Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Performance Monitoring & Evaluation
Results-Based Budgeting System

Public Management Development Program
Middle Managers Class (MMC)
Batch 3 (Bulawan)
January 10, 2014
Cristina B. Clasara
Director IV
Department of Budget and Management
Learning Objectives:
To rev-up performance monitoring system
that:
a) Focuses Results vs processes/inputs
b) Managers held accountable for results
c) Value-added in service delivery
Session Scope
Legal Basis: Evaluation of Agency Performance
Accountability Framework/Monitoring System

Performance Informed Budgeting
Accountability Reports
Account Management Team
Performance Framework
Performance Based Bonus
Executive Order 292

Sec. 51. Evaluation of Agency Performance
The President, through the Secretary shall
evaluate on a continuing basis quantitative and
qualitative measures of agency performance as
reflected in the units of work measurement and
other indicators of agency performance, including
the standard and actual cost per unit of work.
2014 General Appropriations Act

Sec. 2. Performance Informed Budgeting
The amounts appropriated herein considered the physical
accomplishments vis-a-vis performance targets of departments,
bureaus, offices, and instrumentalities of the National Government,
including Constitutional Offices enjoying fiscal autonomy, SUCs and
GOCCs, formulated in terms of Major Final Outputs (MFOs) and their
corresponding Performance Indicators under the Organizational
Performance Indicator Framework, the results-based budgeting system
being adopted in the whole government. Accordingly, the budget
allocations for the various programs and projects under this Act are
informed by, among others, the actual performance of spending units in
delivering their MFOs and their impact on the sectoral and societal
objectives and priorities set by the National Government. This is
consistent with the national policy of orienting the budget towards the
achievement of explicit objectives and desired budget outcomes, as well
as for greater transparency and accountability in public spending.

Sec. 2. (continued)
The targets set for the performance indicators of agencies,
stated in terms of quantity, quality or timeliness dimensions, are
disclosed under the Performance Information section in this Act and are
considered the commitments and accountability of their respective
heads of agency. Agency performance shall be assessed not only in
terms of their legally mandated outputs, as reflected in their MFOs, but
the impact these are making on the broader organizational, sectoral and
societal outcomes envisioned in the Philippine Development Plan and
the Presidents Social Contract with the Filipino People. Achievement of
said targets shall therefore be closely monitored, and shall also be used
as a basis for the grant of the Performance Based Incentives to
government personnel in accordance with the provisions of E.O. No. 80,
s. 2012, A.O. No. 25, s. 2011, and such guidelines as may be issued by
the DBM.

Sec. 2. (continued)
In the case of GOCCs, they shall likewise be guided by the
performance evaluation systems to be established by the Governance
Commission for GOCCs pursuant to Section 5 (f) of R.A. No. 10149 as
well as the Results-Based Performance Management System to be
implemented across all departments, bureaus and offices under the
Executive branch as mandated under A.O. No. 25.
Why OPIF matters for Government & the

agency
Shift of emphasis from input to outputs focused

budgeting;
Clarification
of
expected
performance
and
accountability of departments/agencies; increased
accountability and effectiveness for core business;
Encourage departments & agencies to focus on the
delivery of outputs; agencies provided leeway to
manage results;
Enables an integrated performance management
system; and
Improves reporting to the President, Congress and the
public and enhances transparency
OPIF Two Dimensions
Accountability Framework for use of

performance information in the budget process
by reporting, monitoring and evaluation of
MFOs accomplishment
Performance Framework to link organizational

performance
with
individual/personnel
performance
Performance Contract of Agencies:

OPIF Book or Book of Outputs
DPWH
Logframe
Major Final Output No. 2
Logical Framework
Major Final Output 2
PIB of
Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA)
Monitoring System
Budget Execution/Accountability
Documents/Reports
What are BEDs?

BEDs are annual documents required at the onset
of budget execution phase, which contain
agencies targets and plans for the current year.
DBM Issuance:
National Budget Circular No. 550 - Submission of Budget
Execution Plans and Targets for 2014 and Subsequent
Years
BEDs Old versus New

Existing BEDs
New BEDs
Adopts the UACS Code per COA-DBMDOF Joint Circular No. 2013-1 dated 6
August 2013
BED No. 1 - Financial Plan
BED No. 1-A - Financial Plan for Major

Programs and Projects
BED No. 1 - Financial Plan
Merging of existing BED forms

BEDs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are broken down into
Part A and Part B.
BED No. 1-B - Financial Plan of Major

Programs and Projects under the
Program Budgeting Concept
BED No. 2 - Physical Plan
BED No. 2-A Physical Plan of Major
Programs and Projects
Highlights of the New BED Forms
BED No. 2 - Physical Plan
BEDs Old versus New

Existing BEDs
New BEDs
Highlights of the New BED Forms
BED No. 3 - Monthly Cash

Program
BED No. 3-A - Monthly Cash
Program, by Major Programs
and Projects
BED No. 3-B - List of Not Yet
Due and Demandable
Obligations
BED No. 4 - Program of
Monthly Income
BED No. 3 - Monthly

Disbursement Program
Signatories are the Financial

Services Head/Budget
Officer/Chief Accountant in
coordination with the Planning
Deletion of Annex A and B (Gantt
Chart)
Subject to DOF-COA-DBM
harmonization
FY 2014 BED Forms Highlights and Purpose

A. BED No. 1 Financial Plan (FP)
Data Elements
Estimated
obligation program
of the budget year
broken down by
quarter and current
year's obligation
including
estimates for the
last quarter
Purpose
Serves as the
overall plan of the
Department/Agency
/Operating Unit
Highlights of the New BED Form

Part A shows the obligation
program broken down by PAP, cost
structure, by allotment class and by
fund source including Automatic
Appropriations and Special
Part B highlights the Major
Programs and Projects; and
Adopts the UACs Code per COADBM-DOF Joint Circular No. 2013-1
dated 6 August
2013.

B. BED No. 2 Physical Plan (PP)
Data Elements
Physical targets
of the budget
year broken down
by quarter and
current year's
accomplishments
including
estimates for the
last quarter
Purpose
Serves as the
overall plan of the
Department/
Agency/
Operating Unit

Part A shall reflect the Cost Structure, Major
Final Outputs (MFOs) and the corresponding
Performance Indicators (PIs);
Part B shall highlight the targets of the Major

Programs and Projects.

