Frequently Asked Questions

The Wellcome Snakebite Innovation Prize is funded by Wellcome and is being delivered by Challenge Works.

The prize aims to improve outcomes for people affected by snakebite by incentivising innovations that create stronger community responses and faster, equitable access to quality medical care.

Specific goals include:

1. Advance ideas with the potential to make near-term transformative impacts on the snakebite patient journey in high-burden countries.

2. Develop a more mature and diverse snakebite innovation landscape by supporting new multi-sector, multi-disciplinary, and international teams of innovators to tackle challenges in creative ways.

3. Raise the profile of snakebite as a global health issue and showcase the potential of innovation to address its unique challenges.

Snakebite envenoming is a neglected public health crisis causing over 100,000 deaths and 400,000 disabilities annually.

Wellcome has primarily focused on transforming the way in which snakebite treatments are researched, developed and delivered - improving the current landscape while strengthening the pipeline for new treatments. Further work is needed to integrate solutions into health systems, while also addressing the broader challenges experienced across the snakebite patient journey.

Snakebite is a neglected health issue with limited funding and a small research community. This prize is a first of its kind opportunity for collaboration and innovation - between those already working in the snakebite field and those who are new to it - to help accelerate solutions for those affected by snakebite.

Challenge prizes support open innovation for established innovators and those who are new to the field, enabling the most promising ideas to progress with funding and expert capacity-building support.

Crucially, their value goes far beyond the final prize awards. Unlike traditional grants, the prize is designed to ensure that participation is a collaborative and supportive process for all teams involved, regardless of the final outcome. Beyond the financial incentives, the prize serves as a powerful accelerator by granting cohorts widespread visibility, validating their approaches, and building the institutional credibility needed to propel innovations forward.

The prize therefore aims to develop a more mature and diverse snakebite innovation landscape by supporting new multi-sector, multi-disciplinary, and international teams of innovators to tackle challenges in creative ways.

Beyond the financial incentives, the prize serves as a powerful accelerator by granting cohorts widespread visibility, validating their approaches, and building the credibility needed to propel innovations forward. Through the competitive process, innovators develop skills and build capacity, which helps to break down barriers to participation and supports innovators’ long-term success. Additionally, the attention generated can create a wider systemic impact by raising awareness of the neglected problem. With the World Health Organization’s target to reduce snakebite mortality and disability by 50% by 2030, the clock is ticking. The prize is looking to advance ideas with the potential to make near-term transformative impacts on the snakebite patient journey in high-burden countries by 2030.

While snakebite presents unique clinical challenges, many of the barriers to care are cross-cutting—systemic hurdles in logistics, communication, and infrastructure that are shared across global health. Because of historically low funding and the neglected nature of this field, there is a great opportunity for new collaborations, fresh perspectives, and new solutions.

The prize incentivises the participation of snakebite specialists, people with lived and frontline experience, and experts from numerous adjacent sectors. By bridging the gap between specialised knowledge and novel approaches with proven solutions from other fields, the prize aims to solve snakebite’s most intricate challenges. Ultimately, the initiative hopes to develop a more mature and diverse snakebite innovation landscape by supporting new multi-sector, multi-disciplinary, and international teams to tackle challenges in creative ways, while raising the profile of snakebite as a global health issue and showcasing the potential of innovation.

The prize requires that solutions are centred on and informed by the end users, including patients, affected communities, first responders, traditional healers, and frontline health workers. Solutions must be culturally resonant and include a credible plan for long-term sustainability, such as securing formal buy-in from local public health authorities.

This is reinforced by Judging Criterion 4 "Understanding of the end user", which evaluates how deeply user needs and local constraints are incorporated into the design through co-design processes, community-led approaches, or local partnerships.

Entrants are encouraged to use our matchmaking platform to build teams across multiple disciplines and build partnerships with people with lived experience of snakebite.

Finalists will be supported through networking and matchmaking opportunities throughout the finalist development phase to ensure the solutions are designed to be relevant, appropriate, and adopted in high-burden settings.

Eligible solutions must be tailored for and implemented in communities where the snakebite burden is felt the most and the unmet need is greatest. These are settings in low and middle-income countries with high snakebite mortality and morbidity rates. Geographically, these high-burden regions are predominantly located across Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, South-East Asia, and Latin America.

If you have an area that you are looking to focus your solution on that isn't included in the map, email us to explain why you think it should be eligible and considered a high burden setting.

We welcome entries from a range of stakeholders, including those outside of the traditional research and innovation ecosystem, and encourage those with first-hand experience of snakebite to engage with the prize.

Please read the eligibility criteria in the innovator handbook which explains who can enter the prize.

Entries that are not eligible will not be considered for the prize.

Multi-sector, multi-disciplinary, and international teams from all fields. This includes both snakebite experts and problem-solvers from other sectors who can apply their expertise to snakebite.

The programme facilitates multidisciplinary partnerships, connecting innovators with lived-experience partners and organisations to co-design sustainable solutions.

Find other interested innovators to collaborate with by signing up for our match-making portal and signing up to an upcoming event.

The prize is looking for multi-disciplinary teams. Individuals are not eligible for the prize.

