Methodology to measure local responsibility, transparency and accountability

METHODOLOGYFor measuring the Index of Responsibility,

Transparency and Accountability (RTA) at local level

Skopje, June, 2008

Prepared by Zoran Jachev

Donald Bowser

Editing Igor Kozarov

Design and printingArcuss design

ISBN978-9989-188-41-1

Project"Fighting corruption to improve governance"

Project Team UNDPFatmir Musa – Project manager

Aleksandra Vasilevska – Project assistant

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Need for the Methodology for measuring the Index of responsibility, transparency and accountability at local level ............................................................................ 7

2. Previous experiences in corruption measuring tools and weaknesses ............................... 7

3. Characteristics of Methodology and Instrument ........................................................................10

4. Description of the Methodology and the Instrument ..............................................................11

5. Recommendations for the implementation of the instrument ...........................................19

6. Tables for measuring the Index of RTA in urban planning ......................................................21

7. Tables for measuring the Index of RTA in financial management and property ................................................................................................................24

8. Tables for measuring the Index of RTA in public procurement ............................................27

5

INTRODUCTION

Corruption has been identified in the development literature as a very important obstacle for democracy, equitable economic growth and development as well as societal trust in institutions. The widely shared vision of joining the European Union further underlines this priority among candidate countries in the western Balkans, as anti-corruption measures are a fundamental pre-requisite in the EU pre-accession process. Although it is widely recognized as a problem to be tackled, one of the shortcomings in the fight against corruption is the lack of precise tools to identify the potential sources of corruption in the institutions.

The existing tools for measurement of the corruption mostly rely on a subjective approach, that is, the perception that citizens, businesspeople or the experts have. This subjective element is an important caveat in the methodology as perceptions may vary even when there is not a objective change in the actual corruption level (exposure in the media, rumors, political bias, prejudices, etc..). This is not to say that current methodologies do not have its role to play, as the worldwide acknowl-edged Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International shows.

Having this in mind, a methodology for measurement of the level of responsibility, transparency and accountability in the local government has been developed in the framework of the United Na-tions Development Programme’s Good Governance & Decentralization programmatic interventions. The aim of this methodology is to make measurable assessments of the exposure and ability of a given institution in face of actual or potential corruption, by identifying quantifying the most vulner-able points to corruption. At the same time, the methodology provides mechanisms on how to address these vulnerabilities.

This methodology and its implementation tool – the instrument for assessment of the Index of responsibility, transparency and accountability are designed to be clear, simple and practical for use. It covers three areas: public procurement, urban planning and financial management in the local government. It can be used as a mechanism for self-evaluation by the local government or identifica-tion and monitoring by independent agencies. It is designed to be used in the local administration but its approach is also very suitable for implementation in the institutions of the central government, too.

Although originally developed for its use in municipalities, the methodology has been de-signed since in its inception as a universal instrument that, with adjustments to the specific local context, can be used all around the world, both in developed and developing countries. Thus enabling the possibility of using a common standard tool that can allow for comparative analysis. The meth-odology has been implemented with success as part of a pilot project in the municipalities of Tetovo, Veles, Bitola and Gevgelija and it is expected to be scaled up shortly through a wider second phase.

The use of this anticorruption tool will significantly contribute to the fight against corruption, disclosure of the factors that contribute to its occurrence, especially in the defining of measures for its prevention. The results from the implementation of the methodology and the instrument will be very useful for increasing of accountability, responsibility and transparency of the local government, which will enable the strengthening of the institutional frameworks and facilitate both the achieve-ment of the Millennium Developments Goals and equitable development through improved gover-nance and better public services.

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo

nsibility, transparency and accountability at local level

6

Finally, we would like to thank everyone who provided their support, efforts and contribution in the development of the methodology and the Instrument - the engaged experts, State Commission for Prevention of Corruption, the Association of Local Self-government Units, the Ministry of Local Self-government, State Audit Office, Public Procurements Bureau, Agency for Civil Servants, the May-ors, experts, practitioners, NGOs and everyone else who actively participated in the process of devel-opment of this instrument.

7

NEED fOr THE METHODOLOGY fOr MEaSuriNG THE iNDEx Of rESpONSibiLiTY, TraNSparENCY aND aCCOuNTabiLiTY aT LOCaL LEvEL

Many countries in transition around the world are faced with an image of highly corrupted societ-ies, which in turn produces serious critics from the domestic public and constant demands from the international community for more tangible results in the fight against corruption. They are trying to respond these demands with more or less efficient fight against corruption, but the progress is still not as obvious as domestic and international public opinion expects it to be. There are many reasons for the lack of success, which may vary from country to country, but one of the common denomina-tors for all of them is the absence of a clear picture of the level of corruption. Although the areas and forms of corruption seem to be quite well known, there is an issue when it comes to the point of measuring it in a precise and undisputable way. Sufficient knowledge and skills for detecting, measur-ing, preventing and curbing corruption are not yet developed neither at the level of central nor, es-pecially, at the local government.

Most of the transition countries are in a more or less intensive process of decentralization and improvement of governance at the local level. The process of transfer of competences from central to local level institutions is consuming most of the capacity of the local administration. Many mu-nicipalities are still not capable of developing mechanisms for preventing the possibilities for corrup-tion, which come with the increased competencies in the scope of public procurement, finance management and urban planning. Without well-designed and tested tools for corruption detection and prevention, there is a possibility for the corruption to be ‘transferred’ from one (central govern-ment) to many more entities (local government units).

In these conditions, it is more than obvious that there is a need for the creation of a tool that mea-sures the possibilities for corruption in the local government units. This Methodology and Instrument will contribute significantly in the clarification of the level of corruption, potential corruption prac-tices as well as to the implementation of anti-corruption measures.

prEviOuS ExpEriENCES iN COrrupTiON MEaSuriNG TOOLS aND wEakNESSES

There is no extensive experience in measuring the corruption at local level in transition countries, since there is no instrument customized to the specifics of the countries. The existing international tools applied in transitional countries are not adjusted enough to measure the corruption on the lo-cal level and, therefore, they cannot reflect the real level of corruption. The tools, developed over the last ten years of serious anti-corruption work, that are most widely implemented around the globe are:

Perception Surveys are built on public perceptions of incidents and levels of corruption. These include: Household Surveys that examine the citizens view of the corruption; Enterprise Survey – study the business environment, with a special emphasis on the effects of public sector governance and corruption of private sector development; and Public Officials Survey – The purpose of this survey is to understand institution-specific determinants of corruption (including bribery, nepotism, political interference, embezzlement, etc), discretion/informality, performance, and governance.

Aggregate Surveys or Indicators are simply a survey of surveys that evaluate various indi-vidual surveys and attempts to weight the results and give an overall score. The Transparency Inter-national Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is an example of this.

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


8

Focused Group Discussions

These qualitative diagnostics focus on identifying the public concept of corruption and the forms and mechanisms that it may have.

Report Cards

A particular methodology pioneered by the Public Affairs Centre of Bangalore, is the use of “report cards” on public services. These involve interviewing the “customers” of various public utilities to ascertain what in the way of “extras” they have been required to pay in order to get their legitimate services. The resulting “report cards” are then discussed with managers responsible for the various services and published in the press and on radio. Various NGOs around the world are being trained in Bangalore to use this approach, including members from a number of TI national chapters.

Expenditure Tracking/Social Audits

Expenditure tracking surveys and social audits are tools that are used to reveal system leakages in public finances. Expenditure tracking surveys compare the allotted sums to specific public ser-vices and measure these figures against their actual accountable usage, whereas social audits measure the delivery of public services based on household surveys against actual budgeted amounts for those services.

National Integrity System Assessments/Surveys

Using the concept of the National Integrity System (NIS) developed by Transparency Interna-tional, with the tool that examines the strengths of different institutions involved in preventing cor-ruption (the integrity “pillars“) evaluated through the use of series of questions posed to a group of experts.

Indicator Based Governance Assessments

Similar to the NIS assessments, these studies look at the individual institutions through posing of a number of questions that evaluate the strength of the institution in relation to corruption. The recent released second phase of Global Integrity Report is a good example of this type of survey as is the Country Assessment in Accountability and Transparency (CONTACT) a self-assessment handbook on financial accountability developed by the UNDP.

To use a widely recognized methodology, country ranking at the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Transparency International, almost all of the countries in transition were ranked at second half of the list, while most of them occupied the last third part of it. That image and position repeatedly created disagreement among the political structures in power in the moment of the presentation of the CPI, questioning the correctness and accuracy of the methodology and the fact that it is based on a perception, not on tangible indicators.

