodity Security UNFPA United Nations Population Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development v Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs vi Acknowledgements The authors of this report wish to acknowledge the contributions and support of the many partners who took the time to meet with the transportation assessment team, and to provide essential information, and their experiences relating to the distribution of family planning products in Nigeria. A few of the many people and organizations deserving special thanks include the entire staff at the Federal Ministry of Health in Abuja and Lagos. Their willingness to give countless hours of valuable input was instrumental in completing a successful transportation assessment. Additionally, special thanks goes to the State Ministry of Health (SMOH), at all levels, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local government areas (LGAs), and all the organizations who provided valuable insights into the family planning distribution system, and the SMOH staff who made available important information during the assessment team's field visits. Much of this report’s findings and analysis is based on inputs by staff members from the Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH), Zonal and State Family Planning Stores, the SMOH, LGAs, and the managers and health care providers throughout our time in Nigeria. An assessment of this scope involves inputs and contributions from so many people that it is nearly impossible to acknowledge all the names and organizations, and the assessment team would surely omit many unwittingly if we attempted to do so. There were many organizations and individuals that contributed to the assessment in many different ways, and we are sincerely grateful for the professional, and in-depth assistance received from all. The views stated in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Federal Ministry of Health, the State Ministry of Health, or the local government areas within Nigeria. vii Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs viii Executive Summary In March 2003, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)/Nigeria asked John Snow, Inc. (JSI)/DELIVER to assess the transportation system and conduct a distribution cost study for family planning commodities within Nigeria. The transportation study request was the result of a two-day stakeholders meeting conducted in October 2002, which involved the Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH)/Department of Community Development and Population Activities (DCDPA), National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA), USAID/Nigeria, JSI/DELIVER, UNFPA, and other agencies and organizations. The primary focus of the meeting was to reach an agreement on the redesign of Nigeria’s logistic system. The redesign transition will have significant implications for the whole system, including some budgetary considerations for the FMOH, as well as for nongovernmental organizations involved in family planning (FP). Considerable changes will take place in the roles and responsibilities of personnel throughout the different levels of the logistics system. Nigeria is one of the largest countries in Africa and, by far, the most populated, which presents certain challenges for their transportation system and the distribution of FP products. Currently, there are 36 + 1 States (1 is the federal capital, Abuja) and approximately 13,000 PHC facilities, and of those primary health care (PHC) facilities, about 4,000 provide FP services (active FP service delivery points). Additionally, it is estimated that there are about 800 active FP sites at the State and LGA levels (clinics and hospitals). Within this context, the study team developed key questions for analysis, as well as survey questionnaires for field visits (to be issued at the different levels within the distribution system). The assessment team also evaluated all relevant transportation issues, such as staffing, vehicle availa­ bility, capacity, maintenance and vehicle utilization, vehicle types, volume (for FP commodities), outsourcing, and other critical transportation issues. Although some of the key questions evolved during the study, the following questions were explored: 1. As proposed, is it feasible for the redesign plan to eliminate one or more levels from the current distribution process, and distribute contraceptive products from Central Stores (CS) down the supply chain to the service delivery points (SDP) level (CS to the State Stores, the State Stores to the LGAs, and the LGAs to the SDPs)? 2. Do the State Stores have the capacity (storage capacity) to integrate the redesign program with other vertical programs? 3. What is the cost (overall and incremental/marginal) under the proposed delivery system? 4. Is it possible to outsource transportation and/or distribution of products and supplies relating to the redesign plan? After extensive consultation with key stakeholders and reviewing available records and data, as well as evaluating the survey questionnaires and the information gathered while conducting five field visits, the study team’s results were presented to staff members of the FMOH/CDCPA. ix Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs A total of six options were evaluated and presented, including— Option A1 The current FMOH/DCDPA proposal as described in the contraceptive logistics management system (CLMS) handbook. Option A2 The current FMOH/DCDPA proposal as described in the CLMS handbook with the resupply periods synchronized throughout the distribution supply chain. Option B Commodity flows as in option A2 but operating as a pass through (cross-dock) operation with delivery to each level of the system. Option C Similar to option B but with direct delivery from the State to the SDPs. Option D Direct delivery from the Central Store to LGAs and onward delivery from LGA to SDPs. Option E Direct delivery from Central Store to SDP by a third-party (private sector) parcel carrier (DHL, UPS, and FedEx). The main findings of the study were, with the exception of option E, that all options can be funded from a reasonable share of the planned margins from the cost recovery system. However, it must be firmly stated that these margins will only apply if the expected number of active SDPs and the average volume per SDP reflects that of the assumptions derived from the provisional Seed Kit distribution plan. The potential for outsourcing FP supplies exist; however, due to time constraints permitted to conduct this assessment, only limited discussions were completed in private sector transportation, and these discussions were centered on three parcel carriers (UPS, FedEx, and DHL). There are however, obvious opportunities for the private sector to be involved in this system. Further investigation needs to be completed before involving the private sector in either of the recommended options. General Recommendations The study team recommends that either option B or C be adopted for the distribution of FP commodities. Option B most closely matches the supply chain as it relates to the CLMS handbook, but it introduces a positive delivery structure at all levels of the system. Option B removes the uncertainty of a collection process; it functions as a pass through (cross-dock) system. Under option B, stock is held at only two points within this system, either at the State or SDP level. Option C departs from the supply chain of the CLMS handbook by introducing a direct delivery process from the State to the SDPs. Option C is more expensive than option B; however, the fact that a pickup truck can travel from the State to every active SDP, and because LGAs have SDPs in the vicinity for every LGA, provides a valuable opportunity for State FP staff. The State FP staff can accompany the delivery driver for monitoring and evaluation purposes at either the LGA level or the SDP level. Another advantage of option C is that it eliminates the need to use local rural transport for the final delivery. In the teams opinion, these benefits more than outweigh the moderate additional cost of implementing option C. x Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs If option C is adopted, all transport costs are concentrated at the CS and State levels (as illustra-ted on the Summary of Costs table). Under this option, the LGAs or SDPs do not have transport costs. Therefore, using option C will require a redistribution of the Cost Recovery System margins. The margin needs to be allocated in proportion to the cost expected at each level. Overall, while there is room for Nigeria to improve its distribution system, the FMOH has many knowledgeable and dedicated staff who are doing a high-quality job. They are committed to making the necessary improvements within this system. Nigeria has an opportunity to move forward in a positive way to establish a quality supply system that meet their country's needs. xi Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs xii I. Introduction Background In October 2002, prior to this distribution study, a two-day stakeholders meeting was held in Abuja, Nigeria. The meeting included 26 key representatives from the Central Store and Zonal offices of the Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH), the Department of Community Development and Population Activities (DCDPA), and the National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA). The primary focus of the meeting was to seek agreement on the redesign of the logistic system from all the participants. Redesigning the entire logistic system has significant overarching implications, including (1) budgetary considerations for the Nigerian government and nongovernmental organiza­ tions, and (2) changes in the roles and responsibilities of personnel at different levels in the logistics system. USAID/Nigeria asked JSI/DELIVER to assess the current transport management system to establish a common understanding of the Nigerian contraceptive logistics system’s performance and transpor­ tation management system; and to identify priority problems to improve the overall contraceptive logistics system performance and the probable cause of those problems. Currently, the contraceptive supply chain in Nigeria is a vertical system managed primarily by the DCDPA of the FMOH. Within the current distribution process three key conditions exist: (1) the contraceptive logistics system is not functioning according to the original plan, (2) contraceptive availability to clients, especially at service delivery points (SDPs) has suffered as a result of the current distribution system, leaving SDPs understocked or completely out of stock, and (3) the warehouses at the Central and State levels are overstocked, resulting in contraceptive supplies expiring or being damaged and eventually being destroyed. If the redesigned distribution plan is feasible and implemented as agreed, it would mean eliminating one or more levels within the current distribution product flow. Additionally, following preliminary discussions relating to the proposed redesign distribution plan, the delivery cycle would incorporate changes that reflect the redesign plan, and would result in developing a new delivery schedule. However, before a redesign of this scope can be implemented, the transportation assessment study was required to evaluate all relevant transportation issues, such as staffing, vehicle availability, capacity, maintenance and vehicle utilization, vehicle types, volume (contraceptives), outsourcing, and other critical transportation issues. Within this context, several questions arose that related to the distribution of FP products and the different levels involved in that process. The study team researched and evaluated the key statement of work (SOW) questions, and from the study results presented the with FMOH six fundamentally sound options for the redesign. As mentioned earlier, currently, there are 36 + 1 (1 is the Federal Capital, Abuja) States and approximately 13,000 primary health care (PHC) facilities and, of the PHC facilities, approximately 4,000 PHC facilities that offer family planning (FP) services (or active FP SDPs). Additionally, it is estimated that 800 FP sites are active at the State and LGA levels (clinics and hospitals). Thus, the proposed redesign of the FP system and its distribution process is a significant change and required an in-depth evaluation for a successful distribution system. 