Entries can come from any type of legally incorporated organisation (e.g. companies, non-profits, charities, research organisations, universities, civil society groups). The lead organisation must nominate a lead entrant, who must be at least 18 years of age. Teams can also enter under a host organisation.

Teams may enter as a consortium of any combination of the above, but must nominate one organisation as the lead. The lead organisation will enter into a contract and receive funding from the prize.

While the prize is designed to support and enrich the work of snakebite experts, we actively seek diverse problem-solvers - experts from other sectors who can bring fresh perspectives to an underserved field. Both groups will receive a centralised package of innovator support tailored to their needs.

The prize is looking for teams that bring together diverse perspectives to solve the complexities of snakebite challenges to save lives.

Find other interested innovators to collaborate with by signing up to our matchmaking portal and signing up to an upcoming event.

Yes. We encourage you to use the matchmaking platform provided on our website to find collaborators with complementary skills (e.g., matching a tech developer with a snakebite clinician).

Teams should focus on building multi-disciplinary teams with the operational capacity to deliver real-world impact.

Launch track teams are expected to:

• Share evidence of the development of their prototype and feedback gained from end users by November 2027.

• Share evidence of testing in a near-real-world environment by November 2030.

Growth track teams are expected to:

• Share evidence of their solution being tested in real-world pilots by November 2027.

• Share evidence of how the solution is being implemented in the field and how impact is being assessed by November 2030.

To score highly against the ‘Team capability & project delivery’ criterion, entrants should ensure that their teams have the expertise, partnerships, and operational capacity to deliver on their proposed solution and meet these expectations.

To support connections, the prize offers a dedicated matchmaking platform on its website to help innovators connect with potential partners, share resources, and bridge skillset gaps.

Yes, you can update your team composition throughout the prize. However, the lead entrant and lead organisation must remain the same unless a formal request is approved.

The prize is calling for solutions to tackle critical challenges and improve outcomes for people affected by snakebite in high-burden settings—by strengthening community responses, accelerating access to appropriate care, or improving the delivery of treatment.

The prize supports technological, social, logistical, and systems-level innovations designed to improve patient outcomes.

We’re calling for solutions (innovations) that improve outcomes for people affected by snakebite, through stronger community responses and faster, equitable access to quality medical care.

Solutions may focus on first aid, access & logistics, assessment & diagnosis, emergency care or supportive care.

Out-of-scope areas: Development of drugs, antivenoms, or venom neutralisation therapies is strictly ineligible.

Additionally, solutions cannot focus solely on primary prevention, basic research, or long-term recovery/rehab.

All entries must pass a Safety & Ethics check. You must demonstrate a clear commitment to "doing no harm" and show a responsible approach to engaging with end users and affected communities

In-scope solutions include but are not restricted to:

• Diagnostics: Rapid bedside point-of-care tools to detect venom or distinguish envenoming (e.g., lateral flow or blood clotting tests).

• Supportive Care: Interventions addressing acute tissue damage (wound dressings, debridement tools) or hardware/systems for airway and respiratory support in neurotoxic envenoming.

• Supply Chain/Logistics: Predictive analytics software to forecast hotspots based on snake migration data, drone delivery networks, and cold-chain mini chillers.

• Clinical Decision-Making: Digital treatment protocols and smartphone workflow apps for facility staff, or telemedicine networks connecting rural clinicians with expert toxinologists

What is important is that you understand the funding and timeline of the prize - if your solution requires clinical trials and a lot of regulatory boundaries and funding, it is likely not a good fit for the prize.

If you are still not sure whether your solution is eligible, email us, and we can review whether your entry would be eligible.

Out-of-scope areas: Development of drugs, antivenoms, or venom neutralisation therapies is strictly ineligible.

While important work is being done to improve existing antivenoms and develop new treatments, there is a real need for technological, social and system-level solutions to maximise the reach of these treatments and ultimately improve health outcomes. In order to address the complexity of snakebite, we must holistically consider and address the surrounding challenges of the patient journey, as the administration of antivenom is only one of the critical steps in the journey.

Previous funding efforts have focused on supporting the development of traditional and recombinant antivenoms, but this prize shifts focus to improving other barriers to care access that people affected by snakebite encounter. New pharmacological interventions have longer development periods and require significantly different levels of support (financial and non-financial) than this prize is offering.

High-burden regions include Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, South-East Asia, and Latin America. The prize specifically aims to target rural, poor, and agrarian communities within regions affected by snakebite.

Entrants must justify their chosen level of reach—whether hyperlocal, national, regional, or global—and explain how that selection maximises impact.

Their end user should be based in an area affected by snakebite. See our map on this page to understand which countries solutions should be targeting.

Yes, the existing snakebite solutions are most likely eligible for the growth track. The Growth track is specifically designed for existing solutions that already support snakebite patients, or are being repurposed from neighbouring fields, and plan to extend their reach, increase impact, or add new components.

The entry form for the growth track will ask you to provide evidence of the work you have already done to develop your solution, as well as your planned next steps to develop the solution during the prize. Growth entrants' response to both of these areas will be used to assess the solution against the judging criteria. Note that we encourage existing solutions to incorporate innovative components for the prize. By ‘innovative’ we mean any type of solution that leverages new ideas, methods, or tools that will add value, improve process, or create efficiencies.