Although numerous, these diagnostic tools have their shortcomings, confirming that the corruption is a difficult area to be measured due to the issues point out below: There are no accurate means to measure a phenomenon that involves two parties that are

both equally perpetrating malfeasance.

Criminal or judicial statistics are unreliable as an indicator due to the large number of corrupt acts that go undetected.

The most often used method of recording perceptions of corruption may or may not correlate to the realities of public sector corruption.

Perceptions of corruption are increased as the issue becomes more publicized

Expenditure tracking and other indicative surveys that show ‘leakages’ of public funds are effective indicators but are difficult to implement in a participatory manner and are readily used for political purposes.

9

Qualitative surveys are useful diagnostic tools but must be well formulated and facilitated to move beyond perceived corruption and revolve around discussions that have non-evidence based accusations of corruption.

In past international practice, sub/national diagnostics on corruption have consisted of perception type surveys of households, enterprises or social audits/service delivery surveys. Neither has proven effective in developing an evidence base for effecting change at the local level. Audits or public expenditure tracking that has been conducted has only addressed those formal misuses of resources (i.e. theft).

Within an examination of risks of corruption, there are three separate aspects of public finances to take into consideration:

Governance and institutional context within the country and sector that offer opportunities for corruption. This includes the general strengths and weakness of the institutions that can prevent corruption (i.e. national integrity studies) as well as the regulatory environment and policies/procedures of the targeted institutions.

Formal budget, expenditure and internal control systems. Key areas of corruption risk that are identified in formal risk assessments (i.e. audits, public expenditure tracking surveys) tend to focus on weaknesses in procurement, audit systems, oversight and accountability.

Real operational assessments that examine the informal systems that actually exist in the sector and country. That is, diagnosing the opportunities for corruption that are present but not necessarily exploited. This methodology looks into the informal aspects of a corrupt system that can occur without always violating the current policies and procedures and can escape detection by standard audits.

Lack of methodology and instrument for measuring the corruption adjusted to the local specifics, constant denials of the CPI from the governments with bad rankings as well as highly politicized anti-corruption debates are creating confusion among the public, which has no clear picture of the level of corruption in the country. Having in mind the decentralization and growing competencies of the local government, creation of the methodology and instrument for measuring the corruption at local level seems to be the most suitable solution for the needs of the countries in this scope.

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


10

CHaraCTEriSTiCS Of METHODOLOGY aND iNSTruMENT

Lack of experience in measuring corruption as well as negative experiences with the application of the international experiences clearly shows that it is the time and need for tailor-made Methodol-ogy and Instrument that addresses the needs of transition countries in this scope. In order to make sure that local authorities, political factors, media and public, would accept them as well as to be sustainable in a longer period, the Methodology and the Instrument have to be:

clear

simple and

impartial

More specific, abovementioned characteristics of the Methodology and the Instrument should be as follows:

Clearness of the methodology and the instrument

In order to avoid possible reluctance among the leadership of the local governments and politi-cal factor, the Methodology and the Instrument have to be clearly defined, well communicated with central and local institutions, as well as relevant stakeholders (civil society, media, etc...). They have to be easily understandable for the average officials and civil servants in the local government, as well as for the media; moreover, they have to contribute to the clarification of the corruption situation in the country and not to become a source of new political accusations on corruption basis.

The outcome of the Methodology is a clear and implementable Instrument as well as guidance on its implementation path with as much as possible accurate reflection of the level of corruption practices, corruption hot spots and anti-corruption mechanisms.

Simplicity of the instrument

Simplicity and user friendliness of the Methodology and the Instrument are of high importance for their acceptance by the stakeholders and their sustainability in a longer period. Hence, they are free of the need for complex research methods and techniques, as it is designed in a way that does not require highly specialized skills for their implementation. Although designed with ease to use and simplicity in mind, it is more convenient if they are implemented in the beginning by a spe-cifically trained professional implementation agency, before local government units start their self-evaluation.

In the beginning, the instrument should be implemented in close coordination and cooperation with the municipality authorities in order to achieve two important goals – to decrease to a mini-mum the possibilities for complains and to train the staff of the municipality for self-evaluation in future.

Impartiality of the instrument

Impartiality of the Instrument is of highest importance and will be a key for its acceptance by the leadership of the municipalities and the political factor by persuading them that the result would be objective reflection of the situation in the municipality. Therefore, the Methodology and the In-strument are designed in a way to be as much as possible free of complaints for biasness in their implementation or inclusion of personal opinion of the individuals in charge of that process. This attribute is closely related to their simplicity and clearness – all those characteristics should convince the stakeholders that the measuring of the corruption with the proposed Methodology and Instru-ment would be of their benefit.

11

Due to the previous comments and the lack of acceptance of the results of measuring corrup-tion on a basis of a perception, it is clear that measuring the level of corruption using the personal perceptions should not be used as a main research technique. Perception depends too much on the personal opinion of the interviewed individuals, their previous experience in communication or co-operation with the municipalities, their political affiliation and level of understanding the processes in the local government as well as other factors. Those factors are almost impossible to be predicted, calculated and correlated into measurable, comparable and accurate system of measuring the cor-ruption.

The Instrument designed on the base of this Methodology uses more tangible, measurable and objective criteria and indicators. Using that approach, it would be, for sure, far more acceptable, would last longer and would be much more useful for its purpose besides measuring corruption – to identify corruption hot spots and to contribute to the development and implementation of anti-corruption measures.

DESCripTiON Of THE METHODOLOGY aND THE iNSTruMENT

Corruption itself and especially tangible data on the level of corruption usually disturbs political actors and individuals that could be pointed as corrupted, and creates negative reactions to the in-stitution and individuals presenting those data. Having in mind sensitiveness of the anti-corruption situation in the transition countries, it would be very useful not to declare municipalities as corrupt-ed, but rather to take modified approach. Instead of measuring the level of corruption, the Method-ology and the Instrument are pragmatically oriented towards measuring the susceptibility, or even better - resistance to the corruption.

The most suitable approach is to base the Instrument on risk assessment of the susceptibility of the local government to corruption, assuming that the level of actual corruption is directly cor-related with the level of susceptibility to it. In that case, level of susceptibility of corruption could be taken as level of corruption vulnerability of the local government and up to certain point (if there are no proper protective mechanisms in place) as a level of expected actual corruption.

The most important elements of resistance to corruption of every institution are responsibility, transparency and accountability – therefore the Methodology and the Instrument are designed in the way to measure their level in the respective municipalities. Hence, the result of the implemen-tation of the Methodology and the Instrument is the Index of Responsibility, Transparency and Ac-countability (RTA), which shows the level of the resistance to corruption of the respective municipali-ties.

The positivistic approach would decrease to a large extent possible reluctance of the stakehold-ers to implement the instrument and would increase the possibility for design and implementation of anti-corruption measures in the municipalities.

Concerning the expertise of existing instruments for measuring the corruption at global level one cannot expect that proposed Methodology and Instrument for measuring RTA at local level could be completely different. The best effects and high accuracy could be achieved by combined and upgraded use of already existing methodologies and instruments for measuring the corruption, advancing them and adjusting them to the specifics of the transitional local governments.

Closest to the need for measuring the level of responsibility, transparency and accountability in local government in transitional countries and used as a base for this Methodology and Instrument are:

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


12

Corruption Risk Assessment based on the National Integrity System (NIS) of Transparency International (TI) and

Indicator Based Governance Assessments, based on Country Assessment in Accountability and Transparency (CONTACT) of UNDP.

Added methodological value of the proposed instrument is - introducing the assessment of the corruption resistance capacity of the municipality as an indicator of its capability to defend itself against the corruption.

Combining those upgraded approaches of UNDP and TI would base measuring corruption in the municipalities on more tangible, measurable, comparable and as much as possible – accurate data compared with the perception based instruments. Since the perceptions are still valuable source of data on the existence of the corruption, they cannot be excluded fully as a tool for measuring the corruption. Therefore, perceptions of the experts and users of the services of the municipalities are to be used as an important source in the process of adjusting the Instrument to the specifics of the countries where Methodology and Instrument will be used. In that case, the perceptions are not used as a tool to measure the corruption, but as an input in the design of the Instrument, which later on uses more tangible data to measure it.

The product of this methodological approach is the Instrument for measuring the level of Re-sponsibility, Transparency and Accountability (RTA) of the units of local government. Result of the implementation of the instrument would be creation of Index of Responsibility, Transparency and Accountability (RTA Index). Basic methodological assumption for the design of the instrument and the RTA Index are the following:

corruption pressure is constantly present and there are no significant changes in its intensity and

the level of corruption is in inverse proportion with the existence and functioning of the anti-corruption mechanisms.