1 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Key Questions for Analysis 1. As proposed, is it feasible for the redesign plan to eliminate one or more levels of the current distribution process and distribute contraceptive products from Central Stores (CS) down to the SDP level (CS to State Stores, State Stores to local government area [LGAs], and LGAs to SDPs)? 2. Do the State Stores have the storage capacity to integrate the redesign program with other vertical programs? 3. What is the cost (overall and incremental/marginal) under the proposed delivery system? 4. Is it possible to outsouce transportation and/or distribution of products and supplies relating to the redesign plan? 2 II. Assessment Process To provide answers to the earlier questions, the study team conducted a multi-dimensional assessment that included the following components: 1. Developed and Issued Transportation Questionnaires In partnership with the FMOH, the study team developed and issued transportation question-naires while making site visits in five States, including Niger, Abia, Bauchi, Edo, and Oyo. Appendix C lists the individual sites visited and the people contacted. The questionnaires address and evaluate issues such as inventory levels, warehouse space, the delivery process, the delivery cost, vehicle capacity, etc., and how to reach key representatives at all levels within the distribution system. Appendix B provides copies of the questionnaires, as well as the worksheets used during the field visits. Each questionnaire and worksheet focused on a specific level within the distribution system and related topic area: • Central Stores (Worksheet A) • All Stores Except Central Stores (Worksheet A-1) • Delivered and Collected Quantities (Worksheet B) • Delivery Resources (Worksheet C) • Budget—Fiscal 2002 Information (Worksheet D). The results from the questionnaires proved to be a valuable tool to quantify and assess past and present FP inventory levels; review average monthly consumption (AMC) (volume); number of stockouts; expired inventory; deliveries (facility and quantity); vehicle capacity (year, size, and condition); and vehicle budgets (fixed and variable cost). They also provided information about the perception of local stakeholders regarding the overall distribution system, problems and concerns within the system, and what was needed to improve the distribution system. 2. Conducted Site Visits and Interviews The site selection process was completed through a collaborative effort that included the FMOH, CDC, JSI/DELIVER, and Crown Agents. The site selections were somewhat limited due to security issues from USAID/Nigeria. The team made their field site selections using a non-random process. The selection criteria was based on the following: • high usage areas (volume) • UNFPA-supported states • relative size and population of the location 3 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs • community ethnicity • time available to complete the study (influenced from the knowledge and experience of the FMOH staff). 3. Reviewed Documents and Interview Information The study team collected data and information from the following sources: • UNFPA and JSI/DELIVER. National Handbook, Contraceptive Logistic Management (draft). • Documents relating to the volume classification of FP sites as low, medium, and high. • JSI/DELIVER. A Baseline Assessment of the Contraceptive Logistics System in Nigeria. • Site questionnaire data. • JSI/DELIVER SPARHCS report. • NEWVERN information (quantity/volume–summary by year) and FP shipment history (1990– 2002). • Discussions with USAID/Nigeria. • Discussions with staff members from the FMOH and SMOH, LGA, and State FP coordinators, and SDP staff. The following narrative is an in-depth discussion of the transportation management study that addresses key elements directly related to Nigeria’s distribution process, as it relates to FP commo­ dities. Additionally, a discussion will be presented addressing issues such as vehicle capacity require­ ments, cost methodology, cost recovery, distribution options, and the potential for outsourcing FP commodities. 4 III. Study Methodology Availability of Data The consultants for this assignment used several sources of data to assess Nigeria’s current and proposed FP distribution system. The key data required was the volume of commodities to be delivered to each point in the supply chain and the geographical location of each point relative to its supply point, as well as the road network needed to complete the distribution process. The field visits revealed that although there are significant differences in current performance levels State to State; no State visited demonstrated a level of activity that could be categorized as a fully functioning family planning program. In addition, the availability of historical data was inconclusive. The lengthy stockouts and breakdowns in the collection system, even when stock was available, means that the data available understates true demand, by orders of magnitude. The numbers and locations of the health facilities providing family planning services were not always readily available at the State and LGA level. The study team visited clinics that were classified as active FP providers. While these clinics were clearly FP providers, the levels of activity, range of methods available, and available stock indicated that, although the Nigerian FP program was committed in its efforts, many programs visited were struggling to survive. It was recognized by both the study team and FMOH that system improvements could greatly enhance its program by concentrating on core supply chain fundamentals, such as improving the LMIS and the monitoring and evaluation process, and by shortening the supply chain. The study team reviewed the field data collected, and concluded that much of the data would not be appropriate for the assessment or future transport requirements. However, during this time, useful estimates for the cost of particular elements of transportation costs were obtained and crosschecked between FP supervisors and FP coordinators in different States and LGAs. Basis for the Study Due to the type of data available within the existing operations, the DELIVER team needed to develop an approach that would provide the FMOH with realistic and appropriate results for the distribution of FP commodities within Nigeria. Thus, in keeping with the FMOH National Reproduc­ tive Health Policy, as well as introducing the redesign of the logistics system, the team felt it was necessary to incorporate additional information in the study, including newly developed materials by the FMOH/CDCPA, UNFPA, CDC, and JSI/DELIVER: • National Handbook—Contraceptive Logistic Management System (draft) • Estimates of FP SDPs and Commodity Volumes Required to Seed Family Planning Activity At this point, it is extremely important to state that the Estimates of Commodity Volumes Required to Seed Family Planning Activity document is an estimate, and is based on the expected number of 5 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs active family planning SDPs in each state. The active family planning SDPs in each State have been categorized as— • Primary Low • Primary Medium • Primary High. The Seed Kits appropriate to each category have been defined as indicated in appendix D (size and volume). The Seed Kits provide sufficient FP commodities for approximately a four-month period. Following a comprehensive review of the expected quantities and the sizes of the Seed Kits demon­ strate that the physical volume and weight of the Kits will be low (i.e., small parcels). It is intended that the redesign program pilot the contraceptive logistics management system (CLMS) in nine States, to provide these pilot states with Seed Kits at the beginning of the trial, and to resupply the SDPs in accordance with the CLMS at two-month intervals. To achieve the goals and objectives of the transportation study, it was decided to use all relevant data collected (interviews, documents, and field visits), and to specifically base the study on the volume estimates contained in the provisional distribution of Seed Kits. The study team would also examine various options that would provide for the distribution of the required replenishment volumes. 6 IV. Transportation Options Transportation Concerns The National Handbook for Contraceptive Logistics Management System (CLMS) (draft) contains details of the proposed supply chain. Appendix E (option A1) provides an outline of the supply chain as described in the National Handbook for CLMS. The supply chain is based on delivery from the Central Store in Lagos to the State Stores; collection, thereafter, is by the LGAs from State Stores and collections made by the SDPs from the LGA Stores. Additionally, as a result of the October 2002 stakeholders meeting, the Zonal Stores were eliminated from the proposed distribution pipeline. Proposals to eliminate additional levels of the pipeline from the supply pipeline, such as the LGAs, had been rejected by the FMOH. The LGAs are viewed as a key component of the strategy for the delivery of family planning services in Nigeria. After close examination of the proposed supply chain (above), the study team raised three major concerns, including the following: 1. The transport system was based on a collection of products beneath the State Store level. This requires the active participation of approximately 750 plus LGAs and approximately 4,000 SDPs to ensure that stock moves down the supply pipeline into the hands of consumers (SDP level). The field visits conducted during the study revealed that the failure of LGAs and SDPs to collect products, even when stock was available, is a major contributor to the present FP commodity/ distribution situation. 