Solutions that need to be adapted significantly for the snakebite context are likely eligible for the launch track. Solutions can be adapted from adjacent fields, such as adapting clinical tools from fields like emergency medicine or wound care, or repurposing non-patient tools, including AI photo-based apps, to identify the snake species and inform care management.

Innovation is defined as an original approach that advances the field through novel, combined, or adapted interventions, such as new processes, technologies, services, or tools.

Snakebite envenoming is a complex challenge, demanding cross-disciplinary responses. Innovators from all fields are needed to design impactful solutions to bridge the gap and develop technological, social, logistical, and systems-level innovations.

Track selection depends on your solution's innovation maturity level.

The Launch Track is designed to support teams to transform ideas into proofs-of-concept and then into viable solutions. Whether your team is developing a brand new idea or significantly adapting an existing solution for snakebite care, this track will support you to take an initial design through to feasibility testing.

Enter the Launch Track if your solution is at Innovation Maturity Level (IML) 1-2 (concept/feasibility stage).

The Growth Track is designed to support tested solutions to be fully validated, implemented, evolved or extend their reach, and fundamentally improve outcomes for snakebite patients.

Enter the Growth Track if your solution is at IML 3+ (tested solutions ready for validation or expansion).

These are levels used to define a solution's development stage:

• Level 1: Initial research and understanding the problem.

• Level 2: Concept and feasibility testing.

• Level 3: Development and verification through prototypes.

• Level 4: Validation and pilot testing.

• Level 5: Deployment and impact assessment.

• Level 6: Expansion of reach.

The prize runs for four and a half years.

It opens for entries on 17 June 2026 and closes on 16 September 2026.

The finalist development period runs from January to October 2027, followed by a winner development period from December 2027 to December 2030.

The prize funding is designed to help teams advance by providing financial injections during the finalist and winner development phases.

Any funds awarded must be used in relation to the awarded solution to improve snakebite patient outcomes.

This could include the following activities:

• Research and generating/analysing relevant data

• Technology development activities

• Conducting pilot studies and clinical evaluations

• Implementation, scale-up and monitoring and evaluation activities

• Networking, knowledge sharing and/or technology transfer activities and associated administrative support

• Travel and subsistence costs: Finalists will be expected to attend 1-2 in-person events during 2027.

• Training needs

• Expert consultation/input

• Patient and public involvement

• Sustainability activities (e.g. exploring follow-on funding opportunities) to ensure successful implementation and long-term viability

• Core team’s salaries

• Overhead costs: Overheads (e.g., office space, utilities) are strictly capped at a maximum of 20%. They are only eligible to the extent they are directly linked to the development of your solution for the prize.

• Equipment Procurement: Any equipment must deliver "Value For Money", support the environmental sustainability of the solution being developed, and be adequately maintained and insured. If equipment is disposed of, leased, or sold, any income generated over £100,000 requires prior written consent.

Finalists will receive wraparound support, including connections to technical and snakebite experts and people with lived experience, access to facilities, capacity building, and matchmaking with key stakeholders to ensure their ideas reach the market.

The goal of the prize is to create sustainable solutions. During the development period, we will provide mentorship on business modelling and partnership building to support solutions to continue to improve health outcomes for people affected by snakebite long after the funding ends.

17 June 2026.

16 September 2026 at 12 noon UTC.

Entries must be submitted in English.

Please be assured that the quality of your English writing is not being evaluated. The assessment is based solely on the content of your entry and how well it meets the judging criteria.

Eligible entries will be reviewed by a pool of expert assessors and our judging panel.

Entries are scored against six criteria:

1. Impact

2. Innovation

3. Implementation & Sustainability

4. Understanding of End User

5. Team Capability

6. Safety & Ethics check

The judging panel is composed of international experts who can collectively speak to the prize's judging criteria.

The panel will be announced throughout the entry period of the prize.

A successful solution should be grounded in the lived realities of high-burden communities, centred on end-user needs, and demonstrate a credible path to long-term sustainability.

Teams should consider using the provided matchmaking platform to build a cross-disciplinary team.

Innovation has historically stalled across the snakebite patient journey due to low funding and fragmented data. The prize explicitly looks for fresh perspectives and balances risk-taking by rewarding out-of-the-box thinking without penalising early-stage or risky ideas.

Teams must balance bold creativity with real-world application through the specific design of the judging criteria weightings.

When evaluating entries to select the final 15 finalist teams, the Judging Panel will utilise a portfolio approach.

This means they will look beyond individual scores to ensure the final cohort represents a balanced diversity of solution types, target challenge points along the patient journey, and geographic settings to comprehensively address the systemic issues outlined in the challenge statement. We want to encourage innovation at the widest possible scale.

You can view the entry form questions in a downloadable Word document format below.

Launch Track: Downloadable Entry Form(docx.1709KB)

Growth Track: Downloadable Entry Form(docx.1709KB)

Please note that your entry must be submitted using the Submittable platform here.  

All entries into the prize must be written in English to be eligible. To ensure that our international panel of assessors and judges can review every entry thoroughly, consistently, and fairly, we standardised the process in English - currently the most widely spoken shared language globally.