The Methodology is designed to be used in virtually any transition country, while the specific In-strument to be applied is to be designed for every country respectively, in order to include as much as possible the local specifics. The Methodology is a guideline for the creation of the tailor-made In-strument for measuring the level of RTA for the countries where it will be implemented and therefore the creation of the country-specific Instrument has to pass through the following phases:

Defining corruption hot-spots

Defining anti-corruption mechanisms versus corruption hot-spots

Defining indicators for the anti-corruption mechanisms

Quantification of the indicators

Setting up of the RTA Index

For easier understanding of the methodological approach of the creation of the Instrument, abovementioned phases in the afterward text are illustrated with examples of the development of the instrument through the pilot experiences in four municipalities. Examples are developed for the scope of public procurement and they shall illustrate the proposed structure of the instrument.

The final product after completion of those phases of the methodology is the instrument for measuring the level of RTA in the units of local government. Its implementation in respective munici-palities would generate a value of the Index, which is easy to compare and allows monitoring of the changes of their resistance to corruption.

13

Defining corruption hot-spots

The first step is to define the corruption hot spots, which are the specific activities and compe-tencies of the local government which are susceptible to corruption behavior, which are similar but enough diverse in the transitional countries. Corruption hot spots are to be defined in cooperation with local experts coming from the institutions and organizations, which are related to the local governance. Therefore, there is a need to conduct series of interviews with:The representatives of local self-government, like Mayors, Presidents of Municipal Councils, Chief of Administration, Central institutions in charge of tutelar activities, such as: Ministry of Local Government, State Audit Office, Ministry of Environmental Protection and Urban Planning, Ministry of Transport and Communica-tions, State Commission for the Prevention of Corruption,Bureau of public procurement etc; and users of the services of the municipalities like Citizens, Business community, Media, NGOs

Stakeholders will provide their perceptions and experience with corruption challenges that they have met with or have been informed about concerning units of local government. Points of interest are on the difficulties and obstacles that stakeholders have in the cooperation with the municipality related to:

direct corruption demands

slowness of the procedure

refusal of the requests

bottlenecks in the municipalities

stockpiling of the cases

nepotism and conflict of interest

number of complaints per municipality department

number of corruption related articles per municipal department etc.

Stakeholders will share their experience with these issues and their perceptions as well as their opinion about the level of the impact of the respective issues for the development of the corruption in the municipalities. Previous surveys on similar subjects are also very useful in the process of defin-ing corruption hot spots in the municipalities. Specific corruption hot spots, which are to be included in, the Instrument should be selected based on two main criteria:

frequency of their repetition in the answers of the stakeholders

level of their impact to the development of the corruption.

In order to make sure that the Instrument would be applicable widely in the local government in respective countries, one of the important steps in defining the hot spots is estimation whether they are valid for all municipalities throughout the country. If in the process of implementation some hot spots are less valid for some municipalities, depending whether they are urban or rural, big or small, with larger or smaller number of inhabitants, there is a possibility of developing different list of hot spots according to their specifics.

In the process of defining the specifics of the country regarding the character of the corruption hot spots, following steps are to be taken:

examine the laws and by-laws that regulate the competencies of the local government, within the scopes of:

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


14

urban planning

public procurement

financial management.

check convergence of the documents of the municipalities in order to determine whether there are differences that can influence creation and implementation of the methodology and the instrument

examine the organizational setup of the communities in order to check whether there are differences that can influence creation and implementation of the methodology and the instru-ment

examine municipal regulations in order to define specific corruption hot-spots in every re-spective abovementioned scopes

In the process of defining specific corruption hot spots, documents that regulate the following matters that are to be examined are as follows:

municipal regulations

administrative procedures

administrative capacity

forms of internal control

forms of external control

level of transparency.

Result of this phase is pointing out at least 10 to 15 most frequent corruption hot spots in the local government describing the opportunities for corrupt behavior, which are valid for majority of units of local government.

Example of a defined hot spot for the purpose of the illustration of the development of the instru-ment is the competitiveness of the bidding.

Defining anti-corruption mechanisms versus corruption hot-spots

After defining country specific corruption hot spots, next step is to define anticorruption mecha-nisms that can prevent appearance of the corruption practices for every respective hot spot specifi-cally. They are to be defined as antipodes to the corruption opportunity and projected in a way to be at a relatively high level of prevention of corrupt behavior. Anti-corruption mechanisms are to be defined in cooperation with the representatives of the institutions in charge of coordination and monitoring the work of the local self-governments, such as:

Ministry of local government,

Office of State Audit,

Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning,

Ministry of Transport and Communications,

State Commission for the Prevention of Corruption,

Bureau of public procurement etc.

Their experience of dealing with the corruption, misdemeanor and misuse of the office is to be

15

used to define as precise as possible anti-corruption mechanisms, which could prevent the corrup-tion to occur in the identified hot spots. Professionals from these institutions are to be asked to identify conditions and measures that would be enough effective prevention of the appearance of corruption in the local self-governmental units. Similarly, like with the selection of the corruption hot spots, the selection of the specific anti-corruption mechanisms that is to be included in the Instru-ment for measuring RTA is to be done on the basis of two main criteria:

frequency of their repetition in the answers of the stakeholders

level of their impact to the prevention of the corruption.

In that process, one should bear in mind that defining those mechanisms directly influences the level of resistance to corruption with two possible undesired outcomes that has to be avoided:

to set up too high level of expected anticorruption mechanisms, which:

would produce lower value of RTA Index since performances of the municipalities can not meet too high anti-corruption standards

would discourage municipalities to implement the methodology and the instrument

to set up too low level of expected anticorruption mechanisms which:

would create higher value of RTA Index since most of the municipalities would meet such a low anti-corruption standards

would not mirror the actual situation and anti-corruption capacity of the municipalities

It is recommendable that the most useful for the sustainability of the methodology and the instru-ment as well as for the acceptance of the RTA Index is to set up standards of expected anti-corruption mechanisms in a way that would enable most of the municipalities to be ranked with the RTA Index between 2 and 3. That would allow only a few best-organized municipalities to be ranked with the Index 4 and none with the 5 and 1.

For every respective corruption hot spots, at least 2 or 3 anticorruption mechanisms are to be defined in order to:

create a sufficient orienting points against which the level of the resistance to corruption would be measured and

to point the direction in which the anti-corruption efforts of the municipality should be de-veloped.

The result of this phase of the Methodology is a comprehensive list of anti-corruption mecha-nisms, which can efficiently prevent corruption for every corruption hot spot respectively. In order to make implementation easier and RTA Index more accurate there is a need to prepare a list of the documents where proof of their existence and condition could be traced down. It is recommend-able that the list of the documents is created during the definition of the corruption hot spots and anticorruption mechanisms.

For the purpose of illustration, defined anticorruption mechanisms that could prevent the cor-ruption in the hot-spot competitiveness of the bidding are:

- transparent advertising of the bid

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


16

- existence of clear criteria for selection

Defining indicators for the anti-corruption mechanisms

Once the list of anti-corruption mechanisms is completed, next step in the Methodology is to identify and to define indicators of the existence and proper functioning of those mechanisms. The Indicators are to be selected and defined in a way to meet the following criteria – to be:

indisputable, meaning that they definitely indicate whether the anti-corruption mecha-nism exists and functions proper enough to prevent corruption

simple for identification, not requiring high expertise but average intellectual and edu-cational level to be recognized

factual, meaning not to be based on perception of the individuals or institution in charge of implementation of the instrument

gradable, meaning the degree of their influence to the RTA Index have to be able to be categorized and measurable for its value

implementable in all municipalities (or at least in the group of municipalities) in order to make comparison of resistance to corruption among the municipalities.

Defining the indicators is also one of the key phases of the Methodology and to determine the effectiveness of the instrument. There are two possible undesired outcomes that are to be avoided:

defining too high number of indicators, which would aggravate implementation of the instrument and

defining too low number of indicators, which could jeopardize its accuracy and credibility.

Outcome of this phase of the Methodology is a list of at least one indicator per every respective anti-corruption mechanism, which are pointing out undeniably whether the mechanism exists, and functions in a proper way.

For the purpose of illustration, defined indicators for the existence of the anticorruption mecha-nisms - transparent advertising of the bid and existence clear of criteria for selection in the hot-spot competitiveness of the bidding are as follows:

- for transparent advertising of the bid

number of advertised bids

value of advertised bids

- for existence of clear criteria for selection

availability of the criteria before bidding

complaints on the criteria

Quantification of the indicators

Next, and without doubt a crucial step in the methodology, is the quantification of the indicators – setting up criteria for measuring the degree of the influence of the indicator to the level of the re-sistance to corruption for the respective anti-corruption mechanism. Those values of the indicators would have direct influence to the creation and the value of the RTA Index and, therefore, they have to be clearly defined in exact gradable way, which would not leave a room for the personal judg-ment of the individuals in charge of the implementation of the instrument. Every indicator has the value between 1 and to 5 depending of the specific weight of the anticorruption mechanism and its contribution to the prevention of the corruption.