2. The supply pipeline is extremely long—approximately 16.5 months of stock are set to be in the pipeline. 3. The resupply periods—CS to State, State to LGA, LGA to SDP are asynchronous, and this exacerbates the length of the pipeline. Following an in-depth review and discussion of these concerns, the study team decided to examine various options that would overcome the perceived limitations within the supply chain, but, at the same time, preserve in these options the planned role of both the State and LGA in the logistics management information system. As work on the National Handbook for CLMS advances, and with the advent of the pilot States, it was also decided to limit the consideration of alternative options to those that would, in large measure, parallel the FMOH National Reproductive Health Policy, as well as be compatible with the principles established in the National Handbook for Contraceptive Logistics Management System (draft). The study team determined that the State’s and LGAs’ role in the resupply of SDPs would have more impact and function more efficiently as a system if the two levels (States and LGAs) of the distribu­ tion chain focused more on the monitoring and evaluation and the approval of requested commo­ dities. This structure would also enable the States and LGAs to provide the required monitoring of the resupply process rather than the actual physical storage and/or handling of the resupply stock. 7 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Options Considered To achieve regular and reliable distribution of family planning commodities in Nigeria, and to ensure availability at the SDP levels, the following six options were considered and evaluated, and presented to the FMOH in March 2003. See appendix E for a detailed discussion of each option. Option A1 The current FMOH/DCDPA proposal as described (above and in appendix E) in the CLMS handbook. Option A2 The current FMOH/DCDPA proposal as described in the CLMS handbook with the resupply periods synchronized throughout the distribution supply chain. Option B Commodity flows as in option A2, but operating as a pass through (cross-dock) operation with delivery to each level. Option C Similar to that of option B but with direct delivery from the State to the SDPs. Option D Direct delivery from the Central Store to LGAs and onward delivery from LGA to SDPs. Option E Direct delivery from the Central Store to the SDPs by a third-party (private sector) parcel carrier (DHL, UPS, and FedEx). Options B, C, and D options are based on a stockless process at both the State and LGA levels. Options B, C, and D are a basic three-step process: 1. Supply requests are initiated by the SDPs, followed by a monitoring and approval process by both the LGA and State—State FP staff then pass requests to the Central Store. 2. After reviewing the RIF, the Central Store picks and packs resupply consignments for the individual SDPs. 3. All consignments for SDPs in a particular State are delivered to the State, pre-packed, sealed, and labeled. Depending on the option selected, the consignments would be onward delivered by one of three ways: the State to the LGA to the SDP, the State to the SDP, or the LGA to the SDP. This process resupplies each SDP on a two-month cycle without holding stock at the State or LGA Stores. Emergency stocks are then held at the SDP, ready for use in an urgent situation. See appendix E for a detailed description of each option and the associated information flows plus an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each option. 8 V. Methodology Option Overview and Discussion of Transport Legs Each option contains two or three distinct transport legs, either by delivery or collection. The meth­ odologies that were developed allow for an estimation of the resources required to effect each transport leg of each option and to provide an estimate of the cost for each option. In all cases, the following is assumed: • Seed Kits have a four-month usage. • SDP resupply period is two months. • Resupply volumes will be 50 percent of the Seed Kit volumes. 1. Central Store (Lagos) to State With the exception of option E, this transport leg (CS Lagos to States) is delivered and is common to all options. A series of scheduled delivery routes initiating from the Lagos Store was developed to ensure that each State would receive a resupply delivery every two months. Under options A1 and A2, the resupply would be in bulk and, under the other options, the resupply process would be pre- packed for the SDP. However, in either case the volume of commodities would be the same. States were allocated routes by reference to their geographical position and the national road net­ work. Using distances derived from a large-scale map of Nigeria and the specific order volumes estimated for each State, the length of the route and the total volume for the route were calculated. Where necessary to balance truckloads, States were reassigned to other routes to accommodate more practical and efficient routes. The four delivery routes are presented in appendix H. Running times for each route were calculated as follows: • Length of each route • Number of deliveries. From the total running time, as well as the expected volumes to be delivered on each route, it was apparent that a single vehicle could complete all routes in a two-month period. A rigid truck with a body of 20 cubic meters mt. capacity would have sufficient capacity to handle the proposed delivery volumes. Additionally, this size and type of truck would have spare capacity to allow for future growth within the FP program. The standing and operating costs associated with this size vehicle were used in the cost estimates. See appendix J for the different categories included in the standing and operating cost. 9 Primary Roads Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 2. State to LGA This transport leg is common to options A1, A2, and B. In options A1 and A2, it is a collection system completed by the LGA. In option B, it is a delivery system by the State to the LGA. Collection costs were estimated using the simple method of multiplying the number of LGAs in the State by the average cost per collection trip. The collection cost information was obtained from the field visits conducted. Relating to delivery, if maps locating the LGAs within the states had been available, the methodology outlined above (CS to State) would ideally be repeated. However, due to time constraints and the lack of suitable state maps, this was not possible. However, during field visits it had been noted that LGA Administrations were generally located adjacent to either interstate or primary roads. Therefore, the study team suggested that if individuals were to travel all interstate and primary roads within a state, they would pass all the LGAs in the state. Although simplistic in nature, the team determined that this methodology would be a workable estimate of the kilometers that would be covered with this type of delivery system. (See figure 1.) Figure 1. LGA’s Illustration of Principles X X X X X X X Interstate Roads Primary Roads X LGAs The volumes for each State indicated that State routes could easily be arranged to be within the capacity of a standard, single-cab pickup truck. The kilometers and number of deliveries were used to estimate the number of pickup days required by each state to deliver to its LGAs. During the field visits, the team had obtained an estimate for the cost of hiring a pickup for one day. However, this estimate seemed low compared to the team’s experience with hiring a car for one day, so they increased the estimate by 50 percent. 10 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs The number of days required for delivery, multiplied by the estimated cost per day, is the estimated delivery cost from the state to LGA. 3. LGA to SDP From discussions conducted with the FMOH, key stakeholders, and information gathered during the field visits, the study team realized that, in general, there are no LGA transport resources that can be used for a few days, the time required for each two-month period to onward deliveries to the SDPs. Currently, where collections take place (SDP to LGA), SDPs are dependent on local rural transport (public and private). The SDP in-charge and/or FP staff take the local transport to the LGA and collect the FP commodities. At this point in the FP program, the team determined that there is no practical alternative to using the local transport services either for the collection or the delivery for this leg in the distribution process. Again, from field visits conducted and discussions with LGA FP supervisors, the staff seemed confident that the operators of local transport can be trusted to deliver FP packages to the SDPs without supervision. They pointed out that the driver/operators often come from the communities they serve and would, therefore, be prepared to deliver to their community clinic. The estimates used for the return journey fare were used for the collection options and the single fare used for the delivery options. The total cost was estimated from the total SDPs in the state, multiplied by the estimated average fare. 4. Private Carrier Discussions were conducted with three established parcel carriers in Nigeria (carriers also operate worldwide)—Federal Express (FedEx), United Parcel Service (UPS), and DHL. The three carriers stated that their organization could deliver directly to the SDP level from the Lagos Central Store. In addition, the carriers informed the study team that the deliveries could be completed in approxi­ mately three working days. However, as the study team noted, volumes to rural areas are low, and deliveries to locations beyond the immediate locality of their area offices/hubs require additional delivery charges. These distant deliveries are effected using local owner/drivers contracted to the parcel carriers and paid by rates determined by a combination of weight and distance. For the local businessperson, this is a far riskier method of payment than the agreed day rate for scheduled routes of known distance and running time proposed for options B, C, and D. The study team requested and received delivery rate estimates from all three carriers. Example rates quoted were similar for an SDP in a northern state. Cost estimates for option F were made using the example rates for each zone supplied by UPS. Costs for each state were estimated using the UPS sample rates for the appropriate zone, multiplied by the number of expected active SDPs in the state. 