Please be assured that the quality of your English writing is not being evaluated. Assessment is based solely on the substance of your entry and how well it meets the judging criteria.

Please note that the prize is being delivered in English throughout all phases. If your team is successful and becomes a finalist, you will need to review finalist materials and provide all subsequent documentation in English. 

If you do not have an English-speaking member on your team, we encourage you to use online translation tools or use our innovator platform to source an English speaker to join your team.

If you have submitted an entry to the Prize, you will hear back from the team in January 2026 regarding the status of your entry.

A 10-month period (January to October 2027) where the 15 finalists use the prize awards and support to accelerate their solutions.

By November 2027:

Launch finalists are expected to reach IML 2 (initial validation of the design of your solution, accompanied by feedback from end users)

Growth finalists are expected to reach IML 4 at a minimum (preparing for implementation or commercialisation, including sharing evidence of your solution being tested in real-world pilots.)

To become one of the 4 winners, the finalists will need to use the development period to build evidence on why their solution meets the judging criteria.

Finalists will receive wraparound support, including connections to technical and snakebite experts and people with lived experience, access to facilities, capacity building, and matchmaking with key stakeholders to support in their solution’s development and market implementation.

Finalists must submit refined solutions in October 2027 for a final round of judging. Up to 4 winners are then selected based on their progress against the judging criteria.

No. The 4 winners are selected from the pool of 15 finalists after a 10-month development period.

A period from December 2027 to December 2030 where 4 winners will use the grand prize to further implement their solutions.

Finalists and winners will be required to submit high-level quarterly progress reports to ensure the project is meeting its milestones and remains on track for the development period.

By November 2030:

Launch winners are expected to reach IML 3 (tested in real world pilots and preparing for implementation).

Growth winners are expected to reach IML 5 at a minimum (implementing in the field and assessing impact).

To become one of the 4 winners, the finalists will need to use the development period to make a compelling case to the judges on why their solution meets the judging criteria.

Finalists will receive wraparound support, including connections to technical and snakebite experts and people with lived experience, access to facilities, capacity building, and matchmaking with key stakeholders to support in their solution’s development and market implementation.

If your innovation involves human participants (e.g., surveys or clinical pilots) or animal studies, you must obtain the required approval before these activities begin.

Assessors and reviewers will be looking for proof points in your entry form to show that your solution will be developed and implemented responsibly - with a clear understanding of potential risks and a commitment to safeguarding patients and communities through testing and deployment.

An overview of the ethics required should be included in your entry form.

All entrants, finalists and winners will retain all intellectual property ownership in their entry (including the results and materials generated by you while participating in the Prize).

It is the entrant's responsibility, at your own cost, to protect and/or enforce your intellectual property.

Finalists and winners will undergo a due diligence process. This includes financial audits of the lead organisation, verification of legal status, assessment of safeguarding policies, and a review of the team's ability to manage large-scale funding.

All finalists must agree to provide information that will help the Wellcome Snakebite Innovation Team to understand the impact of their solution and the challenge prize.

We will share information finalist and winning teams provide to us in order to demonstrate the impact of the prize and the solutions it funds.

To reflect the size of the 4 winners’ prize funding, and Wellcome’s charitable aims, the winners will need to commit to disseminating the funded outputs of their solution in accordance with Wellcome’s Open Access Policy.

We will always get the finalists' and winners' permission to share information about their team and solution before sharing it publicly.

There are no terms or conditions associated with the 15 finalist teams should they choose to commercialise.

The 4 winners of the prize will be required to follow the following steps if they decide to commercialise:

Notify Wellcome that they intend to commercialise the results, outputs and/or intellectual property arising from the prize-funded activities and provide a draft commercialisation plan, outlining how the intended commercialisation efforts will deliver public benefit and address the human health impacts from snakebites.

Discuss any questions or concerns Wellcome have with the proposed commercialisation plan.

Obtain Wellcome’s prior written consent to the proposed commercialisation.

As a condition of consent, Wellcome may require future reporting on commercialisation efforts and may apply its standard revenue and equity sharing approach, which will require you to enter into a consent and revenue sharing agreement with them. Alternatively, Wellcome may agree to lower (or waive) its standard revenue share where the winning team can demonstrate how commercialisation will support greater access to, and adoption of, your developed solution.

Full guidance of Wellcome’s approach to commercialisation can be found here.

If you still have queries, contact the team at snakebite.prize@challengeworks.org

Registering your interest puts you on the radar of other participants who are seeking collaborations. It allows you to:

• Discover & connect: See the types of teams forming and innovations being developed.

• Build teams: Find partners, mentors or people with lived experience so you can bring diverse perspectives together to solve complex snakebite challenges.

• Stay updated: By registering, you will receive updates on prize-related opportunities and events.

No, this is not the official entry form for the prize. This is a registration platform designed for networking, team building, and matchmaking during the three-month outreach phase.

We are looking for a wide range of global talent to address challenges across the snakebite patient journey. You should register if you want to:

• Provide guidance, mentorship, or specialised expertise to a team.

• Collaborate, share resources, or partner with other teams.