17

For the purpose of illustration, quantification of the indicators would be done as follows: transparent advertising of the bid (anticorruption mechanism) number of advertised bids (indicator) o proportion between advertised bids and number of all the procurements value of advertised bids (indicator) o proportion between value of the advertised bids and value of all the procurements for existence of clear criteria for selection availability of the criteria before bidding (indicator) o proportion of the bids with publicly available criteria vs. all the procurements complaints on the criteria (indicator) o number of officially submitted complaints for criteria vs. all the procurements

Values of the Indicators are to be determined according to the previously defined criteria for quantification based on the specific weight of respective Indicators in prevention of the corruption. The criteria and the specific weight of the indicators are to be developed in the interaction with the representatives of major stakeholders at a workshop scheduled in the process of the design of the instrument.

Setting up of the RTA Index

In order to make the RTA Index easy to understand for the media and broad public, as well as for the comparableness of the progress of the respective municipality through the time and the compa-rableness among the municipalities in respective country, there is a need of creation of a single digit figure out of all quantifications of the indicators.

The Methodology and the Instrument are designed in a way that allows the creation of separate RTA Index for the respective areas of competences of the local government, so it can be created at two levels in every municipality:

separate RTA Index for the resistance to corruption in specific areas such as urban planning, public procurement, financial management etc.

overall RTA Index for the resistance to corruption of the whole municipality in the scope of all abovementioned areas

This two level approach allows determining the level of the resistance to corruption in every re-spective scope, which would be used by the municipality to define the possibilities for corruption, but also development and implementation of the preventive measures. This approach would allow also to follow the positive or negative trends in every respective area during the time that follows and to intervene in case of deterioration of the existence or proper functioning of anti-corruption mechanisms and the direction in which the municipality should invest more anti-corruption efforts.

The first level – RTA Index for the specific areas allows measuring and comparing the munici-pal resistance to corruption in its respective administrative departments and tracking the changes within them.

The second indicating level – RTA Index of the whole municipality would allow comparison of the level of the resistance to corruption among the municipalities in the country where the instrument is going to be implemented.

Both levels of the RTA Index are to be produced using the same formula - out of the proportion of scored points in quantification of the indicators and the maximum possible points of all indicators for the respective scope of work of the municipality, according to the following formula:

SNP : MNP x 100 = PP where:

• SNP is scored number of points, which is sum of all the points won by the respective municipality in the process of quantification of the indicators

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


18

• MNP is maximum possible number of points, which is the sum of all the maximal values of the quantification of the indicators

• PP is percentage points, which shows the percentage of points won by the respective municipality against the maximum number of points that could have been won.

Example:If a given municipality obtains 65 points (SNP) out of a maximum of 105 (MNP), the amount of percentage points would be (65 : 105) x 100= 61.9%

In order to simplify the Index and to make it easy to be understood and to be comparable, per-centage points are to be transferred into single digit figure, similar to the grades in the elementary or secondary schools. The choice of the single digit could be different which depends on the specifics of the respective country – from 1 to 5, from 5 to 1 or in some cases letters can be used - from E to A, where the former means higher susceptibility to corruption and latter means lower susceptibility to corruption. For illustration, here the process of transferring of the percentage of won points to the single digit from 1 to 5 is illustrated.

After the percentage points (PP) are calculated, they are converted in RTA Index points according to the following formula:

PP x 0.05 = RTA IP, where

• PP is percentage points and

• RTA IP is RTA index point

• value of 0.05 is portion of every percentage point in the maximum value of RTA Index of 5 (5 : 100 = 0.05)

Then, the transformation of the percentage points into a single digit figure are proceed according to the following values:

RTA Index 5 – for the average arithmetic value between 4,5 and 5

RTA Index 4 – for the average arithmetic value between 3,5 and 4,5



RTA Index 1 – for the average arithmetic value between 1 and 1,5

At the end of this phase, the result is values of the RTA Index would have a gradation of 1 to 5 with the following meaning:

RTA Index 5 – full responsibility, transparency and accountability

RTA Index 4 – high responsibility, transparency and accountability

RTA Index 3 – medium responsibility, transparency and accountability

RTA Index 2 – low responsibility, transparency and accountability

RTA Index 1 – absence of responsibility, transparency and accountability

Following the previous the example, the municipality obtain 61.9 Percentage Points, that is equivalent to 3.09 RTA Index Points (61.9 x 0.05= 3.09). Meaning that it would have a medium level of responsibility, transparency and accountability.

19

rECOMMENDaTiONS fOr THE iMpLEMENTaTiON Of THE iNSTruMENT The Methodology and the Instrument are designed in a way to be easy to implement, not to leave

an opportunity for an influence of the subjective factors and to guarantee uniform way in operating with it. Their implementability has already been tested in four municipalities (Tetovo, Veles, Bitola and Gevgelija) and had proved to be user-friendly both for the agency that applied it and for the municipalities themselves.

This was confirmed by the experts who were included in the implementation, municipalities and other stakeholders, representatives of local NGOs, which were trained for their implementation. This approach of informing and training all relevant local stakeholders for the implementation of the Methodology and the Instrument is recommendable for the sustainability of measuring the level of RTA. Once trained, municipalities, together with local stakeholders could implement the Instrument themselves performing regular self-evaluations.

Having in mind this experience and the similarities in the corruption issues in most of the transi-tional countries, one can expect that this methodological approach can be used for creation of coun-try specific Instrument for measuring level of RTA in a wider context - regional and international.

For easier and more accurate implementation of the instrument, specially designed tables are designed (attached) which reflects two levels of the development of the RTA Index:

first table would be used in the development of the instrument and

second would be used in the implementation of the instrument

In the first table, the instructions for the collection of the data needed to identify the indicators are listed, and it contains the following information:

Area for which RTA Index is formed

Corruption hot-spots

Anticorruption mechanisms

Defined indicators

In the process of defining the indicators, existing analyses like CONTACT or the assessment/map-ping of the municipal administrative procedures in urban planning or license issuing processes in the local administration have been used.

The second table content would be defined on the basis of the findings and conclusions of the abovementioned interviews, and would contain the following data on the indicators, which would be used in the creation of the RTA Index:

Name of the Indicator

Criteria for the quantification of the Indicator

Value of the RTA Index

The Instrument is designed in a way to be able to be implemented by various subjects, such as:

specifically trained professional agency

mixed team of the municipal stakeholders (NGOs, public officials, citizens, etc..) and

municipality itself as a tool for self-evaluation.

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


20

In order to avoid problems in the initial implementation of the instrument and not to jeopardize its capacity to improve anti corruption, it is highly recommendable in the first year to be imple-mented by a specifically trained agency. In the process of initial implementation, the team of the agency would include official and administrative staff of the municipality, which would allow them to familiarize with the Instrument and its implementation. Gained skills could be used for future self-evaluation as a base for more efficient municipal anti corruption activities.

Presentation of the results of the initial implementation in the public at local and national level is expected to produce high interest among the stakeholders and it could initiate their demands for participation in the future implementation of the instrument. Desirable outcome of the implementa-tion of the instrument would be participation of major relevant stakeholders in the evaluation of the resistance to corruption and the design of anticorruption mechanisms in the near future.

UNDP should not be perceived as an owner of the instrument or the process of its implementa-tion, but will have a facilitation role. The benchmarking would be based on internationally recog-nized good practice (e.g. principles for transparent procurement, disclosure of public information), and the method should focus on making sure that all relevant (local) stakeholders properly partici-pate in the assessment (local authorities, businesses, NGOs. With UNDP facilitation, local communi-ties could identify through a participatory process the main shortcomings of the local situation / practices compared to the reference benchmarks. UNDP's role would be to ensure the integrity of the process, not to produce its results.