C. BED No. 3 Monthly Disbursement Program (MDP)
Data Elements
Projected
monthly
Disbursement
requirements by
type of
disbursement
authority (e.g.,
NCA, CDC,
NCAA, and TRA)
Purpose
Basis of the
issuance of
disbursement
authorities

Part A shall reflect the MDP for the Budget Year
targeted commitments/ obligations per Financial
Plan (BED No. 1) disaggregated into
"Comprehensive Release" & "For Later Release"
and Automatic Appropriations;
The total MDP may or may not be equal to the
Department/Agency/OU's total obligation
program per Financial Plan (BED No. 1); and
Part B shall highlight the cash program of the
Major Programs and Projects.
Validity of Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) for Regular MDS

Sub-Accounts pursuant to
CL No. 2013-12 dated November 21, 2013
Effective January 1, 2014

NCAs shall be released comprehensively
Validity of NCAs to be credited to
agencies Regular MDS Accounts shall
be until the last working day of the
3rd month of that quarter.
Monitoring System:
Budget Execution/Accountability Documents/Reports
pursuant to NBC 550 dated October 29, 2013
BEDs
(Targets/Plans)
Physical Plan and Financial Plan
BARs/FARs
(Actual accomplishments)
vs.
-Quarterly
Operations
Physical
Report
of
-Quarterly Financial
Operations
Report
of
-Statement
of
Allotments,
Obligations and Balances
Monthly Cash Program
List of Not Yet Due and Demandable

Obligations
Estimate of Monthly Income
vs.
Monthly Report of Disbursements
vs. Quarterly Report of Income
Linkage between BEDs and BARs

BEDs
BARs/FARs
Quarterly Physical Report of Operations
Physical and Financial Plan (PFP)

Actual accomplishment of the
previous year
Quarterly physical targets by

MFO/PI and plans for the
current year
physical targets for the quarter
vs.
Quarterly financial (allotment)

requirements for the current
year to achieve targeted
output
the agency plan should
correspond to the allotment
expected to be released and
physical targets
actual physical accomplishments for

the quarter by MFO/PI consistent with
the PFP.
Quarterly Financial Report of Operations

Available allotment of the agency as of
date of reporting
utilization of allotment (obligations) by
P/A/P and allotment class for the quarter.
Linkage between BEDs and BARs

BEDs
BARs/FARs
Monthly Cash Program

monthly
disbursement
authority requirements of
agencies (NCA, NCAA, CDC,
TRA)
Monthly Report of Disbursements
vs.
Quarterly Report of Income
Estimate of Monthly Income

estimated income by source
and by month, consistent
with the targeted level per
BESF for the given year.
actual disbursements for the month,

arising from disbursement authorities
issued
vs.
actual income collections from all

sources, broken down by month.
COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 2013-1

FROM
DBM
> Statement of Allotments, Obligations and
Balances (SAOB) - BAR No. 4
> Financial Report of Operations-BAR No. 2
> Monthly Report of Disbursements-BAR No. 3
COA
> SAOB
> Detailed Breakdown of Obligations
> Detailed Breakdown of Disbursements
> Regional Breakdown of Expenses
> Statement of Cumulative Allotments, Obligations
Incurred and Unobligated Balances
> Detailed Statement of Cumulative Expenditures/
Obligations Incurred, Obligations Liquidated/
Disbursements and Unliquidated Obligations
TO
> Statement of Appropriations, Allotments, Obligations,
Disbursements and Balances (SAAODB)
> List of Agency Budget Matrix (ABM) / SAROs and Sub-AROs
> Detailed Statement of Current Year's Obligations,
Disbursements and Unpaid Obligations (SODUO-CY)
> Summary of Prior Year's Obligations, Disbursements
and Unpaid Prior Year's Obligations (SODUO-PY)
> Summary of Report of Disbursements
BED NO. 2
CY 2012 PHYSICAL PLAN

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
MAJOR FINANCIAL OUTPUTS
(MFO)/ Performance
Units of
PREVIOUS YEAR
CY 2012 QUARTERLY TARGET BY KEY RESULTS AREAS
Measure ACCOMPLISHMENT
(CY 2011)
(KRA's)
Rapid Inclusive and Sustained Economic Growth
REMARKS
KRA 3
Physical Target
1st
MFO 2 - National Roads Construction Services

1. Length and % National roads constructed according
to standards, within project budget and schedule
a) Unpaved roads paved
Two-lanes
Four lanes
Others
b) Paved roads rehabilitated
Asphalt overlay
Rehabilitation/reconstruction
Reblocking
Upgrading from Asphalt to concrete
Others
c) Roads Widened
Two lanes
Four lanes
Others
d) New roads constructed/Road Opening
One lanes
Two lanes
Four lanes
Others
e) Others
km
km
km
km
km
sq.m
km
km
km
km
km
km
proj.
464
619
922,550
62
22
2nd
3rd
4th
TOTAL
3,694.03
4,818.30
4,015.25
3,533.42
16,061.00
508.76
663.60
553.00
486.64
2,212.00
200.79
200.79
261.90
261.90
218.25
218.25
192.06
192.06
873.00
873.00
204.93
267.30
222.75
196.02
891.00
204.93
267.30
222.75
196.02
891.00
71.30
57.22
14.08
93.00
74.70
18.30
77.50
62.25
15.25
68.20
54.78
13.42
310.00
248.95
61.05
31.74
41.4
34.5
30.36
138
31.74
41.4
34.5
30.36
138
Performance
Measures
(2)
PROGRAM/ACTIVITY/PROJECT
(1)
Physical
Target
(3)
Accomplishment
Variance
Remarks
(4)
(5)
(6)
1. a Asphalt overlay
MVUC
GAA
km
km
MVUC
GAA
km
km
MVUC
GAA
km
km
181.01
256.00
74.99
39.00
39.00
204.93
8.29
(196.64)
1. b Reblocking
2. Rehabilitation
2.1 Rehabilitation/ reconstruction
km
2.2 Upgrading from Asphalt to Concrete
km
MFO 2 - Providing Effective Natioanl Road Network

through Construction Services
1. Length and %of National roads constructed according
to standards, within project budget and schedule
a) Unpaved roads paved
Two lanes
Four lanes
km
km
200.79
28.83
80.04
c) Roads Widened
Two lanes
km
71.30
47.41
(23.89)
CY 2012 FINANCIAL PLAN