• Develop and deliver a solution but need to round out your team's skills.

• Connect with a global network dedicated to improving snakebite outcomes.

Registrations are now closed. 

You will receive a confirmation email as soon as your profile has been approved by our team. You can then log back into your account and connect with other interested innovators here.

Once you receive your approval email, you can log back into the platform to:

• Browse the profiles of other registered organisations and individuals.

• Filter by expertise, region, or patient journey focus.

• Reach out and connect directly with potential partners or mentors.

If you want help making an introduction, email us at snakebite.prize@challengeworks.org

Yes. If you need to make updates to your bio, contact info, collaboration needs, or want your profile removed, please email us at snakebite.prize@challengeworks.org and we will assist you.

Note that if you wish to remove your profile, you won’t be able to access the other innovators’ full profiles.

Would the selected providers be contracted directly by Challenge Works, or through Wellcome? And would this be structured as a service contract rather than a grant?

The selected providers will be contracted directly by Challenge Works under a service agreement.

Are U.S.-registered, for-profit entities eligible to contract directly as Innovator Support providers?

Yes, U.S.-registered, for-profit entities are eligible to contract as innovator support partners. Selected partners will contract directly with Challenge Works under a service agreement.

Can we contract as lead and subcontract regional partners?

Yes, you are welcome to apply as the lead organisation and subcontract regional partners, local specialists, or individual consultants. Challenge Works will execute the contract and make payments directly to the lead organisation, who will hold legal and administrative responsibility for managing all subcontractors.

Must all partners be confirmed at submission, and what documentation is required?

Key delivery partners and/or primary subcontractors responsible for core workstreams should be named at submission, with information about the organisation, their roles, and allocated budgets detailed in the proposal. Where bidders propose a broader pool of local experts or additional, niche partners, these may remain indicative accompanied with a plan to select, vet, and onboard them.

No formal documentation is required at this stage. However, at the interview stage, we require demonstrable evidence that a partnership is in place, evidenced by an MOU or similar written confirmation.

Is an eight-page A4 proposal designed as a deck and submitted as PDF acceptable?

Yes, this format is acceptable.

Does a consortium count as one organisation?

Yes, a consortium is treated as a single bidding entity for procurement purposes, provided a lead organisation is clearly designated to submit the proposal. Challenge Works will execute a single contract with the lead organisation, who will assume overall financial, operational, and reporting responsibility for the deliverable. All consortium members, their specific workstream contributions, and cost breakdowns should be detailed in the written proposal. Ahead of contracting, all members of the consortium will be required to provide information against which we can run our due diligence processes.

For a provider bidding specifically for this business-support workstream, is a demonstrated healthcare-sector track record required? Or can international accelerator experience and a track record of pilots and integrations qualify, complemented by the innovators’ and programme specialists’ domain expertise?

While international LMIC experience is essential, a pre-existing track record specifically within the healthcare sector is desirable rather than strictly required. Healthcare domain expertise is primarily needed for the following workstreams: clinical validation support, regulatory pathways guidance, scaling strategies, and connections to labs. It is less critical for cross-cutting workstreams like user-centered design and financial management support.

Where specific healthcare or local contextual knowledge is needed, suppliers should explicitly outline in their proposal how they will engage external consultants or regional partner organisations to bridge any expertise gaps.

Can our pre-existing methodologies, tools and templates remain our intellectual property, with an appropriate licence for their use in programme delivery?

Yes, the supplier's pre-existing methodologies, tools, and templates remain their organisation's property. Any new IP developed specifically in the course of delivering the contracted services will belong to Challenge Works, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Could you clarify who will carry out the diagnostic interviews? The timeline table suggests the innovator support provider will do them in January 2027, but the public-facing handbook says the needs assessment will be coordinated centrally by Challenge Works.

Challenge Works will centrally coordinate and oversee the overall needs assessment process. Challenge Works will conduct an initial assessment based on the applicant survey data, technical assessor feedback, and finalists' onboarding. The contracted innovator support provider(s) will then conduct workstream-specific 1-on-1 diagnostic interviews with finalists in January 2027 to establish each team's baseline support roadmap. All contracted support partners will participate in a joint needs assessment session with each finalist.

Does Challenge Works expect each contracted provider to conduct its own diagnostic interviews with the finalists in January 2027, or will one provider coordinate the diagnostic on behalf of all providers?

Challenge Works will centrally coordinate and oversee the overall needs assessment process. Challenge Works will conduct an initial assessment based on the applicant survey data, technical assessor feedback, and finalists' onboarding. The contracted innovator support provider(s) will then conduct workstream-specific 1-on-1 diagnostic interviews with finalists in January 2027 to establish each team's baseline support roadmap. All contracted support partners will participate in a joint needs assessment session with each finalist.

Are we right to assume delivery will be virtual, or are any in-person engagements planned?

The vast majority of cohort workshops and 1-on-1 mentorship will be delivered virtually, given the global distribution of finalists across multiple regions. However, where relevant and feasible – such as facilitating connections to regional pilot sites or wet labs – in-person opportunities or hybrid formats may be explored. Bidders should design their core methodologies and activities for remote delivery while detailing how local networks could assist on the ground.