21

DAT

A G

ATH

ERIN

G T

AB

LE –

UR

BA

N P

LAN

NIN

G

“Cri

tica

l Poi

nts”

of t

he c

orru

pti

on

Ant

icor

rup

tion

mec

hani

smIn

dic

ator

s

1D

evel

opm

ent,

adop

tion

and

chan

ges

of a

Gen

eral

Urb

an P

lan

(GU

P)

and

Det

aile

d U

rban

Pla

n (D

UP)

with

out t

he p

artic

ipat

ion

of a

pa

rtic

ipat

ive

body

Se

ttin

g up

a q

ualifi

ed P

artic

ipat

ive

body

and

its

dire

ct a

nd a

ctiv

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in th

e de

velo

pmen

t and

cha

ngin

g of

the

GU

P an

d D

UP

Min

utes

from

the

wor

k of

the

Part

icip

ativ

e bo

dy, n

umbe

r of n

egat

ive

opin

ions

of c

ompe

tent

inst

itutio

ns o

n pr

opos

ed v

ersi

ons

of G

UP

and

DU

P

2D

evel

opm

ent a

nd a

dopt

ion

of G

UP

and

DU

P w

ithou

t a p

ublic

deb

ate

and

an o

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r sug

gest

ions

by

inte

rest

ed p

artie

s Ti

mel

y pu

blic

atio

n an

d po

stin

g up

of G

UP

and

DU

P, o

btai

ning

a

posi

tive

opin

ion

from

com

pete

nt in

stitu

tions

Publ

ic in

vita

tion

for i

nsig

ht v

iew

into

and

com

men

ts o

n G

UP

and

DU

P, n

umbe

r of v

ersi

ons

annu

lled

by th

e co

urt c

ompe

tent

for

adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

edur

e

3Li

miti

ng th

e op

port

unity

for i

nsig

ht v

iew

into

the

adop

ted

GU

P an

d D

UP

by th

e in

tere

sted

inve

stor

s an

d th

eir u

nequ

al tr

eatm

ent

Unl

imite

d op

port

unity

for i

nsig

ht in

to th

e G

UP

and

DU

P fo

r in

tere

sted

inve

stor

s, ot

her e

ntiti

es a

nd c

itize

ns

Prop

ortio

n be

twee

n th

e nu

mbe

r of a

ppro

ved

and

the

num

ber o

f re

quire

d in

sigh

ts in

to th

e G

UP

and

DU

P, n

umbe

r of c

ompl

aint

s fo

r re

fuse

d in

sigh

t int

o th

e G

UP

and

DU

P

4Cr

eatio

n of

an

impr

essi

on o

f com

plex

ity o

f the

pro

cedu

re fo

r ob

tain

ing

a co

nstr

uctio

n pe

rmit,

to a

llow

pos

sibi

lity

to e

xtor

ting

brib

e A

ll in

tere

sted

par

ties

mus

t be

clea

rly a

nd p

reci

sely

info

rmed

with

the

cour

se a

nd d

urat

ion

of th

e pr

oced

ure

and

the

docu

men

ts re

quire

d Ex

iste

nce

of a

sys

tem

for i

nfor

min

g pa

rtie

s th

roug

h w

ritte

n no

tices

po

sted

up

or o

btai

nabl

e at

the

win

dow

s or

from

a c

lerk

5Ex

tend

ing

the

proc

edur

e fo

r iss

uing

lice

nses

, to

crea

te c

ondi

tions

for

exto

rtio

n of

brib

e fo

r acc

eler

atin

g th

e pr

oced

ure

Effici

ent a

naly

sis

of th

e re

ques

ts s

ubm

itted

and

brin

ging

the

num

ber

of c

onta

cts

with

the

part

y do

wn

to th

e m

inim

um re

quire

dA

n av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of a

ctio

ns u

nder

take

n in

act

ing

upon

the

requ

ests

for c

onst

ruct

ion

perm

its, fi

ndin

gs o

f the

adm

inis

trat

ive

insp

ectio

n

6Fa

vora

ble

trea

tmen

t in

the

calc

ulat

ion

and

colle

ctio

n of

the

fee

for

deve

lope

d co

nstr

uctio

n la

nd (c

omm

unal

taxe

s)