(In Thousand Pesos)
BED NO. 1
Department/Agency: Department of Public Works and Highways - OSEC Central Office
PAP/
MFO
Fund
Source
(1)
MFO2
PREVIOUS YEAR
CURRENT YEAR - CY 2012
(CY 2011)
BUDGETARY ALLOCATION
OBLIGATION PROGRAM
PAP CODE
OBLIGATIONS
Per NEP or GAA
NOT NEEDING CLEARANCE
NEEDING CLEARANCE
TOTAL
ACTUAL ESTIMATE
PS MOOE CO
TOTAL
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
TOTAL Q1 Q2 Q3
Q4
Total
Jan - Nov 30Dec 1 - 31
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)=6+5
Total PROJECTED FUND 101
82,809,661.00 82,809,661.00 22,468,390.00 44,936,779.00 67,405,169.00 74,894,632.00 74,894,632.00
7,915,029.00 7,915,029.00 82,809,661.00
I
B.02.A
14,380,348.00 14,380,348.00 4,314,105.00 8,628,209.00 12,942,313.00 14,380,348.00 14,380,348.00 - - - 14,380,348.00
GOP
5,747,072.00 5,747,072.00 1,724,122.00 3,448,243.00 5,172,365.00 5,747,072.00 5,747,072.00
5,747,072.00
LP
8,633,276.00 8,633,276.00 2,589,983.00 5,179,966.00 7,769,948.00 8,633,276.00 8,633,276.00
8,633,276.00
B.02.a 01
250,353.00
250,353.00
GOP
LP
250,353.00
-
250,353.00
-
75,106.00
150,212.00
225,318.00
- - 250,353.00 250,353.00 - - -
75,106.00
150,212.00
225,318.00
250,353.00
250,353.00
-
250,353.00
250,353.00
-
CY 2012 FINANCIAL PLAN

(In Thousand Pesos)
BED NO. 1
Department/Agency: Department of Public Works and Highways - OSEC Central Office
PREVIOUS YEAR
(CY 2011)
BUDGETARY ALLOCATION
PAP CODE
MFO
OBLIGATIONS
Per NEP or GAA
FUND
ACTUAL ESTIMATE
PS MOOE
CO
TOTAL
SOURCE
Jan - Nov 30 Dec 1 - 31
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
CURRENT YEAR - CY 2012
P/A/P
Total PROJECTED FUND 101
82,809,661.00
OBLIGATION PROGRAM
NOT NEEDING CLEARANCE
Q1
Q2
Q3
NEEDING CLEARANCE
Q4
TOTAL
Q1
Q2
Q3
(5)
Q4
TOTAL
Total
(6)
82,809,661.00 22,468,390.00 44,936,779.00 67,405,169.00 74,894,632.00 74,894,632.00
(7)=6+5
7,915,029.00 7,915,029.00 82,809,661.00
I
MFO2 B.02.A
14,380,348.00
14,380,348.00
4,314,105.00
8,628,209.00 12,942,313.00 14,380,348.00 14,380,348.00 -
GOP
5,747,072.00
5,747,072.00
1,724,122.00
3,448,243.00
5,172,365.00
5,747,072.00
5,747,072.00
5,747,072.00
LP
8,633,276.00
8,633,276.00
2,589,983.00
5,179,966.00
7,769,948.00
8,633,276.00
8,633,276.00
8,633,276.00
B.02.a 01
GOP
LP
B.02.a 02
GOP
LP
B.02.a 03
GOP
LP
250,353.00
75,106.00
150,212.00
225,318.00
250,353.00
250,353.00 -
250,353.00
250,353.00
75,106.00
150,212.00
225,318.00
250,353.00
250,353.00
250,353.00
-
14,380,348.00
250,353.00
250,353.00
17,682.00
17,682.00
5,305.00
10,609.00
15,914.00
17,682.00
17,682.00
17,682.00
17,682.00
17,682.00
5,305.00
10,609.00
15,914.00
17,682.00
17,682.00
17,682.00
70,420.00
70,420.00
2,126.00
42,252.00
63,378.00
70,420.00
70,420.00
70,420.00
70,420.00
70,420.00
2,126.00
42,252.00
63,378.00
70,420.00
70,420.00
70,420.00
STATEMENT OF ALLOTMENTS, OBLIGATIONS AND BALANCES

As of March 31, 2012
BAR NO. 4
Department :
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
Agency/OU:
CONSOLIDATED NATIONWIDE
Fund:
All Funds
SAOB SUMMARY
PAP/ALLOTMENT/CLASS
ALLOTMENT
OBLIGATIONS
INCURED
(1)
(2)
(3)
UNOBLIGATED
BALANCE OF
ALLOTMENT
(4=2-3)
AC %
(5=3/2))
CURRENT YEAR BUDGET

R.A 10155
Regular Budget
PS
MODE
CO
sub-total, Regular Budget
Special Purpose Funds
PS
MODE
CO
sub-total, SPF
Automatic Appropriations
PS
MODE
CO
sub-total, Appropriations
Total R.A 10147 (Regular. SPF & Automatic)
R.A 8794 MVUC Funds- Current
Fund 151
Fund 152
Fund 153
Total R.A 8794 Funds Current
4,081,705,595.00
5,991,739,025.00
93,356,833,545.43
103,430,278,165.43
837,987,988.17
426,701,151.07
39,812,702,006.99
41,077,391,146.23
3,243,717,606.83
5,565,037,873.93
53,544,131,538.44
62,352,887,019.20
40%
247,070,770.42
238,850,515.61
58,040,000.00
305,110,770.42
238,850,515.61
8,220,254.81
58,040,000.00
66,260,254.81
78%
346,222,316.04
83,063,020.21
263,159,295.83
352,604.00
346,574,920.04
83,063,020.21
352,604.00
263,511,899.83
24%
104,081,963,855.89
41,399,304,682.05
62,682,659,173.84
40%
1,436,837,367.00
54,022,235.06
1,382,815,131.94
185,512,280.00
1,622,349,647.00
54,022,235.06
185,512,280.00
1,568,327,411.94
3%
A Synthesis on the
Account Management Teams
(AMTs)
RATIONALE
Responsibility of spending department
is not limited to delivery of timely
and quality public service but to
spend their budget on time and at
the levels set by DBCC.
FIRST QUARTER EXPENDITURE PERFORMANCE