11 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 12 VI. Transportation Option Cost Comparison Table 1 displays the estimated costs for each option compared to the estimated income from the proposed cost recovery system: Table 1. Summary of Transport Costs per Two-Month Cycle Center State LGA SDPs Totals Cost Recovery Income 948,000 1,514,000 1,514,000 6,356,000 10,332,000 Option A1 FMOH 387,800 0 765,000 2,027,500 3,180,300 % of Cost Recovery Margin 40.9% 0.0% 50.5% 31.9% 30.8% Option A2 487,600 0 1,147,500 2,027,500 3,662,600 % of Cost Recovery Margin 51.4% 0.0% 75.8% 31.9% 35.4% Option B 567,600 1,687,500 1,013,800 0 3,268,900 % of Cost Recovery Margin 59.9% 111.5% 67.0% 0.0% 31.6% Option C 567,600 3,225,000 0 0 3,792,600 % of Cost Recovery Margin 59.9% 213.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.7% Option D 3,125,600 0 1,013,800 0 4,139,400 % of Cost Recovery Margin 329.7% 0.0% 67.0% 0.0% 40.1% Option E 14,294,560 0 0 0 14,294,560 % of Cost Recovery Margin 1507.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 138.4% Note: At the time of this assessment an exchange rate of $1 = N 135 was used. With the exception of option E, which included the three private parcel carriers, all options can be funded from a reasonable share of the planned margins from the proposed cost recovery system. However, this situation will only continue if the expected number of active SDPs and the average volume per SDP is close to assumptions derived from the provisional Seed Kit distribution plan. After an option is selected, the costs are largely fixed; the Central Store to State Stores delivery routes will take as long and cover the same kilometers regardless of the volume carried (up to the capacity of the chosen truck). The same reasoning applies to State to LGA deliveries. However, costs from State or LGA to SDPs may vary somewhat depending on number of SDPs. The gulf between current activity and projected activity can be illustrated by evaluating condom usage. Oyo State, for example, was one of the more active states visited during this study. In the six months from September 2002 to February 2003, Oyo State Store issued 25,000 condoms. The Seed Kits for Oyo State contain 84,000 condoms and, therefore, the replenishment assumed for this study is 42,000 per two months; five times the current usage. As mentioned and to reinforce the above illustration, if there is a wide gap between the actual consumption and estimated rates for an extended period of time, the current cost recovery system will not support the cost of distribution. 13 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 14 VII.Recommended Options The study team recommends that either option B or option C be adopted for implementation in Nigeria's FP distribution program. Option B most closely matches the supply chain in the contraceptive logistics management system handbook, but it introduces a positive delivery structure from all levels of the system. Option B removes the uncertainty of a collection process and also functions as a pass through system. Under option B, stock is held at only two points within this system. FP stock is held at either the State or SDP level. As mentioned earlier, appendix E provides an in-depth discussion (overview, advantages, and disadvantages) as it relates to option B. Also, appendix F offers a comprehensive overview of the process for the information and commodity flow for option B. Option C departs from the supply chain of the CLMS handbook by introducing a direct delivery process from the State to the SDPs. Option C is more expensive than option B (see table 1). The fact that a pickup truck travels from the State to every active SDP, and because LGAs have SDPs in the vicinity of every LGA, provides a valuable opportunity for State FP staff. Under option C, the State FP staff is able to accompany the delivery driver for monitoring and evaluation purposes at either the LGA level or the SDP level. This option also eliminates the need to use local rural transport for the final delivery. In the team’s opinion, these benefits more than outweigh the moderate additional cost of this option. If option C is adopted by the FMOH, as seen in table 1, all the transport costs are concentrated at the Central Stores and State levels. There are no transport costs borne by the LGAs or SDPs. However, using option C will require a redistribution of the Cost Recovery System margins. Appendix E provides additional details of option C, and appendix F presents a comprehensive overview of the process for the information and commodity flow for option C. Regardless of the option chosen, the study team recommends that the reordering process be modified to simplify the procedures for the SDP providers and to provide additional information to the State and LGA staff. 15 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 16 VIII. Private Sector Involvement As mentioned earlier, due to time constraints, only limited discussions were carried out with private sector transportation companies—three parcel carriers (UPS, FedEx, DHL) located in Nigeria. There are, however, obvious opportunities for the private sector to be included in this system. Additional investigation needs to be completed before the private sector is involved in either of the recommended options. The transport leg from the Central Store to the State would certainly be attractive to various types of private transportation contractors, because the routes and volumes fully occupy a single truck. Additionally, the long, empty return leg offers carriers the opportunity to earn revenue on the return journey (back-loads); this should either be reflected in the cost recovery rates or as a share of the return journey revenue. Based on the concerns expressed by the FMOH (during the presentation) relating to the productivity, wages, and diligence of government employed staff, it might be advisable to contract out the picking and packing operations at the Central Store in Lagos. In this type of operation (outside contractors complete the picking and packing), the center would provide a single supervisor to be responsible for the stock, to receive stock requisitions and issue picking orders, and to supervise the contractor. The contractor’s staff would pick from a restricted local supply, pack and seal, and label consignments. The contractors would not have access to the bulk stock at the Central Store. Additionally, as part of the smooth transition of the transport operation, much depends upon the available consignments for the next route available after the trucks return to the Central Store. Exploring the use of a transport contractor may be a sensible choice for this aspect of the picking and packing operation. Moreover, unless pickup trucks can be reliably borrowed/hired from State sources each month, deliveries from State to SDPs can only be affected economically by use of contractors. The distribution pattern is characterized by high levels of activity for short periods every two months; thus, it is uneconomic to consider providing pickups to all States—it is the classic fire engine situation. In keeping with the goals and objectives of the proposed system, local State contractors should be chosen carefully to ensure a consistent and reliable service. Appendix G presents a suitable process for the selection and appointment of a contractor. 17 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 18 IX. Pilot States The DCDPA of the FMOH and other FP partners (JSI/DELIVER, UNFPA) intend to pilot the new CLMS program in nine pilot states. These states have been chosen as good representatives of Nigeria. They present something of a challenge from a transport perspective due to the remoteness of some of the pilot states. However, by applying the same methodology used in the main study, a set of two delivery routes have been developed to supply the nine pilot states (see appendix I). A single truck can complete the two delivery routes within a month, and the proposed 20 m3 truck would have sufficient capacity for the Seed Kits required for each route. It will, therefore, have more than sufficient capacity for the expected replenishment Seed Kits required for the pilot states. The extra capacity on the replenishment journeys can eventually be used to deliver Seed Kits to additional states as the program is extended. It is important to note that careful planning will be required to effect the changeover from the pilot routes to the long-term routes without disrupting deliveries. This should, therefore, be a central consideration when choosing the order of the roll-out to additional states. 19 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 20 Appendices A. People Contacted B. Sample of Questionnaires and Worksheets C. Sites Visited and Contacts D. Seed Kits—Quantity, Volume, and Weight E. Transportation Options A1, A2, B, C, D, and E F. Information and Commodity Flows and Sample Documentation G. Suggested Process for Appointing Contractors at the State Level H. Primary Delivery Routes I. Pilot States Delivery Routes J. Examples of Standing and Running Cost 21 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 22 Appendix A People Contacted 23 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 24 People Contacted Organization and Name Position Federal Ministry of Health Dr. A. Dada Family Planning In-Charge–Population Activities Contraceptives, FMOH/DCDPA Ralph Olayele Senior Program Officer, FMOH/DCDPA Greg Izuwa Senior Program Officer, FMOH/DCDPA Y. Abdullahi Senior Program Officer, FMOG/DCDPA Musa Odiniya Principal Program Officer (logistics) FMOH/DCDPA Dr. Bose Adeniran Chief Program Officer (services) FMOH/DCDPA, Lagos Dr. Lawrence Anyanwu Senior Health Planning Officer/Manager, Central Contraceptive Warehouse, FMOH/DCDPA Ms. Pauline Aribisala Assistant Chief Program Officer FMOH/DCDPA Dr. M.S. Amaeshi Director FMOH/DCDPA Dr. Taiwo Avbayeru Chief Program Officer, M&E Divisions, FMOH/DCDPA Niger State Ms. Abigail Tsado Acting Director Primary Health Care Department, Niger State Ms. Azinab Aminu Deputy FP Coordinator, Niger State MOH, Niger State Ms. Hadiza Suleiman Maternal Child Health/Family Planning (MCH/FP), Niger State Abdullahi Abdul Bobi Family Planning Stores Officer, Niger State Fati Suleiman Assistant Family Planning Stores Officer, Niger State Dr. Abdul Saganuwan Medical Officer In-charge, Agaie General Hospital, Niger State Ms. Iyabo A. Usman Matron In-charge, Agaie General Hospital, Niger State Hajia Aishat Baba Yawo FP Service Provider, Agaie MCH FP Clinic, Niger State Ms. Jumai Ibrahim FP Service Provider, Family Support Program, Niger State Ms. Elizabeth Adams Assistant Service Provider, Family Support Clinic, Niger State