The

fee

for d

evel

oped

con

stru

ctio

n la

nd is

to b

e ca

lcul

ated

and

co

llect

ed e

qual

ly fo

r all

part

ies

requ

estin

g pe

rmits

, on

the

basi

s of

th

e m

unic

ipal

act

sN

umbe

r of d

evia

tions

from

the

defin

ed z

onin

g, a

mou

nt o

f fee

s an

d m

anne

r of p

aym

ent o

f fee

s fo

r dev

elop

ed c

onst

ruct

ion

land

7Is

suan

ce o

f con

stru

ctio

n pe

rmits

with

out t

he p

artic

ipat

ion

of a

ll co

mpe

tent

offi

cers

or m

anag

ers

in th

e pr

oced

ure

for i

ssua

nce

of

cons

truc

tion

perm

its

The

final

doc

umen

tatio

n fo

r iss

uanc

e of

eac

h in

divi

dual

per

mit

is to

be

sig

ned

(end

orse

d) b

y ea

ch o

ffice

r and

man

ager

who

took

par

t in

the

proc

edur

e

Exis

tenc

e of

a ru

lebo

ok d

efini

ng th

e ob

ligat

ion

for a

sig

natu

re

(end

orse

men

t) o

f eac

h of

the

part

icip

ants

in th

e pr

oced

ure

for

issu

ing

cons

truc

tion

perm

its

8N

o cl

ear a

nd m

anda

tory

div

isio

n of

the

com

pete

ncie

s in

the

mun

icip

al a

dmin

istr

atio

n in

the

proc

edur

e of

issu

ing

cons

truc

tion

perm

itsCl

ear a

nd m

anda

tory

div

isio

n of

the

com

pete

ncie

s in

the

mun

icip

al

adm

inis

trat

ion

in th

e pr

oced

ure

of is

suin

g co

nstr

uctio

n pe

rmits

Exis

tenc

e of

a b

y-la

w d

efini

ng th

e di

visi

on o

f com

pete

ncie

s in

the

proc

edur

e of

issu

ing

cons

truc

tion

perm

its

9Is

suan

ce o

f con

stru

ctio

n pe

rmits

that

are

not

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e G

UP

and

DU

P or

refu

sal o

f iss

uing

con

stru

ctio

n pe

rmits

des

pite

re

ques

ts in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

GU

P an

d D

UP

Cons

iste

nt a

nd m

axim

um re

spec

t for

the

DU

P an

d G

UP,

as

wel

l as

for

the

rule

s re

gula

ting

the

issu

ance

of c

onst

ruct

ion

perm

its

Num

ber o

f pos

itive

and

neg

ativ

e de

cisi

ons

on c

ompl

aint

s pa

ssed

by

the

mun

icip

ality

, sec

ond-

inst

ance

com

mitt

ees

or c

ompe

tent

cou

rts

10Co

nnec

tions

bet

wee

n th

e em

ploy

ees

in th

e ur

ban

plan

ning

de

part

men

t and

con

stru

ctio

n de

sign

com

pani

es a

nd fa

vore

d tr

eatm

ent o

f pro

ject

s an

d re

ques

ts s

ubm

itted

by

such

com

pani

esEq

ual t

reat

men

t of r

eque

sts

subm

itted

and

pro

ject

s de

velo

ped

by

any

com

pany

lice

nsed

for d

evel

opm

ent o

f con

stru

ctio

n pr

ojec

ts

Dis

prop

ortio

nal d

iffer

ence

in th

e av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of a

ctio

ns

unde

rtak

en in

act

ing

upon

the

requ

ests

dev

elop

ed b

y in

divi

dual

co

mpa

nies

11In

suffi

cien

t exp

ertis

e of

the

office

rs, w

hich

cau

ses

slow

ness

in th

e pr

oced

ure

and

poss

ibili

ty fo

r ext

ortio

n fr

om p

artie

s Re

gula

r inf

orm

ing

of o

ffice

rs, t

heir

cont

inuo

us tr

aini

ng a

nd

occa

sion

al c

heck

s of

thei

r kno

wle

dge

of th

e le

gisl

atio

n D

ata

on o

rgan

ized

trai

ning

s, se

min

ars,

a sy

stem

of d

istr

ibut

ion

of th

e ne

w re

gula

tions

to th

e offi

cers

and

che

cks

of th

eir e

xper

tise

12Fa

ilure

to c

ondu

ct m

onito

ring

or s

elec

tive

mon

itorin

g of

the

prog

ress

of c

onst

ruct

ion

wor

ks a

nd m

eetin

g th

e co

nditi

ons

for

cons

truc

tion

of b

uild

ings

for w

hich

a c

onst

ruct

ion

perm

it w

as is

sued

Cond

uct o

f req

uite

d in

spec

tions

on

the

cons

truc

tion

site

for e

ach

licen

se is

sued

and

writ

ing

dow

n m

inut

es fo

r eac

h of

thos

e in

spec

tions

Dis

prop

ortio

nate

diff

eren

ce in

the

num

ber o

f ins

pect

ions

con

duct

ed

in th

e ca

se o

f cer

tain

con

stru

ctio

n pe

rmits

issu

ed fo

r bui

ldin

gs o

f si

mila

r siz

e an

d ty

pe

13Fa

ilure

to a

ct o

r sel

ectiv

e ac

ting

upon

repo

rts

from

citi

zens

to th

e co

nstr

uctio

n in

spec

tion

in c

ase

of b

uild

ings

for w

hich

a li

cens

e ha

s be

en is

sued

In

spec

tions

aft

er e

ach

repo

rt s

ubm

itted

by

citiz

ens,

writ

ing

min

utes

of

eac

h in

spec

tion

and

notif

ying

the

part

y su

bmitt

ing

the

repo

rt

Num

ber o

f rep

orts

sub

mitt

ed, n

umbe

r of i

nspe

ctio

ns c

ondu

cted

, nu

mbe

r of m

inut

es c

ompo

sed

and

num

ber o

f not

ifica

tions

to th

e re

port

ing

part

ies

14Ca

usin

g de

lays

in th

e is

suan

ce o

r enf

orce

men

t of d

ecis

ions

for

corr

ectio

ns o

r dem

oliti

on o

f bui

ldin

gs th

at a

re n

ot b

uilt

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e is

sued

lice

nse

Each

bui

ldin

g ha

s to

be

built

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e co

nditi

ons

cont

aine

d in

the

licen

ses

and,

onc

e th

e ac

t bec

omes

fina

l, it

has

to b

e br

ough

t int

o co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith th

e co

nditi

ons

ther

ein

Num

ber o

f non

-enf

orce

d de

cisi

ons

for d

emol

ition

or c

orre

ctio

ns o

f th

e bu

ildin

g as

opp

osed

to th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of d

ecis

ions

for

dem

oliti

on o

r cor

rect

ions

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


22

IND

EX D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

TAB

LE –

UR

BA

N P

LAN

NIN

GIn

dic

ator

sQ

uant

ifica

tion

of i

ndic

ator

sV

alue

1M

inut

es fr

om th

e w

ork

of th

e Pa

rtic

ipat

ive

body

, num

ber o

f ne

gativ

e op

inio

ns o

f com

pete

nt in

stitu

tions

on

prop

osed

ve

rsio

ns o

f the

GU

P an

d D

UP

Ther

e ar

e m

inut

es c

onfir

min

g th

e ac

tive

part

icip

atio

n of

the

Part

icip

ativ

e bo

dy .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .3

poi

nts

Ther

e ar

e m

inut

es, n

o co

nfirm

atio

n of

act

ive

part

icip

atio

n of

the

Part

icip

ativ

e bo

dy . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .2

poin

tsTh

ere

are

no m

inut

es . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1 po

int

2Pu

blic

invi

tatio

n to

insi

ght i

nto

and

com

men

ts o

n G

UP

and

DU

P Th

ere

is a

pub

lic in

vita

tion

for i

nsig

ht in

to G

UP

and

DU

P, th

ere

are

requ

ests

for c

orre

ctio

n . .

. . . .

. . . .

3 po

ints

Ther

e is

a p

ublic

invi

tatio

n fo

r ins

ight

into

GU

P an

d D

UP,

no

requ

ests

for c

orre

ctio

n . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .2

poin

tsTh

ere

is n

o pu

blic

invi

tatio

n fo

r ins

ight

into

GU

P an

d D

UP

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .1

poin

t

2.1

Num

ber o

f ver

sion

s an

nulle

d by

the

cour

t com

pete

nt fo

r ad

min

istr

ativ

e pr

oced

ure

Ther

e ar

e no

ann

ulle

d ve

rsio

ns o

f GU

P an

d D

UP

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .3

poi

nts

A p

art o

f the

GU

P an

d D

UP

vers

ions

is a

nnul

led .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .2

poi

nts

A s

igni

fican

t par

t of t

he G

UP

and

DU

P ve

rsio

ns a

re a

nnul

led

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1 po

int

3Pr

opor

tion

betw

een

the

num

ber o

f app

rove

d an

d re

ques

ted

insi

ghts

into

the

GU

P an

d D

UP,

num

ber o

f com

plai

nts

on

refu

sals

to a

llow

insi

ght i

nto

the

GU

P an

d D

UP

All

requ

ests

for i

nsig

ht in

to th

e G

UP

and

DU

P ar

e ap

prov

ed . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .3

poin

tsA

big

ger p

art o

f the

requ

ests

for i

nsig

ht in

to th

e G

UP

and

DU

P ar

e ap

prov

ed . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.2 p

oint

sA

sm

alle

r par

t of t

he re

ques

ts fo

r ins

ight

into

the

GU

P an

d D

UP

are

appr

oved

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1 po

int

3.1

All

com

plai

nts

on a

llow

ing

insi

ght i

nto

the

GU

P an

d D

UP

are

posi

tivel

y re

solv

ed .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .3

poin

tsA

big

ger p

ortio

n of

the

com

plai

nts

are

posi

tivel

y re

solv

ed . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .2

poi

nts

A s

mal

ler p

ortio

n of

the

com

plai

nts

are

posi

tivel

y re

solv

ed .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1 po

int

4Ex

iste

nce

of a

sys

tem

of i

nfor

min

g th

e pa

rtie

s th

roug

h w

ritte

n no

tifica

tions

pos

ted

up o

r obt

aina

ble

at th

e w

indo

ws

or fr

om

the

cler

k

Info

rmat

ion

for t

he p

artie

s ar

e vi

sibl

y po

sted

or e

asily

obt

aina

ble

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .5

poin

tsIn

form

atio

n m

ay b

e re

ques

ted

upon

requ

est o

f the

par

ty . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

3 po

ints

No

syst

em o

f inf

orm

ing

the

part

ies .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1 po

int

5Av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of a

ctio

ns u

nder

take

n in

act

ing

upon

requ

ests

fo

r con

stru

ctio

n pe

rmits

, find

ings

of t

he a

dmin

istr

ativ

e in

spec

tion

No

case

s w

ith a

n un

nece

ssar

y la

rge

num

ber o

f act

ions

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.5 p

oint

sA

sm

alle

r por

tion

of th

e ca

ses

incl

ude

an u

nnec

essa

ry la

rge

num

ber o

f act

ions

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.3 p

oint

sA

big

ger p

ortio

n of

the

case

s in

clud

e an

unn

eces

sary

larg

e nu

mbe

r of a

ctio

ns .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.1 p

oint

5.1

Irreg

ular

ities

det

ecte

d by

the

cons

truc

tive

insp

ectio

nTh

e in

spec

tion

did

not d

etec

t irr

egul

ariti

es in

the

wor

k . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .5

poin

tsTh

e in

spec

tion

dete

cted

sm

all i

rreg

ular

ities

in th

e w

ork

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .3

poi

nts

The

insp

ectio

n de

tect

ed s

erio

us ir

regu

larit

ies

in th

e w

ork .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .1

poin

t

6N

umbe

r of d

evia

tions

from

the

defin

ed z

onin

g, a

mou

nt o

f fee

s an

d m

anne

r of p

aym

ent o

f fee

s fo

r dev

elop

ed c

onst

ruct

ion

land

No

obje

ctio

ns a

s to

the

fees

det

erm

ined

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .3

poi

nts

Ther

e ar

e ob

ject

ions

in a

n in

sign

ifica

nt n

umbe

r of c

ases

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .2

poi

nts

Ther

e ar

e ob

ject

ions

in a

sig

nific

ant n

umbe

r of c

ases

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1 po

int

7Ex

iste

nce

of a

rule

book

defi

ning

the

oblig

atio

n fo

r a s

igna

ture

(e

ndor

sem

ent)

of e

ach

of th

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts in

the

proc

edur

e fo

r is

suin

g co

nstr

uctio

n pe

rmits

Ther

e is

a ru

lebo

ok, a

ll pa

rtic

ipan

ts re

gula

rly s

ign .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.5 p

oint

sTh

ere

is a

rule

book

, the

par

ticip

ants

do

not s

ign

regu

larly

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .3

poin

tsTh

ere

is n

o ru

lebo

ok w

ith a

n ob

ligat

ion

of a

ll pa

rtic

ipan

ts to

sig

n . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.1 p

oint

8Ex

iste

nce

of a

by-

law

defi

ned

divi

sion

of c

ompe

tenc

ies

in th

e pr

oced

ure

of is

suin

g co

nstr

uctio

n pe

rmits

Ther

e is

a b

y-la

w, t

he c

ompe

tenc

ies

are

clea

rly d

ivid

ed .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .3

poi

nts

Ther

e is

a b

y-la

w, t

he c

ompe

tenc

ies

are

not c

lear

ly d

ivid

ed .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .2

poi

nts

Ther

e is

no

by-la

w o

n th

e di

visi

on o

f com

pete

nces

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .1

poin

t

9N

umbe

r of p

ositi

ve a

nd n

egat

ive

deci

sion

s on

com

plai

nts

pass

ed b

y th

e m

unic

ipal

ity, s

econ

d-in

stan

ce c

omm

ittee

s or

co

mpe

tent

cou

rts

No

proc

edur

e is

reso

lved

con

trar

y to

the

deci

sion

of t

he m

unic

ipal

ity .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.5 p

oint

sA

n in

sign

ifica

nt p

ortio

n of

the

proc

edur

es a

re re

solv

ed c

ontr

ary

to th

e m

unic

ipal

ity d

ecis

ion

. . . .