Particulars
DBCC
Program
BTr Cash
Operations (COR)
Excess/
(Shortfall)
Total Disbursements
440,589
394,883
(45,706)
2012 NCA Disbursements a/
280,267
244,645
(35,622)
Non-NCA Disbursements
160,322
150,238
(10,084)
25,233
105,141
7,225
11,336
8,158
2,843
386
29,994
98,489
3,162
8,237
8,772
1,584
4,761
(6,652)
(4,063)
(3,099)
614
(1,259)
(386)
357,781
440,589
(82,808)
360,974
394,883
(33,909)
Outstanding Checks b/
Interest Payments
Net Lending
Tax Expenditures
Tax Remittance Advice
Constructive Cash
Cash Disbursement Ceiling
Memorandum Items
Revenues
Disbursements
Surplus/ (deficit)
a/
Refers to checks actually encashed chargeable against NCAs issued in 2012
b/
Refers to checks actually encashed chargeable against NCAs issued in 2011
3,193
(45,706)
48,899
OBJECTIVES OF AMTs
Assist spending agencies
to be on track with DBCC
Disbursement Program.
THE IMPLEMENTATION GAP

DBCC disbursement targets vs.
MCPs vs. actual
disbursements
by departments/agencies,
CY 2011-2013
THE PROBLEM
LOW DISBURSEMENT MEANS
THREE THINGS:
Delivery of public service is
delayed
Involves additional/unnecessary
cost of
borrowing by BTr
A drag to GDP growth
THE CONTEXT
CY 2012 DBCC disbursement target was set at P1.8T
LOW Disbursements of eight (8) departments were
detected
Departments/agencies submitted their MCPs largely
for compliance, with weak link with planning units
DBM modified the submitted MCPs of departments
DBCC quarterly spending targets were not adequately
communicated to spending agencies
Observed weak links between finance and planning
units of departments
THE CONTEXT
CREATION OF INTER-AGENCY ACCOUNT

MANAGEMENT TEAMS (AMT) FOR EACH OF THE
MONITORED DEPARTMENT
RE-FORMULATION OF MCPs TO ALIGN
DEPARTMENT DISBURSEMENT TARGETS AND
TRENDS TO DBCC DISBURSEMENT TARGETS
DRAW UP ACTION PLANS (that started in
2nd quarter, 2012)
CONDUCT REGULAR AMT MEETINGS TO
"MUDDLE THROUGH" AND REVEAL
WEAKNESSES IN INTERNAL PROCESSES OF
AGENCIES
Entry Points to Solve the Problem

Weak link of finance
& planning
Poorly done MCPs

Weak reporting
system
approval of
projects
proposal
takes time
inadequate
training
Delayed
approval of
RP
Frequent
realignment
Inconsistent
physical & financial
plan/targets
Policy
shift
Security/Peace &
Order Condition
Lack of
manpower
Permits
EO 366/
Manpower
Low
disbursement level
Project
Implementation
Complex
procedure
ROW
Force
majeure
Delays
Bidding/delivery
Scarcity of
materials/supplies
Storage space
constraint/
stocking problem
Procurement
SAOB of Departments
S TATEMENT OF ALLOTMENT, OBLI GATI ON AND BALANCES
As of May 31, 2012
(I n Thousand Pesos)
OBLIGATION
PART ICULARS
Public Works and Highways

National Defense
Agriculture a/
Labor and Employment
Education
Interior and Local Government b/
Health
Social Welfare and Development
Energy
Environment and Natural Resources c/
Transportation and Communications
Agrarian Reform
GRAND TOTAL
Allotment
Obligations
Incurred
Unobligated
Balances
164,261,419
115,806,286
61,631,172
8,712,498
226,602,811
106,635,127
37,089,639
52,820,940
2,405,911
18,696,712
26,513,502
22,079,740
85,978,485
48,454,506
23,474,510
3,279,208
77,518,961
35,411,368
10,824,645
14,382,931
569,523
3,857,941
5,410,383
3,929,322
78,282,934
67,351,780
38,156,662
5,433,290
149,083,850
71,223,759
26,264,994
38,438,009
1,836,388
14,838,771
21,103,119
18,150,418
843,255,757
313,091,783
530,163,974
RATE
(%)
52.34%
41.84%
38.09%
37.64%
34.21%
33.21%
29.19%
27.23%
23.67%
20.63%
20.41%
17.80%
Notes:
1) One of the financial performance measures is obligation rate (or absorptive capacity) which is derived by comparing actual
obligations against allotments. If calculated using straight-line method (i.e., without considering variable factors and seasonality
of program and project implementation), the average obligation rate for the period ending May 31 will approximate to 41.67%
of the annual releases. The derived obligation rate may also be compared to past performances e.g. same period in the
previous years (trend analysis) to be able to obtain a more conclusive gauge of the 5 months period performance.
2) Sources of Data: DBM report on Allotments and Department/Agencies' reports on obligations per SAOB.
a/ Based on June 15, 2012 SAOB except NIA and BFAR.
b/ Based on May 31 report except OSEC which is based on April 30, 2012 SAOB.
c/ Based on April 30, 2012 SAOB.
2013 Statement of Allotment, Obligation and Balances

in million pesos unless otherwise stated
TOTAL (FIRST SEMESTER)
DEPARTMENTS
TOTAL
ALLOTMENT
RELEASES
OBLIGATIONS
REMARKS
OBLIGATION
RATE (%)
1,880,617
658,927
35.04
AMT-GUIDED
DA
DAR
DENR
DOH
741,995
66,530
17,665
27,237
45,877
339,240
37,765
2,204
14,072
18,624
45.72
56.76
12.48
51.66
40.59
as of June 20
Quarter 1 only
as of June 30
as of June 30
DEPED
DSWD
DPWH
DOTC
275,300
61,370
203,230
44,786
112,587
23,772
123,008
7,210
40.90
38.74
60.53
16.10
as
as
as
as
of
of
of
of
June
June
June
June
30
30
30
30
OTHER MAJOR DEPTS

DILG
DND
DOT
DOE
265,309
120,263
140,722
3,029
1,294
129,283
61,124
66,298
1,331
530
48.73
50.82
47.11
43.93
40.96
as
as
as
as
of
of
of
of
June
June
June
June
30
30
30
30
OTHER DEPARTMENTS
873,313
190,404
21.80
Quarter 1 only
DISBURSEMENTS PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED DEPARTMENTS