Ms. E.A. Osgelle Nursing Officer I, Federal Medical Center Family Planning Unit, Abia Ahmed Liman Kwata Director Primary Health Care, LGA Niger State Abia State Ms. Sarah Onwuka State Reproductive Health (RH) Coordinator, Abia Francisca Kalu RH Deputy Coordinator, Abia Ms. E.A. Osgelle Nursing Officer I, Federal medical Center Family Planning Unit G.N. Odachi Principal Nursing Officer In-Charge, Federal Medical Center Family Planning Unit Ms. Flora C. Ichi RH/FP Supervisor, Umuahia North LGA Eunice Ukwa RH/FP Provider–Senior Nursing Officer, Aribisala, Kalu Rachel O. Onwukwe Senior Community Health Technician, Aribisala, Kalu Mrs. Chinaza V. Jorah Community Health Extension Worker, Aribisala, Kalu Dr. Abai A.A Senior Medical Officer, Akahaba General Hospital Mr. Helen Udeagha In-Charge Principal Nursing Officer, Akahaba General Hospital Mrs. Comfort O. Obasi Assistant Chief Nursing Officer, Akahaba General Hospital Mrs. C.N. Huonah Principal Public Health Nursing Officer, Isiama Health Center Mrs. F. E. Omoruyi RH Supervisor, Ikpoba Okha LGA Edo State Mr. B. I. Ukenye Zone Logistics Officer, South South Zone Benin City Dr. P. Equakun Director PHC 25 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Organization and Name Position Dr. W. Imongan State FP Coordinator Mrs. S. D. Ojo-Edokpayi RH Deputy Coordinator Mrs. J. N. Agbonlahor MIS Officer Mrs. A. Aerefetalor RH Supervisor, Esan West LGA South West Zone Mrs. Oyesiji Acting Zonal Coordinator, Zonal Store Mr. K. Adebiyi Zonal Store Keeper Bauchi State Mrs. M. Habib Senior Stores Officer, Bauchi State Salamatu Yisa Assistant Maternal Child Health (MCH) Coordinator, BauchI LGA Mrs. Hafsat Abdullahi Chief Health Sister, Family Planning Clinic Mrs. Caroline Dogo Chief Health Officer (CHO), Family Planning Clinic Adamu Ahmed Administration Officer/Logistics, Zonal Store Ibrahim Bavangeri Senior Stores Officer, Zonal Store Alhaji Abubarka Usman State Logistician Ahmed Saleh Director PHC, Dass LGA Alhaja Hussaina Usman FP Coordinator, Dass LGA Mrs. Dinatu S. Abbas Assistant Coordinator Health Education Women Affairs PHC Mrs. Rebecca Y. Adamu Assistant Chief Nursing Sister State Trainer for UNFPA Addukardiri Mohammed Bunjang Monitoring and Evaluation Officer PHC Maryam Hashim Senior Nursing Sister, Town Maternity Clinic Dr. Augustine Atawodi Medical Officer In-Charge, Town Maternity Clinic Mrs. Ramatu Benjamin Senior Nursing Sister, Wandi Maternity Clinic PPFN Paul Gotus Account Officer, PPFN, Bauchi Private Carriers Seun Oyeleye Service Center Coordinator, DHL Kayode Bankole Major Accounts Administrator, UPS Ms. Grace Accounts Representative, FedEx USAID/Nigeria Foyin Oyebola Program Manager RH, USAID-Nigeria CDC Timothy Johnson, Dr.P.H, MSc. Chief, Program Services and Evaluation Section, Division of Reproductive Health, CDC CIDA Dr. Martin K. Osubor Development Officer, Development Section, CIDA US Embassy David Kasten Assistant Regional Security Officer JSI/DELIVER John Durgavich Country Team Leader, JSI/DELIVER 26 Appendix B Sample Questionnaire Forms and Worksheets 27 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 28 Interview Guide Used during Field Visits March 3–21, 2003 Central Store Version Inventory/Stock How many family planning products do you stock? Please complete a row in Worksheet A for each product stocked (Please treat different pack sizes of a product as a separate row) Is your store dedicated to family planning products? If not what other products are stored? Approximately how much space is used for storing family planning products (Sq. Ms)? Deliveries How many points do you supply? Please complete a row in Worksheet B for each supply point, please categorize each supply point in category column, e.g. Teaching Hospital, Zonal Store, State Store, State hospital, these names are examples only; please use the actual names recognized in Nigeria. For each delivery point please complete a copy of Worksheet C Delivery Resources Do you have any delivery trucks available to you, if so how many? If you have delivery trucks please complete a row in Worksheet C for each truck. Delivery Costs Do you have a transport/delivery budget? If so, please provide a copy for fiscal 2002 or complete Spreadsheet D. If not who pays your delivery costs? All worksheets are also available as an Excel Spreadsheet 29 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Process Time (please indicate in days or hours): Incoming Stock How long does it take you to receive a shipment? How long does it take you to unpack and check each delivery? How long does it take before new stock is available for dispatch? Outgoing Stock How long does it take you to process a typical delivery order? How long does it take to pick and pack a typical order? What is the major cause of delay? What do you like about the current distribution system for family planning products? Please describe the things that currently go wrong with the receiving and distribution process at CMS. How could the current distribution system for family planning products be improved? 30 Interview Guide Used during Field Visits March 3–21, 2003 Zonal, State and Local Government Stores version Store Name: Type of Store (Zonal, State, LGA) Location: Inventory/Stock How frequently should you be resupplied with family planning products by CS, Zonal Store, State Store (mark as appropriate)? In practice, how frequently are you actually resupplied? How would you describe the availability of family planning products from your supply point? Do you obtain supplies of family planning products from any other sources; if so from where? How many family commodities do you stock? Please complete a row in Worksheet A for each family planning product stocked (you do not need to complete the pack measurements (columns G to I) (Please treat different pack sizes of a product as a separate row) Is your store dedicated to family planning products? If not what other products are stored? Approximately how much space is used for storing family planning products (Sq. Mt.)? 31 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Deliveries How many points do you supply? Please complete a row in Worksheet B for each supply point, please categorize each supply point in column B, e.g., State store, State hospital, Health Facility, these names are examples only; please use the names recognized in Nigeria. For each supply point (or sample of supply points if you have been asked to provide data for a sample only) please complete a copy of Worksheet B. Do you ever collect supplies? If so, from which locations and how frequently? Delivery/Collection Resources Do you have any delivery trucks available to you, if so how many? If you have delivery trucks please complete a row in Worksheet C for each truck. What other products, if any, do you deliver with family planning products? Delivery Costs Do you have a transport/delivery budget? If so, please provide a copy for fiscal 2002 or complete Worksheet D. If not, who pays your delivery costs? All worksheets are also available as an Excel Spreadsheet Process Time (please indicate in days or hours): Incoming Stock How long does it take you to receive a shipment? How long does it take you to unpack and check each delivery? How long does it take before new stock is available for dispatch? 32 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Outgoing Stock How long does it take you to process a typical delivery order? How long does it take to pick and pack a typical order? What is the major cause of delay? Do you have a computer available with MS Excel? Access? Enter Version What do you like about the current distribution system for family planning products? Please describe the things that currently go wrong with the receiving and distribution process at this store and other locations. How could the current distribution system for family planning products be improved? 33 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Central StoreWorksheet A Facility Name Date Stocks Pack Dimensions Product Product Code Pack Qty Qty in Stock Qty within 6 months of expiry Qty expired Average Monthly Usage Height in cms Width in cms Length in cms Condoms female Condoms male Depo-Provera 150 mg Exluton/Ovrette IUCD Lo-Femenal/Duofem Microgynon Neogynon Neo-Sampoon Nordiol Noristerat 200 mg Norplant Postinor - 2 Syringe disposable 2ml 21G 34 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Facility Name Stocks State Date Product Product Code Pack Qty Qty in Stock Qty within 6 months of expiry Qty expired Average Monthly Usage Frequency of stock outs Condoms female Condoms male Depo-Provera 150 Mg Exluton/Ovrette IUCD Lo-femenal/Duofem Microgynon Neogynon Neo-Sampoon Nordiol Noristerat 200 mg Norplant Postinor - 2 Syringe disposable 2ml 21G Worksheet A (All Stores except CS) 35 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Worksheet B Facility Name Deliverered/Collected Quantities State Date Fiscal 2002 Quantities Facility 1 C at eg o ry 2 3 D is ta nc e in K m s E xp ec te d D el iv er y 4 5 Fr eq ue nc y 6 A ct ua l d el iv er y 7 fr eq ue nc y 8 9 C on do m s fe m al e 10 11 C on do m s m al e 12 D ep o- P ro ve ra 1 50 13 M g 14 15 E xl ut on /O vr et te 16 17 IU C D 18 19 Lo -F em en al / D uo fe m 20 21 M ic ro gy no n N eo gy no n N eo -S am po on N or di ol N or is te ra t 2 00 m g N O R P LA N T P os tin or - 2 S yr in ge d is po sa bl e 2m l 2 1G C o st p er d el iv er y 36 maintenance Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Worksheet D Facility Name Budget - Fiscal 2002 State Date Fixed Costs Vehicle depreciation Licenses Insurance Staff Salaries Office costs Office equipment depreciation Telephones Electricity charges Example Budget 16789800 45670 567800 n/a Actual 16770000 46500 670000 n/a Enter your Data Below Budget Actual Variable Costs Driver salaries Driver allowances Driver overtime 1987000 496750 198700 2185700 546425 218570 Vehicle repair and Fuel and oil Tires (if not included in R&M) 1827120 4567800 na 1918476 4796190 Accident repairs 150000 255000 Hired transport 456000 512000 37 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 38 Appendix C Sites Visited and Contacts 39 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 40 Sites Visited and Contacts North Central Niger State Niger State MOH, Minna MOH FP Store, Minna Niger State Local Government Area (LGA), Agaie Niger State, Agaie General Hospital Niger State, Agaie MCH FP Clinic Niger State, Family Support Program Clinic and Paiko Model Clinic • Ms. Abigail Tsado, Acting Director Primary Health Care Department • Ms. Hadiza Suleiman, Maternal Child Health/Family Planning (MCH/FP) • Ms. Hadiza Suleiman, Maternal Child Health/Family Planning (MCH/FP) • Abdullahi Abdul Bobi, Family Planning Stores Officer • Fati Suleiman, Assistant Family Planning Stores Officer • Ahmed Liman Kwata, Director Primary Health Care • LGA Staff, Agaie • Dr. Abdul Saganuwan, Medical