. . .3

poi

nts

A s

igni

fican

t por

tion

of th

e pr

oced

ures

is re

solv

ed c

ontr

ary

to th

e m

unic

ipal

ity d

ecis

ion

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.1 p

oint

10D

ispr

opor

tiona

l diff

eren

ce in

the

aver

age

num

ber o

f act

ions

un

dert

aken

in a

ctin

g up

on th

e re

ques

ts d

evel

oped

by

indi

vidu

al c

ompa

nies

The

aver

age

num

ber o

f act

ions

doe

s no

t dep

end

on th

e co

mpa

ny th

at d

esig

ned

the

proj

ect

. . . .

. . .3

poi

nts

Ther

e is

a s

mal

l diff

eren

ce in

the

num

ber o

f act

ions

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

2 po

ints

Th

e di

ffere

nce

in th

e nu

mbe

r of a

ctio

ns is

larg

e . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .1

poin

t

11D

ata

on o

rgan

ized

trai

ning

s, se

min

ars,

a sy

stem

of d

istr

ibut

ion

of th

e ne

w re

gula

tions

to th

e offi

cers

and

che

cks

of th

eir

expe

rtis

e

The

office

rs re

gula

rly a

tten

d tr

aini

ngs .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

3 po

ints

The

office

rs o

ccas

iona

lly a

tten

d tr

aini

ngs .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.2 p

oint

sTh

e offi

cers

do

not a

tten

d tr

aini

ngs

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1 po

int

11.1

The

office

rs re

gula

rly re

ceiv

e th

e ne

w re

gula

tions

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. .3

poin

tsTh

e offi

cers

do

not r

egul

arly

rece

ive

the

new

regu

latio

ns .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.2 p

oint

sTh

e offi

cers

do

not r

ecei

ve th

e ne

w re

gula

tions

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.1 p

oint

23

11.2

Ther

e ar

e re

gula

r che

cks

of th

e kn

owle

dge

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

3 po

ints

The’