As of May 2012
in million pesos
DEPARTMENT
DBCC
PAYMENTS *
PROGRAM
EXCESS / (SHORTFALL)
Amount
Percent
of Program
DA
DAR
DENR
DOH
DEPED
DSWD
DPWH
DND
DILG
DOTC
DOLE
DOE
Subtotal
25,124
5,030
7,131
8,937
84,546
18,639
60,681
43,830
36,796
4,994
2,837
226
298,771
15,756
3,101
4,221
8,376
84,072
14,506
43,534
45,140
38,553
4,878
2,991
343
265,471
(9,368)
(1,929)
(2,910)
(561)
(474)
(4,133)
(17,147)
1,310
1,757
(116)
154
117
(33,300)
(37.3)
(38.3)
(40.8)
(6.3)
(0.6)
(22.2)
(28.3)
3.0
4.8
(2.3)
5.4
51.8
(11.1)
OTHERS
237,556
185,209
(52,347)
(22.0)
TOTAL
536,327
450,680
(85,647)
(16.0)
* Based on negotiated checks of MDS-GSBs
RANKING OF AMT-GUIDED DEPARTMENTS

as of June 30, 2013
(in billion pesos unless otherwise stated)
Department
(1)
DBCC
Program as
Adjusted
(2)
Adjusted
MCP
(3)
Actual
Disbursement
with Working
Fund
(Negotiated
Checks+WF)
(4)
DBCC vs Disbursement
MCP vs Disbursement
Amount
Amount
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(5) = (4) - (2) (6) = (5) / (2) (7) = (4) - (3) (8) = (7) / (3)
1 DSWD
22.8
33.9
30.6
7.8
34.1
(3.3)
-9.6
2 DepEd
114.4
120.9
111.8
(2.5)
-2.2
(9.1)
-7.5
6.3
7.4
5.0
(1.3)
-21.1
(2.4)
-32.8
4 DPWH
87.6
112.0
67.4
(20.3)
-23.1
(44.6)
-39.8
5 DOH
18.4
22.7
13.9
(4.5)
-24.5
(8.8)
-38.9
6 DA
35.5
40.2
22.8
(12.7)
-35.7
(17.4)
-43.3
7 DENR
13.9
15.4
7.8
(6.0)
-43.5
(7.6)
-49.1
8 DOTC
9 DOE
14.1
0.9
15.968
1.2
6.7
0.3
(7.4)
(0.6)
-52.4
-68.4
(9.3)
(0.9)
-58.0
-75.0
3 DAR
UNDERSPENDING OF SELECTED DEPARTMENTS

AS OF MAY 2012
DPWH
PARTICULARS
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Jan-May, 2012
DBCC Program
Actual Disbursements
Excess/(Shortfall)
(in million pesos)

60,681
43,534
(17,147)
Reasons for underspending:

1 Overestimation of MCPs
a unrealistic physical plans:
non-consideration of factors affecting operations such as weather
conditions, bidding schedules.
b. MCP based on allotments and did not consider factors affecting project
implementation such as requests for realignments, inadequate
staffing due to on-going Rationalization Plan
2 Timing of payments for billings
a. Program did not consider two months lag in billing and payment to
contractors. Upon issuance of Notice to Proceed, contractors will collect
only 15% Mobilization cost, with the next billing to follow after 2 mos.
b. Preference of some contractors to consolidate billing
(and wait for project completion) instead of issuing
progress billings
3 DPWH implementing units' setting of higher targets
4 Bulk of underspending were charged against continuing appropriations
for roads/bridges projects, both local and foreign-assisted projects,
instead of current budget.
REMARKS
Suggested Measures
1 Raising the Cap on locally-funded civil works/
projects for which District Engineers can
conduct pre-procurement, procurement and
implementation activities
Copy of DPWH Order No. 54
dated Oct.20,2011 attached.
2 a. issuance of guidelines for the disallowance of
realignment of funds for line item projects
specified in the GAA
b. review and revision of DPWH
Special Provision Nos.7 and 12,
to authorize the DPWH Secretary
to realign funds, without need for
DBM approval, subject to usual
budgeting/accounting/auditing
rules and regulations
3 DPWH to require all contractors to
submit regular monthly billings, based on
project accomplishment, instead of
allowing them the flexibility of schedule
of billing
Were we able to close

the disbursement gaps?
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AMT ASSISTED DEPARTMENTS

as of December 31, 2012
(in billion pesos)
DBCC
MCP
Program as
Final
Department
Adjusted (Jan- Revision
Dec)
(Jan-Dec)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Actual
Disbursement
with Working
Fund
(Negotiated
Checks+WF)
(4)
DBCC vs Disbursement
MCP vs Disbursement
Amount
Amount
(5)
(5) = (4) - (2)
(6)
(6) = (5) / (2)
(7)
(7) = (4) - (3)
(8)
(8) = (7) / (3)
1 DSWD
47.0
40.8
50
2.7
5.75%
8.9
21.92%
2 DOH
31.0
27.1
29
(1.8)
-5.66%
2.1
7.85%
3 DENR
17.2
15.4
14
(3.3)
-19.05%
(1.5)
-9.59%
4 DPWH
152.8
137.8
122
(31.3)
-20.45%
(16.3)
-11.80%
5 DA
54.6
48.7
42
(12.4)
-22.70%
(6.4)
-13.19%
6 DOTC
21.0
17.3
14
(7.3)
-34.47%
(3.5)
-20.28%
7 DAR
17.0
14.9
10
(7.0)
-41.04%
(4.9)
-32.62%
232.8
0.332
226
(6.4)
-2.76%
DEPED *
* No official submission of MCP
Financial Performance AMT Assisted Departments

Program vs. Disbursements
(in percent)
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
DOH
DSWD
DENR
DA
Variance 1
DOTC
DAR
Variance 2
DOH
Variance 1: DBCC Program vs.

Actual Disbursement.
Variance 2: Final MCP vs. Actual
Disbursement.
Variance 3: Average of Variance 1
and 2
DPWH
-5.66
7.85
1.1
DSWD
DENR
5.75 -19.05
21.92
DepEd
Variance 3
DA
DPWH
DOTC
DAR
-22.7 -20.45 -34.47 -41.04
-9.59 -13.19
DepEd
-2.76
-11.8 -20.28 -32.62
13.84 -14.32 -17.94 -16.13 -27.37 -36.83
Fiscal Performance for 2012

year-on-year vs. program
Deficit:
Revenues
Disbursements
242.8 B
22.8%
13.0%
138.8%
1.535 T
12.9%
1.6%
1.778 T
14.1%
3.4%
Fiscal Performance for 2013

Targets
As of Sept. 30
238.0 B
101.0 B
Revenues
1.746 T
1.267 T
Disbursements
1.984 T
1.368 T
Deficit:
Challenge of Current Monitoring System:
Delay in submission
Reports in different formats
Inaccurate data
Duplication resulting in redundant data
(YEAR 2)
Simula ngayong taon,

magpapatupad tayo ng
sistema kung saan ang
bonus ay nakabase sa
pagtupad ng mga ahensya sa
kanilang mga target para sa
taon. Nasa kamay na ng
empleyado ang susi sa kanyang
pag-angat. . .
Ginagawa natin ito, hindi
lamang para itaas ang
kumpiyansa at ipakita ang
pagtitiwala natin sa ating mga
lingkod-bayan. Higit sa lahat,
para ito sa Pilipinong
umaasa sa tapat at mahusay
na serbisyo mula sa lingkod-
President Benigno S. Aquino III

State of the Nation Address
July 23, 2012
1.The PBB aims to instill a culture of

fairness
The incentives are results-based rather than
arbitrary.
Employees who perform better than their peers
will be rewarded more.
Once this system is fully in place, most
government employees will get more than what they
got in the previous bonus scheme.
2. The PBB is our obligation to the

taxpayers.
It is a reminder that our salaries are paid for by the
taxpayers that demand certain services.
3. The PBB will help agencies achieve
their departmental goals.