Officer In-charge • Ms. Iyabo A. Usman, Matron In-charge • Hajia Aishat Baba Yawo, FP Service Provider • Ms. Jumai Ibrahim, FP Service Provider • Ms. Elizabeth Adams, Assistant Service Provider South East Abia State Abia State UNFPA/MOH, Umuahia • Federal Medical Center Family Planing (FP) Unit, Umuahia • Umuahia North Local Government Area (LGA) • Urban Clinic, Umuahia North LGA E.K. Pankume Health Center Abiriba, Ohafia LGA Akahaba General Hospital, Abiriba Isiama Health Center • Ms. Sarah Onwuka, State Reproductive Health (RH) Coordinator • Francisca Kalu, RH Deputy Coordinator • Ms. E.A. Osgelle, Nursing Officer I • G.N. Odachi, Principal Nursing Officer In-Charge • Ms. Flora C. Ichi, RH/FP Supervisor • Ms. Flora C. Ichi, RH/FP Supervisor • Eunice Ukwa, RH/FP Provider–Senior Nursing Officer • Onwukwe Rachel O, Senior Community Health Technician • Mrs. Chinaza V. Jorah, Community Health Extension Worker • Dr. Abai A.A., Senior Medical Officer • Mr. Helen Udeagha, In-Charge Principal Nursing Officer • Mrs. Comfort O. Obasi, Assistant Chief Nursing Officer • Mrs. C.N. Huonah, Principal Public Health Nursing Officer North East Bauchi State Bauchi Store, Bauchi Bauchi LGA Cofar Wase Family Planning Clinic, Bauchi Yelwa Domicilliary Clinic • Mrs. M. Habib, Senior Stores Officer • Salamatu Yisa, Assistant Maternal Child Health (MCH) Coordinator • Mrs. Hafsat Abdullahi, Chief Health Sister • Mrs. Caroline Dogo, Chief Health Officer (CHO) 41 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs North East Planned Parenthood Federation Of Nigeria (PPFN) National Primary Health Care Development Zonal Headquarters NE MOH Bauchi • Paul Gotus, Account Officer, PPFN • Adamu Ahmed, Administration Officer/Logistics • Ibrahim Bavangeri, Senior Stores Officer • Alhaji Abubarka Usman, State Logistician Dass LGA, Bauchi State • Ahmed Saleh, Director PHC Dass LGA • Alhaja Hussaina Usman, FP Coordinator, Dass LGA • Mrs. Dinatu S. Abbas, Assistant Coordinator Health Education Women Affairs PHC • Mrs. Rebecca Y. Adamu, Assistant Chief Nursing Sister State Trainer for UNFPA • Addukardiri Mohammed Bunjang, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer PHC South South Edo State Zonal Office Benin City MOH Esan West LGA Ikpoba Okha LGA • Mr. B. I. Ukenye, Zone Logistics Officer • Dr. P. Equakun, Director PHC • Dr. W. Imongan, State FP Coordinator • Mrs. S. D. Ojo-Edokpayi, RH Deputy Coordinator • Mrs. J. N. Agbonlahor, MIS Officer • Mrs. A. Aerefetalor, RH Supervisor • Mrs. F. E. Omoruyi, RH Supervisor South West Oyo State South West Zonal Store Oyo State MOH • Mrs. Oyesiji, Acting Zonal Coordinator • Mr. K. Adebiyi, Zonal Store Keeper • Dr. F. Ogundiran, Director of PHC • Dr. Mrs. O. Oyelakin, RH Coordinator • Mrs. M. M. Ojediran, FP Coordinator • Mrs. V. Odugbesaan, Logistics Officer 42 Appendix D Seed Kits—Quantity, Volume, and Weight 43 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 44 Seed Kits—Quantity, Volume, and Weight Primary Low Commodity Represented By Quantity Volume Weight cubic meters (kg) Condoms Condoms Male 144 2.33 0.70 COCS Microgynon 20 0.25 0.07 POPS Exluton/Overette 0 0.00 0.00 Injectables Depo Provera 150 Mg Inj 25 0.29 0.23 IUCD IUCD 0 0.00 0.00 Syringes Syringe disposable 2m 121 g 25 0.78 0.31 Pack Totals 3.65 1.32 Primary Medium Condoms Condoms Male 432 6.99 2.10 COCS Microgynon 100 1.23 0.37 POPS Exluton/Overette 20 0.45 0.13 Injectables Depo Provera 150 Mg Inj 100 1.16 0.92 IUCD IUCD 10 1.65 0.50 Syringes Syringe disposable 2m 121 g 100 3.14 1.26 Pack Totals 14.62 5.28 Primary High Condoms Condoms Male 1440 23.31 6.99 COCS Microgynon 200 2.45 0.74 POPS Exluton/Overette 100 2.23 0.67 Injectables Depo Provera 150 Mg Inj 400 4.62 3.70 IUCD IUCD 40 6.61 1.98 Syringes Syringe disposable 2m 121 g 400 12.56 5.02 Pack Totals 51.79 19.11 Replenishment Kits Primary Low Condoms Condoms Male 72 1.17 0.35 COCS Microgynon 10 0.12 0.04 POPS Exluton/Overette 0 0.00 0.00 Injectables Depo Provera 150 Mg Inj 12.5 0.14 0.12 IUCD IUCD 0 0.00 0.00 Syringes Syringe disposable 2m 121 g 12.5 0.39 0.16 Pack Totals 1.83 0.66 Primary Medium Condoms Condoms Male 216 3.50 1.05 COCS Microgynon 50 0.61 0.18 POPS Exluton/Overette 10 0.22 0.17 Injectables Depo Provera 150 Mg Inj 50 0.58 0.46 IUCD IUCD 5 0.83 0.25 Syringes Syringe disposable 2m 121 g 50 1.57 0.63 Pack Totals 7.31 2.64 Primary High Condoms Condoms Male 720 11.66 3.50 COCS Microgynon 100 1.23 0.37 POPS Exluton/Overette 50 1.12 0.33 Injectables Depo Provera 150 Mg Inj 200 2.31 1.85 IUCD IUCD 20 3.31 0.99 Syringes Syringe disposable 2m 121 g 200 6.28 2.51 Pack Totals 25.90 9.55 45 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 46 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 47 Appendix E Transportation Options A1, A2, B, C, D, and E 48 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 49 Transportation Options Option A1 Option A1, Current DCDPA FMOH Proposal Center delivers to State, LGAs and SDPs collect Month -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Seeding Training and Initial Seed Kits picked and packed XXXX Kits distributed via State and LGA (Est 4 Months) XXXX SDPs begin use of initial Seed Kits X State and LGA top up stock picked and delivered XXXX and distributed via State and LGA (est 2 months) XXXX Replenishment RIF / Usage return from SDP to LGA X X X X X Review and approval by LGA X X X X X SDP's collect from LGA X X X X X SDP uses stock Replenishment LGA RIF / Usage return from LGA X X X Review and approval State X X X LGAs collect from State X X X LGA uses stock Replenishment state RIF / Usage return from state X X Center picks, packs, and delivers X X State uses stock 50 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Option A1 (The current DCDPA FMOH draft proposal, National Handbook—Contraceptive Logistic Management System) Description: Option A1 is the transportation system described in the CLMS Handbook. This option was developed and intended to operate as follows: • Every second month the SDP provider will complete a requisition information form (RIF), and take the completed RIF to their respective LGA. • The LGA reproductive health (RH) Supervisor will examine the RIF and authorize issue. • The SDP FP provider will collect stock from the LGA Store, wait while it is picked and packed, and take it back to the SDP. • Every three months the LGA Store will complete its RIF and take the completed RIF to the State. • The State Coordinator will inspect the RIF and authorize issue. • The LGA RH Supervisor will collect stock from the State Store, wait while it is picked and packed, and take the FP products back to the LGA. • Every four months the State Store will complete a RIF and send it to the Central Store in Lagos. • The Central Store will pick and pack the replenishment stock and deliver to the State Store. Advantages: • SDPs should be resupplied regularly every two months. • Stock is available at both the LGA level and State level for service emergency orders. Disadvantages: • The pipeline is an improvement from past practice, but it is still too long. Under this option, the average stock holding is seven months at the State Store, five and a half months at the LGA Store, and four months at the SDP—an average of 16.5 months stock in the pipeline, • The supply periods are asynchronous, which adds to the length of the pipeline. • When initiating the pilot States, it will be necessary to determine the available stock at both the State and LGA levels, and to provide additional stock to seed these levels. 51 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs • It requires a long time for changes in demand at SDP level to be reflected in the demand at Central Stores. This situation necessitates a parallel data system for demand forecasting. • Staff at both the LGA and SDP level must find a way to transport collections. Under the current arrangements, failure to collect at these levels has been a major cause of failure. • Payment for transport cost is dependent upon the availability of funds at both LGA and SDP levels. • If the transport cost at the SDP level is funded from their margin in the cost recovery system, small remote SDPs will have the highest transport cost but the lowest available funds. • To make stock collections, RH staff are diverted from their normal duties. • FP providers are expected to complete a stock requisition form and perform their own calculations for reorder quantities. 52 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Transportation Options Option A2 Option A2, Current Proposal - Synchronized Replenishment Center delivers to State, LGAs, and SDPs collect Month -1 -2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Seeding Training and initial Seed kits picked and packed XXXX Kits distributed via State and LGA (est 4 months) XXXX SDPs begin use of initial Seed Kits X State and LGA top up stock picked and delivered XXXX and distributed via State and LGA (est 2 months) XXXX Replenishment SDP RIF / Usage return from SDP to LGA X X X X X Review and approval by LGA X X X X X SDPs collect from LGA X X X X X SDP uses stock Replenishment LGA RIF/Usage return from LGA to State X X X X X Review and approval State X X X X X LGAs collect from State X X X X X LGA uses stock Replenishment State RIF / Usage return from State X X X X Center picks, packs, and delivers X X X X State uses stock 53 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Option A2 (As in option A1, option A2 reflects the current DCDPA FMOH proposal but with synchronized replenishment.) Description: This option for the transport system is also described in the CLMS Handbook, however, it is modified to provide synchronized replenishment to all levels. Advantages: • SDPs are resupplied regularly every two months. • Stock is available at both the LGA level and State level to service emergency orders. • Pipeline stock is reduced to 12 months. Disadvantages: • When initiating the pilot states, it will be necessary to determine the available stock at both the State and LGA levels and provide additional stock to seed these levels. • It requires a long time for changes in demand at SDP level to be reflected in the demand at Central Stores. This situation necessitates a parallel data system for demand forecasting. • Staff at both the both the LGA and SDP level must find a way to transport collections. Under the current arrangements, failure to collect at these levels has been a major cause of failure. • Payment for transport cost is dependent upon the availability of funds at both LGA and SDP levels. • If the transport cost at the SDP level is funded from their margin in the cost recovery system, small remote SDPs will have the highest transport cost but the lowest available funds. • To make stock collections, RH staff are diverted from their normal duties. • FP providers are expected to complete a stock requisition form and perform their own calculations for reorder quantities. 