Is there a set requirement for the number of hours or sessions of 1:1 coaching the support provider should deliver to each finalist? Or is it up to each finalist to make use of the support available to them?

There is no fixed, mandatory quota of 1-on-1 coaching hours as support needs will vary depending on whether a team is in the Launch Track (IML 2) or Growth Track (IML 3–6) and their underlying expertise. Bidders may propose a flexible, 'buffet-style' package of support options from which finalists can self-select the most relevant mentorship topics and cohort activities for their solution. Proposals should outline what bidders consider the optimal mix of advisory hours and workshops, broken down by workstream and daily rates, which will be refined once the 15 finalists and their specific diagnostic needs are confirmed. Crucially, support providers are expected to proactively engage teams throughout the programme rather than relying solely on ad-hoc requests from finalists.

For the two tracks (Launch and Growth), when would you expect them to come together or diverge? For example, is there a planned kickoff where innovator support is delivered to the group, or is it 1:1 from the start? Has Challenge Works already mapped out key touchpoints or meeting cadences that the innovator support could align with?

Innovator support begins with a centralised onboarding and kickoff session in January 2027 to align all 15 finalists on programme expectations; given the global distribution of finalists across time zones, Challenge Works may conduct two of these kickoff sessions, which the suppliers are required to attend. Delivery will then combine cohort-level activities on cross-cutting topics with tailored 1-on-1 mentorship.

Cohorts will not necessarily be split between the Launch and Growth tracks, but rather grouped flexibly by workstream and need, as teams within the same track will vary in underlying expertise. Group or cohort-level masterclasses should establish a baseline of core knowledge, while 1-on-1 sessions will dive deeper into specific, relevant topics for each finalist.

Challenge Works has mapped out key programme touchpoints including regular progress check-ins, a mid-point review in May 2027, and a final report in October in the Terms of Reference document.

Can the proposed workstreams be delivered entirely virtually, without mandatory in-person activities or travel?

Yes, all core workstreams including cohort masterclasses, 1-on-1 mentorship, and diagnostic assessments can be delivered entirely virtually. Given that finalist teams will be geographically distributed across multiple regions, a primary remote delivery model is expected. If a provider proposes targeted in-person or hybrid elements (such as local ecosystem facilitation), these should be clearly itemised as optional components within the proposal budget.

Are support providers expected to attend in-person finalist events during 2027? If so, should related travel be included in the itemised budget or charged at cost?

Support providers are not required to host or attend in-person finalist events, as programme delivery is primarily virtual. If relevant in-person touchpoints are proposed by a provider (such as a finalist showcasing opportunity at a health or tech event), any anticipated travel, accommodation, and subsistence costs for the support provider must be itemised within the proposed budget. Travel expenses will be evaluated for value for money under Nesta’s standard procurement guidelines.

As finalists will be geographically distributed, please provide clarification whether the mentorship work, the tailored 1-on-1, the cohort assistance and the team capacity building should all be done remotely/virtually or are there any project deliverables that need to be conducted in person?

All key project deliverables including 1-on-1 mentorship, cohort workshops, capacity building, and diagnostic assessments are designed to be conducted remotely/virtually. There are no mandatory in-person project deliverables required from support providers. Providers may choose to leverage local consultants for on-the-ground user feedback or pilot facilitation, but this is not mandatory.

Will finalist funding be milestone-based, and should technical support align with those milestones? Would providers assess progress to inform disbursements?

The finalist prize awards will not be milestone-based to give innovators flexibility to test and pivot their solutions. Prize awards will be administered directly by Challenge Works and support providers are not responsible for assessing finalists' progress to inform tranche disbursements. Instead, support providers will track IML progression and solution milestones to guide their own advisory sessions and feed into regular progress check-ins with Challenge Works.

Is delivery expected to be virtual, in-person or hybrid? Are travel and any cohort convening paid from the £200,000 or by Challenge Works?

Innovator support delivery including cohort workshops, 1-on-1 mentorship, and diagnostic assessments are expected to be virtual to suit geographically distributed teams. Any overall prize-level convenings or finalist travel organised by the programme are managed and funded separately by Challenge Works. However, if a bidder chooses to propose optional in-person touchpoints or local facilitator visits as part of their specific delivery methodology, all associated provider travel, accommodation, and subsistence costs must be itemised within their proposed budget.

Are any finalists likely to need support primarily in Spanish, Portuguese or French? Do you foresee translation or interpretation needed (for example, for materials to be multilingual) and is this expected to be budgeted within the £200,000?

Cohort-level materials and primary programme delivery should be in English, and translation of official materials is not required. Given the potential geographical distribution of finalists, we don't expect the innovator support to be delivered in local languages. If the suppliers and/or external consultants feel comfortable delivering 1-on-1 sessions in the local language, they are welcome to do so. Written proposals and formal deliverables submitted to Challenge Works must be in English.

How will Challenge Works’ snakebite-expert pairing work alongside providers’ mentors? Will innovation support providers have access to experts registered on the prize’s matchmaking platform?