Bonuses will be determined by both individual and
agency performance
Measuring individual and group achievements

makes the agency more able to achieve its targets
Coverage
All Departments, SUCs, GOCCs; PBB implementation
in a department shall cover its attached agencies

OEOs, including OP attached agencies and GOCCs to
be supervised and monitored by OP
Implementation in SUCs coordinated with CHED
Implementation in GOCCs shall be supervised by
their oversight agencies and GCG
Congress, the Judiciary, the Constitutional
Commissions, and Ombudsman can adopt guidelines
to be eligible
Eligible Individuals
All officials and employees holding regular
plantilla positions, and contractual and casual
personnel having an employer-employee
relationship, and have rendered at least nine (9)
months of service for the year 2013
Achieve at least 90% for each of the indicators

under MFO, STO, GASS targets
Achieve at least 90% for each of the targets

agreed with the President under the five KRAs of
EO 43
Meet 100% of good governance conditions for
2013 under the performance drivers of the RBPMS
Implement two-stage ranking
Setting Performance Targets

For departments and attached agencies, must be
consistent with targets committed by the Secretary
as reflected in the OP(OCS) Planning Tool 1
For OEOs, GOCCs and agencies attached to the OP,

must be consistent with 2013 Approved Budget and
must reflect improved trend from 2012
For members of Ease of Doing Business Task Force,
must include 2013 targets per AO No. 38
Targets must indicate improving trend over 2012
accomplishments
Selecting Performance Indicators

Three (3) most significant customer-oriented indicators of
output/outcome under each MFO (not internal or
intermediate outputs or throughputs, nor demand-driven
outputs; must capture dimensions quality, quantity, and
timeliness from point of view of citizens/clients)
Two (2) most significant indicators of STO performance
capturing the dimensions of quality and timeliness
Two (2) common GASS performance indicators

Budget Utilization Rate
Submission to COA of financial statement and all reports and
documents within the mandated period
MFO/STO/GASS targets should be reflected in Form A
Budget Utilization Rate Formula

Ratio of total disbursements (cash and non-cash
excluding PS) to total obligations for MOOE and
CO in 2013
BUR =
Total disbursement (Cash and Non-Cash)

Total obligations for MOOE and CO
Financial Reports to be submitted

to COA
Balance Sheet
Statement of Income and Expenses
Statement of Cash Flows
Statement of Government Equity
Notes to Financial Statement
FORM A
DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE TARGETS (ACCOMPLISHMENT) *
*Note: Same form to be used for submitting 2013 Accomplishments
DEPARTMENT: ____________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT
FY 2012 ACTUAL
ACCOMPLISHMENT
(2)
MFOs AND
PPERFORMANCE INDICATORS
(1)
A.
Major Final Outputs (MFOs)/ Operations
MFO 1:
2013 BUDGET:
Performance Indicator 1:
DEPARTMENT
FY 2013 TARGET
(3)
RESPONSIBLE
BUREAUS/ OFFICES
(4)
DEPARTMENT
FY 2013 ACTUAL
ACCOMPLISHMENT
(5)
Form A
MFO 2:
2013 BUDGET:
MFO 3:
2013 BUDGET:
Support to Operations (STO)

2013 BUDGET:
Performance Indicator 1
General Administration and Support Services (GASS)
2013 BUDGET:___________________________
Prepared by:
____________________________
Planning Officer
_________________
Date
Approved by:________________
Department Secretary/Agency Head
_________________
Date
______________________
Budget Officer
________________
Date
REMARKS
(6)
DOH
Cascading of Department Performance Targets (FORM A)
FORM A
CASCADING OF DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE TARGETS

DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MFOs AND
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS (1)
% of operational health
software with 98%
required uptime
number of weeks with
notifiable disease
surveillance reports
C. General
Administration Services
DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE
CY 2011
DEPARTMENT
CY2012
FY 2012
BUREAUS /
FY 2012 QUARTERLY TARGETS (6)
ACTUAL
FY 2012
BUDGET ('000)
ACCOMPLISH DELIVERY UNITS
ACCOMPLISH TARGET (4)
(2)
MENTS
(5)
MENT (3)
QTR 1
QTR 2
QTR 3
QTR 4
100% (15/15)
100% (15/15)
IMS
100%
(15/15)
48 weeks
48 weeks
48 weeks
NEC
4
12
12
12
12
weeks/month
x
WEEKS WEEKS WEEKS WEEKS
12 months
136,948
100%
(15/15)
100%
(15/15)
293,641
# of DOH Offices that

achieved and
maintained their ISO
9001:2008 Certification
Performance Levels
% of public bidding
posted in PHILGEPS
TOTAL
100% (15/15)
189,065
100%
(15/15)
REMARKS
100%
(161/161)
42,809,378
FINANCE
SERVICE,
PROCUREMENT
SERVICE,
ADMINISTRATIVE
19 SERVICE, LEGAL
SERVICE &
OTHER CENTRAL
OFFICE
BUREAUS AND
CENTERS
19
100%
(180/180)
PROCUREMENT
SERVICE
19
100%
100%
100%
19
100%
items for
bidding posted
in PHILGEPS
are based on
packages from
the Annual
Procurement
Plan
Good Governance Conditions for FY 2013
Maintain/Update
Agency Transparency
Seal (Sec. 93 of GAA 2013 or RA 10352)
PhilGEPS
posting (Revised IRR of RA
9184)
Liquidation
of all Cash Advances granted
to officials and employees, covering
transactions of FY 2013 (COA Rule)
Update
Citizens Charter or its
equivalent, Service Charter (RA 9485)
ofCompliance
with submission and review
SALN of all employees and officials
Agency Transparency Seal
Contents of Transparency Seal