54 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Transportation Options Option B Option B, pass through delivery Delivery; center to State to LGAs to SDPs Seeding Initial Seed kits pick and packed Kits distributed via State and LGA (est 4 months) XXXX -1 XXXX -2 1 2 3 4 5 Month 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Begin use of initial Seed Kits X Top up Seed Kits pick and packed and distributed via State and LGA ( 2 months) XXXX XXXX Replenishment Stock return from SDP X X X X X LGA Coordinator calculate consumption, raises RIF X X X X X RIF/Usage return to State from LGA X X X X X RIF/ Usage Return to Center from State X X X X X Center picks/ packs and dispatches to States XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX State delivers to LGA X X X X LGA delivers to SDP X X X X SDP uses stock 55 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Option B (Pass Through, or Cross-Dock System) Description: A pass through or cross-dock operation provides various advantages, such as stock moving in bulk over long distances to reduce transport costs and the division of the shipments into smaller convenient loads for local delivery. However, option B differs from traditional distribution systems in that no stock is held at the point where the shipments are sub-divided; the break bulk point. Instead, the incoming load is unloaded from the long distance truck, sorted into the local delivery routes on the dock, and then reloaded onto the local delivery vehicle (hence the term cross-dock). Option B is similar in terms of product flow to option A. However, it differs in that it introduces two break bulk points at the State and LGA levels rather than holding stock at those levels (i.e., no stock is held at either the State or LGA level). Orders for SDPs are picked and packed at the Central Store and delivered via the State and LGA to the SDP. Stock is held only at two points, the Central Store and the SDP. The SDP has a minimum stock equal to the resupply period plus one month’s safety stock. The resupply period outlined in the gantt chart on the previous page is 10 weeks; therefore, the minimum stock level is 3.5 months, and the average stock level is 4.5 months. It is also suggested, under this option, that the return information required from the SDP provider is modified to a simple stock report. The step-by-step process is as follows: 1. In the first week of each two-month cycle, the SDP provider reports the stock on hand to the LGA RH supervisor (the cycle is phased to the delivery route). 2. In the second week, from the latest report, the RH supervisor from the respective LGA computes the stock on hand at the end of the previous period, plus the deliveries during the period, which present the overall SDP’s product usage and average monthly consumption. The RH supervisor then calculates the order quantity necessary to return the SDP’s stock level to five months at the point of delivery. 3. The RH supervisor raises a RIF for the SDP and all other SDPs within the LGA's area, and passes the RIF to the FP State Coordinator. 4. In the third week, the State Coordinator examines the RIFs and extracts monitoring data from the accompanying summary computation. 5. In the fourth week of the process, the State Coordinator forwards the RIFs to the Central Store. 6. During the second month, the Central Stores pick and pack FP stock for SDPs in the delivery route order, and dispatches the stock to the State. The boxes are sealed and addressed to the individual SDPs. The Central Store provides the State FP staff with a summary of all deliveries into the State by the LGA and SDP. 7. In the ninth and tenth weeks, the State Coordinator, using a prearranged and approved contractor, forward delivers to the LGA. 56 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 8. In the tenth week, the LGA RH Supervisor arranges onward transport by a prearranged and fully approved local public transport operators. 9. Upon delivery, the SDP provider signs for the sealed box of products. During the unpacking process, the provider checks the contents of the box against the packing slip. The SDP signs the packing slip and forwards paperwork to the LGA FP supervisor. 10. The LGA FP supervisor notes any variances related to the information, and passes the signed packing slip to the State FP MIS clerk who checks the received quantities against the delivery summary. Advantages: • SDPs are resupplied regularly every two months. • Stock moves quickly to where it is required, and the pipeline is reduced to 4.5 months of stock. • Safety stock is held at SDPs, not remotely. • Workload at the Central Store is continuous and balanced. • Changes in demand at the SDP level are quickly reflected in demand at the Central Stores. A parallel data system for demand forecasting is not required. • Delivery from the Central Stores is to a published schedule; therefore, State FP/RH coordinators and LGA RH supervisors can prearrange reliable onward transport. • If the transport costs at State and LGA level is funded from their margin in the cost recovery system, the entire margin due to the State and to the LGA are pooled respectively. Distant LGAs are subsidized by nearer LGAs, and small remote SDPs no longer have to directly fund their own transport cost but are subsidized by the larger SDPs within the LGA. • RH Staff are not diverted from their normal duties. • Local public transport operators identify with the community served by the SDP. • Low cost of final delivery. Disadvantages: • There is no emergency stock at either the State or LGA level. • State and LGA may perceive lack of stock holding as lack of control. However, the actual control and power of this system remains with both the State and the LGA. 57 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs • Any local programs and new initiatives are dependent upon stock at the SDPs. Therefore, staff in planning such initiatives must plan for and include the additional demand required for the FP commodities in the RIF for the SDP. Cost Recovery System: The planned cost recovery system is intended to operate on a cash-and-carry basis. In this pass through system, this would operate on a cash-on-delivery system. The SDP provider would forward the payment for the delivery to the LGA FP supervisor. The LGA staff would then forward the total payment from their SDPs, less their margin to the State, with the relevant packing slips. 58 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Transportation Options Option C, Pass through DELIVER—Central Stores direct to the State, and State delivers to the SDP Month -1 -2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Begin use of initial Seed Kits Top up Seed Kits pick and packed and distributed via State and LGA ( 2 months) Replenishment Stock return from SDP LGA Coordinator calculate consumption, raises RIF X X X X X X X Centre picks/packs and despatches to LGAs X SDP uses stock RIF/Usage return to State from LGA X X X X RIF/Usage return to Centre from State X X X X LGAs delivers to SDPs X X X X X XXXX XXXX X X X X X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 59 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Option C (Pass Through Delivery—Central Stores direct delivers to the State, and State delivers to the SDPs) Description: Option C is similar to option B in terms of information and commodity flow. However, option C is different because the Central Stores dispatch the pre-addressed boxes to the State and the State Coordinator. Following this activity, the State Coordinator forward delivers directly to the SDP using pre-arranged and approved local transport operators, following established pre-determined delivery routes. Advantages: • SDPs are resupplied regularly every two months. • Stock moves quickly to where it is required, and the pipeline is reduced to 4.5 months of stock. • Safety stock is held at SDPs, not remotely. • Workload at the Central Store is continuous and balanced. • Changes in demand at SDP level are quickly reflected in demand at the Central Stores. A parallel data system for demand forecasting is not required. • Delivery from the Central Stores is to a published schedule; therefore, State FP/RH coordinators and LGA RH supervisors can pre-arrange reliable onward transport. • If the transport costs at State and LGA level is funded from their margin in the cost recovery system, the entire margin due to the State and the LGA are pooled respectively. Distant LGAs are subsidized by nearer LGAs, and small remote SDPs no longer have to directly fund their own transport cost but are subsidized by the larger SDPs within the LGA. • RH staff are not diverted from their normal duties. • Local public transport operators identify with the community served by the SDP. • Low cost of final delivery. • One less handling of the boxes. • One less potential source of error and or delay. • One less change of responsibility in the supply chain. • The opportunity to use the in-State delivery journey for monitoring and evaluation purposes. 60 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Disadvantages: • There is no emergency stock at either the State or LGA level. • State and LGA may perceive lack of stock holding as lack of control. However, the actual control and power of this system remain with both the State and LGA. • Any local programs and new initiatives are dependent upon stock at the SDPs. Therefore, staff in planning such initiatives must plan for and include the additional demands required for the FP commodities in the RIF for the SDP. • If resupply does not physically pass through LGA, perceived loss of control at LGA level may be exacerbated. 