Challenge Works will directly manage and coordinate the pairing of finalist teams with core snakebite domain experts and advisors with lived experience. Consequently, bidders should not include snakebite expert pairing in their tender proposals or budget. Contracted support providers will focus on the complementary workstreams such as user-centred design, business modelling, impact evaluation, and technical adaptation, and will coordinate with domain experts via Challenge Works.

Challenge Works can support suppliers in identifying specific expertise within the registered individuals and organisations in the matchmaking platform. 

Is there an expected or identified set of languages in which support should be delivered?

Cohort-level materials and primary programme delivery should be in English, and translation of official materials is not required. Given the potential geographical distribution of finalists, we don't expect the innovator support to be delivered in local languages. If the suppliers and/or external consultants feel comfortable delivering 1-on-1 sessions in the local language, they are welcome to do so. Written proposals and formal deliverables submitted to Challenge Works must be in English.

What is the expected finalist distribution by country or region?

The final cohort selection will be decided by the Judging Panel. We anticipate finalist teams will be distributed across all four primary high-burden regions: Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.

The prize names regional partners (Villgro, MRFRI and Appropedia). How would you expect innovator support providers to work with them, if at all?

The regional partners (Villgro Africa, Villgro Philippines, MRFRI, and Appropedia) supported Phase 1 regional outreach and entrant engagement. For the Phase 2 Finalist Phase, innovator support is managed centrally by Challenge Works alongside the selected support provider(s).

How do you expect the different innovation support providers to work together? Will you be orchestrating that, for example by setting up key moments to coordinate efforts?

Challenge Works will centrally manage and coordinate all innovator support delivery, ensuring seamless coordination across contracted providers. During contracting and final decision-making, we will work closely with selected suppliers to ensure everyone is aligned and comfortable with their allocated scope and workstreams. We will host a dedicated onboarding session ahead of delivery to establish shared ways of working, agree on regular alignment touchpoints, and set up central progress tracking. All support providers are expected to join the finalist onboarding and individual needs assessment sessions. Contracted providers are expected to collaborate openly, sharing diagnostic insights and co-delivering complementary workstreams to ensure a unified experience for finalist teams.

How would responsibilities be divided for sourcing clinical and regulatory expertise, local advisers and potential pilot partners? Could providers work through the programme’s existing regional networks, and is any in-country delivery expected?

It is the supplier’s responsibility to source and budget for any clinical, regulatory, or local advisory expertise needed to deliver their proposed workstreams if that capability is not held in-house. Challenge Works will connect the finalists with snakebite domain experts and people with lived-experience, and may also support with connections to potential pilot/testing facilities. Given the global spread of finalist teams, we expect most of the work, especially the cohort-level activities, to be delivered virtually. However in-person opportunities will be explored where appropriate.

Would you be happy for us to define the approach, materials and methodology, and then work through a network of trusted local facilitators to run the sessions in the local language?

Yes, we encourage providers to leverage trusted external consultants and local ecosystem facilitators with deep knowledge of the finalists' geographies who can run context-specific sessions. Bidders should clearly outline in their proposal how they plan to engage and manage their network of local facilitators.

Note that cohort-level materials and primary programme delivery should be in English. Given the potential geographical distribution of finalists, we don't expect the innovator support to be delivered in local languages. If the suppliers and/or external consultants feel comfortable delivering sessions in the local language, they are welcome to do so. 

To what extent would partnerships with regionally based organizations or consultants satisfy expectations for relevant experience and contextual expertise in the four high-burden regions?

Partnering with or subcontracting regionally based organisations and local consultants is encouraged and would satisfy our expectations for regional expertise. Bidders are not required to hold all regional or domain capabilities in-house, provided they demonstrate a credible strategy for engaging trusted local facilitators when needed. Bidders should outline in their proposal how their regional sub-contractors or network partners will be managed and integrated into service delivery.

If there are project deliverables that need to be conducted in person, please clarify if the associated costs (including but not limited to the participants travel and accommodation costs and the event hosting costs) need to be included in the proposed budget.

There are no mandatory in-person deliverables required under this tender. Finalist teams cover their own testing and travel costs using their prize awards. However, if a bidder chooses to propose optional in-person activities as part of their support methodology, all associated provider travel and hosting expenses must be itemised within their proposed budget envelope.

Would you welcome a standalone proposal covering this end-to-end business-development and adoption process? Is there an indicative budget allocation, and should we assume support for all 15 teams or a selected subset?

We welcome both standalone proposals covering the complete end-to-end service package and those focused on specific workstreams. To allow for flexible evaluation of value for money and expertise, proposals should provide a modular budget breakdown by workstream. Please note that we may propose contracting an organisation to deliver one or more specific workstreams even if they submitted a proposal for the full tender. There is no fixed indicative budget cap for discrete workstreams.

Proposals should assume support for the 15 finalist teams, although this is subject to change based on the individual finalist teams' needs and the workstreams delivered by the chosen supplier(s).

What payment schedule is envisaged, including any mobilisation payment? Should local consultants, travel and translation be included within the proposed budget?

Supplier(s) will be paid upon the completion and sign-off of the deliverables/milestones set out in the contract (approximately on a quarterly basis). Submitted budgets must be in GBP and must include all anticipated direct delivery costs, including local consultant costs and travel. Note that the innovator support services will be delivered in English, so translations won't be expected.