Agency mandates, functions, and contact information of officials
Statement of allotment and obligations (FY 2011-2012)
Financial Accountability Reports (FARs) for 2013
Approved budget for 2013 and MFO targets
Major programs and projects classified according to 5 KRAs
Program/project beneficiaries
Project/program status
Annual Procurement Plan
Transparency Seal should be located on the homepage; must specify
the Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
Certification to be signed by the Head of Agency
PhilGEPS Posting
Posting to include Invitation to Bid; Requests for

Expression of Interest; Requests for Quotation; Notices
of Award/Bid Results; Actual Approved/Awarded
Contracts; Notice to Proceed/Purchase Orders for
procurement contracts costing above P500,000
Agency must remedy deficiencies for FY 2012
transactions
Publication of the contract awarded can be done in the
PhilGEPS, no longer thru Transparency Seal
Certification to be issued by the BAC Chairman, Head of
Procuring Entity
Department should certify compliance of all
bureaus/regional offices/attached agencies
Liquidation of Cash Advances

within reglementary period
Pertains to cash advance granted to officials and
employees for local and foreign travel, including
special activities
Covers FY2013 transactions
Agency must remedy deficiencies in FY 2012
Report on Aging duly signed by Head of Agency,
Head of Accounting Office and verified by Resident
Auditor to be submitted directly to COA
Citizens Charter
Section 4, Rule IV of the IRR of ARTA mandates that
review of Citizens Charter whenever necessary, but
not less than once every two years
Updated Citizens Charter must show improvements
(minimum of three) that resulted from the process
review of service delivery e.g. streamlining of
procedures, shortened turnaround time, reduction in
the number of signatories, etc.
Citizens Charter must be uploaded in the agencys
website
Submission and Review of SALN

Compliance
with minimum requisites for

content and formalities prescribed by RA 6713
Submission of 2012 SALN of all officials and
employees to appropriate receiving entity
Certification to be signed by Chairman of
Review and Compliance Committee and the
Head of Agency
Selecting Performance Indicators

Departments/agencies should
prioritize/feature
performance targets agreed with the President
(reflect in Form B)
List should be checked with the Running List of
Priority Programs monitored by the PMS
Priority program targets could be expressed in
terms of milestones (with weights indicated)
FORM B
DEPARTMENT TARGETS ON KEY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS TARGETS (ACCOMPLISHMENT) *
DEPARTMENT ____________________________________________________________
Key Programs/
Projects
Description of
Program/Project
Objectives
(2)
Total Program
Budget
(3)
Program Budget
for FY2012
(4)
Responsible
Bureau/ Offices
(5)
Department FY
2012 Actual
Accomplishment
(6)
Department
FY 2013 Targets/
Milestones
(7)
Department
FY 2013 Actual
Accomplishment
(8)
Programs/
Projects (1):
Programs/
Projects (2):
Programs/
Projects (3):
Prepared by:
____________________________
Planning Officer
_________________
Date
Approved by:________________
_________________
Date
______________________
Budget Officer
________________
Date
Remarks
(9)
Cascading Performance Targets
Identify bureau/office/unit responsible for the delivery

of targets in MFOs, STO, GASS and key
programs/projects
Flexibility to choose various levels of delivery units
depending on the complexity of its operations and
categories by which performance is evaluated
Adopt participative and consultative process in
cascading targets
Cascaded targets should be set on a quarterly basis and
reflected in Form A1
FORM A-1
DETAILS OF BUREAU/OFFICE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND TARGETS (ACCOMPLISHMENT) *
DEPARTMENT: ____________________________________________________________
BUREAU/OFFICE __________________________________________________________
Major Final Outputs

/Responsible
Bureaus
(1)
Performance
Indicator 1
(2)
FY 2013
TARGET for
Performance
Indicator 1
(3)
FY 2013
ACCOMPLISHMENT
for Performance
Indicator 1
(4)
Performance
Indicator 2
(5)
FY 2013
TARGET for
Performance
Indicator 2
(6)
FY 2013
ACCOMPLISHMENT
for Performance
Indicator 2
(7)
Performance
Indicator 3
(8)
FY 2013
TARGET for
Performance
Indicator 3
(9)
FY 2013
ACCOMPLISHMENT
for Performance
Indicator 3
(10)
A. Major Final Outputs/Operations
Bureau 1
Bureau 2
Bureau 3
B. Support to Operations (STO)
Bureau 1
Bureau 2
Bureau 3
C.General Administration and Support Services (GASS)
Bureau 1
Bureau 2
Bureau 3
Prepared by:
____________________________
Planning Officer
_________________
Date
Approved by:________________
_________________
Date
______________________
Budget Officer
________________
Date
Remarks
(11)
Submission of Forms A, A-1 and B

Activity
Submission of PBB Targets using
Forms A, A-1 and B to IATF
(provide AO 25 Secretariat e-copy
of submissions)
Date of Submission
Submit to IATF
August 31, 2013 to

September 15, 2013
Departments/COs thru
BMBs OEOs thru OP
SUCs thru CHED GOCCs
(DBM-covered) thru
BMB-F
-do-
Submission of 2013
December 10, 2013
Accomplishments (Forms A, A-1&B
) with November 30, 2013 as cutoff date
Submission of 2013
) with December 31, 2013 as cutoff date
January 10, 2014
-do-
Submission of 2013
) with March 31, 2014 as cut-off
date
April 10, 2014
Concerned department
Note: please email e-copies to ao25secretariat@dap.edu.ph
Eligibility and Ranking
Eligibility of Departments/Agencies
Forms A, A-1 and B shall reflect the actual
accomplishment including that of attached bureaus,
offices or delivery units
Inability to meet any performance targets will render
the department/agency ineligible for the PBB in FY
2013.
Departments/Agencies who qualify shall determine
the bureaus, offices or delivery units and attached
agencies with accomplishment of at least 90% of
each one of their performance targets for FY 2013.
Ranking of Delivery Units (1/4)
Forms A, A-1 and B will be the primary basis for

measuring performance of attached bureaus or
delivery units.
Compliance with the applicable good governance
conditions are eligibility requirement for the PBB.
Based on Forms A, A-1 and B, attached agencies,
bureaus, offices or delivery units shall be forced
ranked according to degree of contribution in
achieving departments performance targets.
Ranking of Delivery Units(2/4)

Department Secretaries shall rank the bureaus or
delivery units, including attached agencies, according
to their performance.
Bureaus/Delivery Units
Distribution
10%
25%
65%
Rating
Best
Better
Good
Delivery units not meeting 90% threshold