61 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Transportation Options Option D Option D, Pass Through Delivery Deliver; Center to LGAs to SDPs Seeding Training & Initial Seed kits pick and packed Kits distributed via State and LGA (Est 4 Months) XXXX -1 XXXX -2 1 2 3 4 5 Month 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Begin use of Initial Seed Kits X Top up Seed kits pick and packed and distributed via State and LGA ( 2 Months) XXXX XXXX Replenishment Stock return from SDP X X X X X LGA Coordinator calculate consumption, raises RIF X X X X X RIF / Usage return to State from LGA X X X X X RIF / Usage Return to Center from State X X X X X Center Picks/ Packs and dispatches to LGAs XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX LGAs delivers to SDPs X X X X X SDP uses stock 62 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Option D (Pass Through Delivery, Central Stores delivers direct to LGA, and LGA forwards delivery to the SDP). Description: Option D has similar information and commodity flow to option B, but it is somewhat different because Central Stores deliver the pre-addressed FP boxes directly to the LGA. The LGA RH supervisor then onward delivers to the SDP using pre-arranged and approved local public transport operators, as in option B. Advantages: • Primary transport from Central Stores receives commodities much closer to the SDPs (within 30 kilometers on average). • FP boxes are delivered to SDP within 24 hours of arriving at the LGA. • SDPs are resupplied regularly every 2 months. • Stock moves quickly to where it is required, and the pipeline is reduced to 4.5 month’s stock. • Safety stock is held at SDPs, not remotely. • Workload at the Central Store is continuous and balanced. • Changes in demand at SDP level are quickly reflected in demand at the Central Stores. A parallel data system for demand forecasting is not required. • Delivery from the Central Stores is to a published schedule, therefore, LGA RH supervisors can pre­ arrange reliable onward transport. • If the transport costs at State and LGA level are funded from their margin in the cost recovery system, the entire margin due to the State and the LGA are pooled respectively. Distant LGAs are subsidized by nearer LGAs, and small remote SDPs no longer have to directly fund their own transport cost, but are subsidized by the larger SDPs within the LGA. • RH staff are not diverted from their normal duties. • Local public transport operators identify with the community served by the SDP. • Low cost of final delivery. • One less handling of the boxes. • One less potential source of error and or delay. 63 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs • One less change of responsibility in the supply chain. • LGA staff has the opportunity to use the delivery journey for monitoring and evaluation. Disadvantages: • State staff cannot use the delivery journey for monitoring and evaluation purposes. • If resupply does not physically pass through State, perceived loss of control at State level may be exacerbated. • More independent contractors are used than in option C. • There is no emergency stock at either the State or LGA level. • State and LGA may perceive lack of stock holding as lack of control. However, the actual control and power of this system remains with both the State and LGA. • Any local programs or new initiatives are dependent on stock at the SDPs. Therefore, staff in planning such initiatives must plan for and include the additional demands required for the FP commodities in the RIF for the SDP. 64 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Option E (Third-party carriers) Description: Under option E, it recognizes the small size of the individual SDP consignments (low volume). Option E uses the services of established third-party parcel carriers. The carrier collects daily from the Central Store and delivers to the SDP within three days of collection. The reorder process is similar to option B. Advantages: • Speed of delivery. • DCDPA of the FMOH is not involved with any transport operations at any level. • Orders do not have to be processed in route order, they can be processed as received. • Carrier collects all boxes packed each day; therefore, no space is required to store packed boxes for the next route. • Rates include insurance. • Proof of delivery is supplied to the Central Store. • Cost is responsive to both the number of SDPs and the size of the consignments. Disadvantages: • Expense of deliveries using parcel carriers. • Lack of opportunities for State and LGAs staff to conduct monitoring and evaluation activities. 65 Appendix F Information and Commodity Flows and Sample Documentation 66 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 67 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Figure 2. Information and Commodity Flows, Option B Stock 68 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Figure 3. Information and Commodity Flows, Option C Stock 69 Documents 1. Stock Return State LGA SDP Date Commodity Stock on Hand Condom Female Condom Male Depo-Provera® 150 mg Inj Exluton/Ovrette IUCD Lo-Femenal/Duofem Microgynon Neo-Sampoon Noristerat 200 mg Inj NORPLANT Postinor 2 Disposable syringe Signed No of Copies 2 Disposition of copies: 2—Filed at SDP 1—To LGA FP Supervisor 70 Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 2. RIF As per CLMS Handbook Number of Copies 6 Disposition of copies 6 Filed at LGA 5 Filed at State 4 Filed at Central Store 3 Filed at SDP after delivery ) 2 Filed at LGA after delivery ) Packing Note 1 Filed at State after delivery ) 3. Delivery Summary/Manifest (see below) Number of copies 3 Disposition of copies 3 Filed at the Central Store 2 Filed at the State 1 Delivery Manifest returned by contractor and filed at the State after delivery 71 72 Nigeria: Assessment of Transportation System and Distribution Costs Delivery Summary / Manifest Delivered Quantit ies LGA SDP RIF No C on do m s fe m al e C on do m s m al e D ep o- P ro ve ra 1 50 M g E xl ut on /O vr et te IU C D Lo -F em en al / D uo fe m M ic ro gy no n N eo gy no n N eo -S am po on N or di ol N or is te ra t 2 00 m g N or pl an t P os tin or - 2 S yr in ge d is po sa bl e Delivery Summary/Manifest Nigeria: Analysis of Transportation System and Distribution Costs 73 Appendix G Suggested Process for Reviewing/Hiring Contractors at the State Level 74 Nigeria: Analysis of Distribution Costs for Family Planning Products Suggested Process for Reviewing/Hiring Contractors at the State Level: 1. Produce a well-defined map of the State showing the location of all SDPs. 2. Every two months, advertise for interested local contractors by providing an outline of the delivery requirements and likely period of usage. 3. Short-list interested parties, and issue Request for Quotation stating that selection will be based on price and the quality/roadworthiness of the offered vehicle. 4. Supply a copy of the map and expected size of consignments for each SDP to the short-listed interested transport parties and ask them to complete the following: a. Quote the number of days they will require to deliver to all SDPs. b. Quote their charge per day, assuming the controlled price of fuel (or some other standard price if the controlled price is not realistic). c. Quote the percentage increase/decrease in their charge per day for every N5 change in the price per liter (fuel) quoted in b (above). 5. Evaluate and review the shortlist of offers received. 6. Inspect the offered vehicles for— a. suitability b. appearance c. roadworthiness d. cleanliness, including the cleanliness of the cab e. insurance coverage. 7. Select contractor. 8. Issue to the selected contractor, a service level agreement that states— a. The minimum acceptable standard of vehicle. b. The maximum time from notification of arrival of Central Stores to commencement of deliveries. c. That deliveries will be completed in the quoted number of days after commencement. d. The requirement for the contractor to indemnify the State against loss or damage in transit. e. Insurance requirements, to include coverage for the FP coordinator if the vehicle is used for monitoring. f. Mechanism and normal period for rate reviews, special provision for reviews if vehicle fuel price changes by (N=Naira, Nigerian currency) N5 or more. Reviews only applied after N5 changes to prevent constant demands for financial increases. 76 Nigeria: Analysis of Distribution Costs for Family Planning Products Appendix H Primary Delivery Routes A, B, C, D, and Delivery 78 Nigeria: Analysis of Distribution Costs for Family Planning Products Primary Delivery Routes Route A Trip Time Wait Time Total Time Kms in Hours in Hours in Hours Central Store 8.0 8.0 Lagos Lagos 10 0.2 2.5 2.7 Ogun Abeokuta 99 2.0 2.5 4.5 Oyo Ibadan 77 1.5 2.5 4.0 Kwara Ilorin 162 3.2 2.5 5.7 Kebbi Birnin Kebbi 621 12.4 2.5 14.9 Sokoto Sokoto 139 2.8 2.5 5.3 Zamfarra Gusau 219 4.4 2.5 6.9 7 Central Store 945 18.9 18.9 2272 45 26 71 Route B Trip Time Wait Time Total Time Kms in Hours in Hours in Hours Central Store 8.0 8.0 Osun Osogbo 247 4.9 2.5 7.4 Ekiti Ado-Ekiti 120 2.4 2.5 4.9 Ondo Akure 50 1.0 2.5 3.5 Kogi Lokoja 183 3.7 2.5 6.2 FCT Abuja 193 3.9 2.5 6.4 Niger Minna 156 3.1 2.5 5.6 Kaduna Kaduna 297 5.9 2.5 8.4 Kano Kano 200 4.0 2.5 6.5 Katsina Katsina 172 3.4 2.5 5.9 Jigawa Dutse 302 6.0 2.5 8.5 10 Cental Store 1279 25.6 25.6 3199 64 33 97 80 Nigeria: Analysis of Distribution Costs for Family Planning Products Route C Trip Time Wait Time Total Time Kms in Hours in Hours in Hours Benue Nassarawa Plateau Bauchi Yobe Borno Gombe Adamawa Taraba 9 Central Store Makurdi Lafia Jos Bauchi Damaturu Maiduguri Gombe Yola Jalingo Central Store 885 99 141 122 321 133 318 237 153 1095 3504 17.7 2.0 2.8 2.4 6.4 2.7 6.4 4.7 3.1 21.9 70 8.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 23 8.0 20.2 4.5 5.3 4.9 8.9 5.2 8.9 7.2 5.6 21.9 93 Route D Edo Delta Anambra Enugu Ebonyi Cross River Akwa-Ibom Abia Imo Rivers Bayelsa 11 Central Store Benin City Asaba Awka Enugu Abakalliki Calabar Uyo Umuahia Owerri Port Harcourt Yenagoa Central Store Kms 320 129 47 50 84 192 123 80 70 112 125 540 1872 Trip Time in Hours 6.4 2.6 0.9 1.0 1.7 3.8 2.5 1.6 1.4 2.2 2.5 10.8 37 Wait Time in Hours Total Time in Hours 8.0 8.0 2.5 8.9 2.5 5.1 2.5 3.4 2.5 3.5 2.5 4.2 2.5 6.3 2.5 5.0 2.5 4.1 2.5 3.9 2.5 4.7 2.5 5.0 10.8 36 73 Appendix I Delivery Routes for Pilot States 82 Nigeria: Analysis of Distribution Costs for Family Planning Products Delivery Routes for Pilot States Route A Kms Trip Time In Hours Wait Time in Hours Total Time in Hours Central Store 8 8 Ogun Abeokuta 99 1.98 2.5 4.48 Oyo Ibadan 77 1.54 2.5 4.04 Sokoto Sokoto 890 17.8 2.5 20.3 Bauchi Bauchi 777 15.54 2.5 18.04 Central Store 1211 24.22 0 24.22 3054 61.08 10 79.08 Route B Trip Time Wait Time Total Time Kms In Hours in Hours in Hours Central Store 8 8 Edo Benin City 320 6.4 2.5 8.9 Anambra Akwa 169 3.38 2.5 5.88 Enugu Enugu 70 1.4 2.5 3.9 Nassarawa Lafia 353 7.06 2.5 9.56 Borno Maidaguri 881 17.62 2.5 20.12 Central Store 1675 33.5 0 33.5 3468 69.36 12.5 89.86 84 Nigeria: Analysis of Distribution Costs for Family Planning Products Appendix J Example of Standing and Running Cost 86 Nigeria: Analysis of Distribution Costs for Family Planning Products Example of Standing and Running Cost Used in Distribution Assessment Standing Costs Running Costs Capital costs Fuel and lubricants, oil Depreciation Maintenance and repairs Lease costs Tires (often incorporated in maintenance) Taxes Driver allowances Licenses Overnight allowance Test fees Meal allowances Insurance Other Vehicle insurance Mobile phones Goods in transit insurance Tolls Driver costs Disposable materials Basic salary Benefits Currently, in Nigeria, lease costs do not apply; therefore, the study team assumed that Central Stores owns the vehicle, and they used depreciation when calculating standing cost. Also, top-up lubricants have not been included in the calculation, but these costs are usually small. Relating to running cost, allowances for the category other have not been included in the calculation. 88

View the publication