We could bid for specific workstreams where we can add the most value, rather than needing to cover the full scope through a partnership. Is that correct? Also, do you have a sense of how much of the £200k budget might be available for behavioural insights, human-centred design and impact assessment support?

That is correct. There is no fixed or pre-allocated budget for individual workstreams, as allocations will depend on the selected finalists and the outcome of the needs assessment.

Suppliers should submit a modular breakdown of elements that could be delivered at a cohort level versus those requiring 1-on-1 delivery (including the minimum advisory hours needed to meaningfully advance their solutions), mapped against day rates.

May the itemised budget include direct pass-through costs incurred during delivery, such as participant reimbursement for research and testing activities, or are such costs expected to be covered by finalists from their prize funding?

Finalists will receive up to £100,000 intended to fund their own product development, testing, user research, and operational trial expenses. Consequently, pass-through costs for finalist solution testing or participant incentives should not be included in the innovator support provider's budget. The provider's budget should focus on direct service delivery inputs, such as expert advisory fees, workshop development, and facilitator time.

Can we bid for selected regions or workstreams?

Yes, bidders are welcome to submit proposals based on specific workstreams or areas of technical expertise rather than bidding for the full scope. We will not contract providers solely on a regional basis, but rather based on domain expertise. Bidders must demonstrate their existing geographical footprint (where they have previously delivered project) and outline how they intend to engage local consultants or acquire necessary contextual knowledge for any high-burden regions with which they are less familiar if needed based on the selected workstreams.

Can scope and fees be adjusted following finalist selection and diagnostics?

Yes, the scope can be adjusted and the fees reallocated (with a clear justification) following the finalist selection and diagnostics. While the initial contract will establish baseline daily rates and workstream allocations, the detailed support package will be refined once the 15 finalists and their specific technical requirements are confirmed. Any budget adjustments will be agreed collaboratively with Challenge Works within the overall contracted framework.

Should mentors, lab access, testing and other delivery inputs be funded from the provider budget or finalist grants?

The finalist prize awards are intended to cover testing, lab usage, user research, and trial activities conducted by the teams. The innovator support provider's budget is for service delivery inputs, such as expert advisory fees, workshop delivery, creation of resources, and staff time; note that Challenge Works will cover snakebite expert mentors honorariums separately. Providers will not pay for or pass through funding for finalist research and testing expenses.

Could you confirm how contracts will be split by workstream: by support function (for example mentorship, masterclasses, pilot access, impact and evidence, pitch preparation), by region, or by track? Is there an indicative budget per workstream?

There is no predefined budget per workstream as flexibility is required until finalists are selected and their needs diagnosed. Contracts will be awarded for complete, end-to-end workstreams (such as user-centred design, impact assessment, or business modelling). A supplier appointed to a specific workstream will be responsible for delivering all associated activities for that discipline, including both cohort-level masterclasses and tailored 1-on-1 mentorship across both the Launch and Growth tracks. Consequently, we may engage different suppliers for different workstreams, but we will not split delivery within a single workstream by track, geography, or format (e.g. separating masterclasses from 1-on-1 advisory).

Are costs for lab testing, facility access and pilot activities expected to be covered within the £200,000 innovator support budget, or funded separately (for example from finalists’ prize awards)? Is the innovation support provider’s role to broker access, to fund it, or both?

The finalist prize awards are intended to cover testing, lab usage, user research, and trial activities conducted by the teams. The support provider's role is to broker access, connecting finalists to suitable laboratories, testing facilities, and regional pilot networks through their existing or built networks.

Delivery ends on 19 October 2027 and winners are judged in December. Is pitch coaching for the winners’ judging presentations in scope or out of scope?

Comms support and pitch coaching is out of scope, as these activities will be covered by Challenge Works.

What are the payment terms and schedule?

Supplier(s) will be paid upon the completion and sign-off of the deliverables/milestones set out in the contract (approximately on a quarterly basis). Standard Nesta procurement payment terms apply, with disbursements issued within 30 days of receiving a valid invoice following formal sign-off of each deliverable. The milestone and payment schedule will be agreed during contracting.

Have you decided on the workstreams yet? If so, will they map to the top five support needs mentioned in the RFP?

Initial support workstreams were informed by the top reported needs from applicant entry data, but the final workstreams are not rigidly fixed. The updated top priority needs, based on the 50 shortlisted teams are as follows: user-centred design support (38%), impact assessment support (38%), connections to pilot sites/labs (30%), product development support (28%), and pairing with innovation expert mentors (28%). Note that shortlisted Growth teams reported impact assessment support (45%), user-centred design support (40%), and proposal development support (35%) as their top three needs; shortlisted Launch teams reported user-centred design support (37%), impact assessment support (33%), and connections to pilot sites/labs (33%) as their top needs.

The specific package will be co-designed, refined, and tailored in January 2027 following diagnostic needs assessments conducted with the 15 selected finalists. Bidders are encouraged to submit modular proposals reflecting their key strengths across these priority support areas.

Note that Challenge Works will cover pairing teams with snakebite experts and comms and pitching support, and therefore suppliers should not include this as part of their delivery proposal.