No PBB
Attached agencies, bureaus, offices or delivery units

with similar tasks and responsibilities can be formed
into sub-groups.
Large complex agencies/bureaus with regional
subdivisions will be treated as separate agencies to
capture the complexity of their operations and
reward personnel accordingly.
The forced ranking will be done within the different
sub-groups or regional units.
Department/Agency may use other criteria that

must be conveyed to the bureau/office/delivery unit
heads for transparency.
Department /Agency Head may be assisted by a
Performance Management Group (PMG) in
undertaking the forced ranking of delivery units and
individuals.
Composition of Performance Management Team
(PMT), per CSC MC No. 08, s. 2013, can be expanded
to include senior officials directly overseeing and
observing performance of bureaus or delivery units;
include in its functions those of the PMG.
Determining Eligibility of Personnel(1/3)
Personnel should have rendered at least nine (9) months

of service for year ending December 31, 2013.
First and Second Levels should receive at least
Satisfactory rating under the CSC approved SPMS or its
equivalent.
Third Level Officials should receive at least Very
Satisfactory rating under the CESPES.
Other officials not covered by CESPES should receive at
least Satisfactory rating under the existing
department/agency PAS.
Personnel on detail to other agencies for six months

or more as of November 30, 2013 shall be included
in the recipient agency that rated his/her
performance.
Personnel on scholarship may be included if qualified
based on performance criteria established by PMG
and approved by Department / Agency Head.
PBB of employees on part-time basis shall be prorated based on services rendered.
Personnel guilty of administrative and/or criminal

cases and meted penalty in FY 2013 shall not be
entitled to the FY 2013 PBB. If penalty is only a
reprimand, this shall not cause disqualification to the
PBB.
Contractual and casual personnel entitled are those
whose compensation are charged to the lump sum
appropriation under Personal Services; or those
occupying positions in the DBM-approved
contractual staffing pattern of concerned agencies.
PBB Rates of Incentives for FY 2013

Group
Performance
Category
Individual Performance
Category
Best
Perform
er
Better
Performer
Good
Performer
Best Bureau
(delivery unit)
35,000
20,000
10,000
Better Bureau
(delivery unit)
25,000
13,500
7,000
Good Bureau
(delivery unit)
15,000
10,000
5,000
* The amount of incentives is on top of the P5,000 PEI given across-the-board.

93
Better and Best

Bureaus
Good
Bureaus
Performance Reporting and Validation(1/3)
Department/Agency targets and

accomplishment shall be translated into
report cards that will be published in the
RBPMS website.
Priority Program Accountability Report Card
(PPARC)
MFO Accountability Report Card (MARC-I)
Management Accountability Report Card
(MARC-II)
DOH
Priority
Program
Accountability
Report Card
(PPARC)
DOH
MFO
Accountability
Report Card
(MARC-1)
Departments/Agencies shall submit all certifications

of compliance with good governance conditions on
or before November 30, 2013.
Submission of completed accomplishment forms
and reports to the IATF shall be as follows:
Departments, other national agencies and GOCCs under
DBM shall submit through the DBM (Budget and
Management Bureau in charge);
SUCs shall submit through CHED;
GOCCs shall submit through the GCG; and
OEOs, including OP attached agencies and GOCCs shall
submit through the OP
DOH
Certificate
of
Compliance
TRANSPARENCY
SEAL
DOH
Certificate
of
Compliance
PhilGEPS
Posting
DOH
2012
PhilGEPS
Posting
DOH
Report on the Ageing of Cash Advances
DOH
Certificate
of
Compliance
ARTA
Statement of
Assets,
Liabilities and
Net Worth
(SALN)
Agencies should submit electronic copies of

completed and signed forms to the AO 25 Secretariat
via email (ao25secretariat@dap.edu.ph) following
the prescribed timeline
Incomplete and unsigned submissions will not be
accepted
A Composite Team shall review the accomplishments
and compliance to good governance conditions
Spot checking shall be conducted to validate claims
and certifications
Role of Head of Agency and PMG
Clarify and cascade targets.

Ensure that the department/agency has adequate
Change Management strategies for the PBIS.
Communicate PBIS within their
departments/agencies and make information
available to employees, and respond to comments,
concerns and grievances.
Develop and implement an internal communications
strategy for the PBIS.
Funding for PBB
The PEI and PBB top-up bonus shall be

sourced from the Miscellaneous
Personnel Benefits Fund (MPBF)
For GOCCs, the same shall be sourced from

their corporate funds
108
Proposed Process Flow of

Assessment and Validation of
Agency Submissions

Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Performance Monitoring & Evaluation

Results-Based Budgeting System

Department of Budget and Management

Department of Budget and Management

Accountability Framework/Monitoring System

Performance Based Bonus

Executive Order 292

2014 General Appropriations Act

2014 General Appropriations Act

2014 General Appropriations Act

Department of Budget and Management

Why OPIF matters for Government & the

Shift of emphasis from input to outputs focused

OPIF Two Dimensions

Accountability Framework for use of

Performance Framework to link organizational

Performance Contract of Agencies:

Department of Budget and Management

Major Final Output 2

What are BEDs?

BEDs Old versus New

BED No. 1 - Financial Plan

BED No. 1-A - Financial Plan for Major

BED No. 1 - Financial Plan

Merging of existing BED forms

BED No. 1-B - Financial Plan of Major

Highlights of the New BED Forms

BED No. 2 - Physical Plan

BEDs Old versus New

Highlights of the New BED Forms

BED No. 3 - Monthly Cash

BED No. 3 - Monthly

Signatories are the Financial

FY 2014 BED Forms Highlights and Purpose

Highlights of the New BED Form

FY 2014 BED Forms Highlights and Purpose

Highlights of the New BED Form

Part B shall highlight the targets of the Major

FY 2014 BED Forms Highlights and Purpose

Highlights of the New BED Form

Validity of Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) for Regular MDS

Effective January 1, 2014

List of Not Yet Due and Demandable

Estimate of Monthly Income

Monthly Report of Disbursements

vs. Quarterly Report of Income

Department of Budget and Management

Linkage between BEDs and BARs

Physical and Financial Plan (PFP)

Quarterly physical targets by

physical targets for the quarter

Quarterly financial (allotment)

actual physical accomplishments for

Quarterly Financial Report of Operations

Linkage between BEDs and BARs

Monthly Cash Program

Monthly Report of Disbursements

Quarterly Report of Income

Estimate of Monthly Income

actual disbursements for the month,

Department of Budget and Management

actual income collections from all

COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 2013-1