lre a

re o

ccas

iona

l che

cks

of th

e kn

owle

dge .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .2

poin

tsTh

ere

are

no c

heck

s of

the

know

ledg

e . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.1 p

oint

12D

ispr

opor

tiona

te d

iffer

ence

in th

e nu

mbe

r of i

nspe

ctio

ns

cond

ucte

d in

the

case

of c

erta

in c

onst

ruct

ion

perm

its is

sued

for

build

ings

of s

imila

r siz

e an

d ty

pe

Ther

e ar

e no

diff

eren

ces

in th

e nu

mbe

r of i

nspe

ctio

ns b

y bu

ildin

g . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .3

poi

nts

In a

sm

all n

umbe

r of c

ases

, the

re a

re d

iffer

ence

s in

the

num

ber o

f ins

pect

ions

by

build

ing .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. .2 p

oint

sTh

ere

are

big

num

ber o

f cas

es w

ith d

iffer

ence

s in

the

num

ber o

f ins

pect

ions

by

build

ing

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

1 po

int

13N

umbe

r of r

epor

ts s

ubm

itted

, num

ber o

f ins

pect

ions

con

duct

ed,

num

ber o

f min

utes

com

pose

d an

d nu

mbe

r of n

otifi

catio

ns to

the

repo

rtin

g pa

rtie

s

Insp

ectio

ns a

re c

ondu

cted

upo

n ea

ch re

port

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. .3 p

oint

sIn

spec

tions

are

con

duct

ed in

the

maj

ority

of r

epor

ted

case

s . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . .2

poi

nts

Insp

ectio

ns a

re c

ondu

cted

in a

sm

alle

r num

ber o

f rep

orte

d ca

ses .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . .1

poi

nt

13.1

Min

utes

are

com

pose

d af

ter e

ach

insp

ectio

n . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .3

poi

nts

Min

utes

are

com

pose

d on

the

maj

ority

of i

nspe

ctio

ns c

ondu

cted

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . .2

poi

nts

Min

utes

are

com

pose

d on

a s

mal

l num

ber o

f ins

pect

ions

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .1

poin

t

13.2

Repo

rtin

g pa

rtie

s ar

e no

tified

in a

ll ca

ses .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .3

poin

tsRe

port

ing

part

ies

are

notifi

ed in

the

maj

ority

of c

ases

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .2

poin

tsRe

port

ing

part

ies

are

notifi

ed in

a s

mal

l num

ber o

f cas

es . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.1 p

oint

14N

umbe

r of n

on-e

nfor

ced

deci

sion

s fo

r dem

oliti

on o

r cor

rect

ions

of

the

build

ing

as o

ppos

ed to

the

tota

l num

ber o

f dec

isio

ns fo

r de

mol

ition

or c

orre

ctio

ns

All

deci

sion

s fo

r dem

oliti

on o

r cor

rect

ions

are

enf

orce

d w

ithin

the

dead

line

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.3 p

oint

sTh

e m

ajor

ity o

f dec

isio

ns a

re e

nfor

ced

with

in th

e de

adlin

e . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.2 p

oint

sA

sm

alle

r par

t of t

he d

ecis

ions

are

enf

orce

d w

ithin

the

dead

line

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.1 p

oint

15D

urat

ion

of is

suin

g bu

ildin

g lic

ence

s as

opp

osed

to th

e pe

riod

dete

rmin

ed b

y th

e La

w, w

hich

ena

bles

ext

ortin

g br

ibe

by th

e offi

cial

s in

the

mun

icip

al s

ecto

r for

urb

anis

m

The

larg

est p

art o

f the

requ

ests

wer

e no

t sol

ved

with

in th

e de

term

ined

tim

efra

me .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

1 po

int

Part

of t

he re

ques

ts w

ere

solv

ed w

ithin

the

dete

rmin

ed ti

mef

ram

e . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . .2

poi

nts

The

grea

test

par

t of t

he re

ques

ts w

ere

solv

ed w

ithin

the

dete

rmin

ed ti

mef

ram

e . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.3 p

oint

s

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


24

DAT

A G

ATH

ERIN

G TA

BLE

– FI

NAN

CIAL

MAN

AGEM

ENT

AND

PRO

PERT

Y “C

ritic

al P

oint

s” o

f the

corr

uptio

n An

ticor

rupt

ion

mec

hani

smIn

dica

tors

1

Unre

alist

ic a

nd in

com

plet

e pl

anni

ng o

f the

type

s, am

ount

and

pa

ce o

f col

lect

ion

of th

e m

unic

ipal

char

ges a

nd in

com

eRe

alist

ic a

nd p

reci

se a

nnua

l, mid

-term

and

long

-term

pla

nnin

g of

co

llect

ion

of m

unic

ipal

taxe

s and

char

ges

Offi

cial

ann

ual, m

id-te

rm a

nd lo

ng-te

rm p

lan

for t

he a

mou

nt a

nd

pace

of c

olle

ctio

n of

mun

icip

al ch

arge

s and

inco

me

2In

com

plet

e an

d se

lect

ive

colle

ctio

n of

loca

l tax

es, c

harg

es a

nd

fees

for w

hich

the

mun

icip

ality

pas

ses a

cts f

or co

llect

ion

Non-

sele

ctiv

e an

d co

mpl

ete

colle

ctio

n of

all

loca

l tax

es, c

harg

es

and

fees

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e ac

ts is

sued

for t

hat p

urpo

seIn

stru

men

ts fo

r cal

cula

tion

and

non-

sele

ctiv

e co

llect

ion,

as w

ell

as fo

r the

rate

of c

olle

ctio

n of

pro

ject

ed ta

xes,

char

ges a

nd fe

es

3Re

aliz

atio

n of

inve

stm

ents

in th

e m

unic

ipal

ity w

ithou

t a p

lan

for

deve

lopm

ent a

nd p

ublic

inve

stm

ents

ado

pted

in a

tran

spar

ent

proc

edur

e

Tran

spar

ent d

evel

opm

ent a

nd a

dopt

ion

of a

pla

n fo

r inv

estm

ents

an

d de

velo

pmen

t of t

he m

unic

ipal

ity a

t a d

efine

d pa

ce a

nd w

ith

prio

ritie

s in

its im

plem

enta

tion

Offi

cial

ann

ual, m

id-te

rm a

nd lo

ng-te

rm fr

amew

ork

plan

for

deve

lopm

ent a

nd p

ublic

inve

stm

ents

of t

he m

unic

ipal

ity

4D

evel

opm

ent a

nd a

dopt

ion

of a

mun

icip

ality

bud

get w

hich

is n

ot

appr

opria

te to

the

inve

stm

ent p

lan

and

the

plan

ned

need

s of t

he

mun

icip

ality

Th

e m

unic

ipal

bud

get i

s in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith it

s ann

ual, m

id-te

rm

and

long

-term

dev

elop

men

t and

inve

stm

ent p

lan

Com

plia

nce

of th

e m

unic

ipal

bud

get w

ith th

e de

velo

pmen

t and

pu

blic

inve

stm

ents

pla

n of

the

mun

icip

ality

for t

he p

erio

d fo

r w

hich

the

budg

et is

pla

nned

and

ado

pted

5No

n-tra

nspa

rent

pro

cedu

re fo

r dev

elop

men

t and

ado

ptio

n of

the

mun

icip

al b

udge

t, w

ithou

t the

par

ticip

atio

n of

the

publ

ic a

nd

expe

rts

Part

icip

atio

n of

the

publ

ic a

nd e

xper

ts in

the

proc

ess o

f pla

nnin

g an

d de

velo

pmen

t of t

he m

unic

ipal

bud

get,

as w

ell a

s co

nsul

tatio

ns w

ith th

e pu

blic

and

exp

erts

Leve

l of p

artic

ipat

ion

of th

e pu

blic

and

exp

erts

in th

e de

velo

pmen

t of t

he b

udge

t and

acc

ess t

o in

form

atio

n re

gard

ing

the

budg

et

6D

evel

opm

ent a

nd a

dopt

ion

of a

bud

get t

hat i

s not

clea

rly b

roke

n do

wn

by it

ems a

nd h

as n

o cl

early

defi

ned

resp

onsib

le p

artie

s and

in

divi

dual

s for

its e

nfor

cem

ent

Adop

tion

of a

bud

get w

ith cl

ear i

ndic

ator

s of t

he g

oals,

dire

ctio

n,

expe

cted

resu

lts a

nd p

artie

s and

indi

vidu

als r

espo

nsib

le fo

r its

en

forc

emen

t

The

budg

et co

ntai

ns cl

ear i

ndic

ator

s of t

he g

oals,

dire

ctio

ns,

expe

cted

resu

lts a

nd th

e pa

rtie

s and

indi

vidu

als r

espo

nsib

le fo

r its

enf

orce

men

t

7Sp

endi

ng a

bove

the

plan

ned

budg

et it

ems d

ue to

a la

ck o

f in

sight

into

its e

nfor

cem

ent

Intro

duct

ion

and

func

tioni

ng o

f a co

mpu

ter fi

nanc

ial s

yste

m fo

r sim

ulta

neou

s mon

itorin

g th

e de

gree

and

real

izat

ion

man

ner o

f th

e bu

dget

Exist

ence

of a

regu

late

d sy

stem

for m

onito

ring

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

budg

et, s

uppo

rted

by

a co

mpu

ter s

yste

m

for t

hat g

oal

8Fa

vorin

g cr

edito

rs d

urin

g th

e re

gula

r pay

men

ts o

f lia

bilit

ies b

y th

e m

unic

ipal

ity a

nd in

the

proc

ess o

f rep

aym

ent o

f inh

erite

d m

unic

ipal

deb

ts

Paym

ent w

hen

liabi

litie

s bec

ome

due

and

repa

ymen

t of o

ld

debt

s acc

ordi

ng to

a p

lan

that

incl

udes

a sc

hedu

le a

nd a

mou

nts

to b

e re

paid

Deg

ree

of re

gula

rity

in p

aym

ent a

gain

st li

abili

ties w

hen

they

be

com

e du

e an

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

plan

of r

epay

men

t of

debt

s to

cred

itors

9La

ck o

f or i

rregu

lar i

nter

nal a

nd e

xter

nal c

ontro

l ove

r the

fina

ncia

l op

erat

ions

of t

he m

unic

ipal

ity

Regu

lar c

ondu

ct o

f aud

its b

y th

e in

tern

al a

udit

of th

e m

unic

ipal

ity a

nd b

y th

e St

ate

Audi

t Offi

ce

Audi

ts co

nduc

ted,

find

ings

from

such

aud

its, r

ecom

men

datio

ns

and

degr

ee o

f res

pect

for a

nd a

ctin

g in

line

with

the

reco

mm

enda

tions

10Un

clea

r mai

nten

ance

of t

he fi

nanc

ial a

nd o

ther

reco

rds,

as a

n ob

stac

le to

qua

lity

inte

rnal

and

ext

erna

l con

trols

Exist

ence

and

pro

per f

unct

ioni

ng o

f rul

es fo

r the

man

ner o

f m

aint

aini

ng fi

nanc

ial a

nd o

ther

mun

icip

al re

cord

s Ex

isten

ce o

f act

s reg

ulat

ing

the

mai

nten

ance

of r

ecor

ds, fi

ndin

gs

and

reco

mm

enda

tions

of t

he a

udits

cond

ucte

d in

the

mun

icip

ality

11Re

bala

nce

of th

e bu

dget

to co

ver e

xpen

ses t

hat a

re n

ot in

ac

cord

ance

with

the

budg

et a

dopt

ed, p

artic

ular

ly in

the

area

of

inve

stm

ents

and

pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ents

Budg

et re

bala

nce

with

acc

ompa

nyin

g ex

plan

atio

ns th

eret

o an

d a

reba

lanc

e in

line

with

the

plan

s for

inve

stm

ents

and

pub

lic

proc

urem

ents

Expl

anat

ion

for t

he re

ason

s beh

ind

and

goal

s of t

he re

bala

nce,

an

d a

reba

lanc

e w

ith th

e pl

ans f

or in

vest

men

ts a

nd p

ublic

pr

ocur

emen

ts co

ntai

ned

in th

e pr

opos

al fo

r reb

alan

ce

12D

ispro

port

iona

te g

aps b

etw

een

the

initi

ally

ado

pted

bud

get a

nd

the

actu

ally

use

d fu

nds i

n th

e ar

ea o

f pub

lic in

vest

men

ts a

nd

publ

ic p

rocu

rem

ent

The

time

and

amou

nt o

f inv

estm

ents

and

pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ents

ar

e in

line

with

the

plan

s for

inve

stm

ents

and

pub

lic

proc

urem

ents

Leve

l of g

aps b

etw

een

the

plan

ned

item

s for

inve

stm

ents

and

pu

blic

pro

cure

men

ts a

nd fu

nds s

pent

for t

hat p

urpo

se

13Re

ntin

g an

d di

spos

ing

of m

unic

ipal

pro

pert

y w

ithou

t crit

eria

, pr

ice

lists

and

pub

lic in

vita

tions

Th

e m

unic

ipal

pro

pert

y is

rent

ed o

ut a

nd so

ld so

lely

on

the

basis

of

act

s and

pric

e lis

ts o

f the

mun

icip

ality

Exist

ence

of a

nd d

egre

e of

resp

ect f

or a

cts o

n th

e ba

sis o

f whi

ch

the

mun

icip

al p

rope

rty

is re

nted

and

sold

14Tr

ends

of a

buse

of m

unic

ipal

pro

pert

y of

whi

ch n

o in

vent

ory

is m

ade

or w

hose

val

ue o

r lev

el o

f dep

reci

atio

n ar

e no

t eva

luat

ed

Inve

ntor

y is

regu

larly

mad

e of

the

entir

e m

unic

ipal

pro

pert

y, w

ith

a de

taile

d de

scrip

tion

of it

s con

ditio

n, le

vel a

nd it

ems o

f de

prec

iatio

nEx

isten

ce o

f act

s and

a p

rope

rty

inve

ntor

y co

mm

ittee

, reg

ular

ity

in in

vent

ory

taki

ng a

nd co

nduc

t of e

xter

nal c

ontro

ls

25

IND

EX D

EVEL

OPM

ENT T

ABLE

– FI

NAN

CIAL

MAN

AGEM

ENT

AND

PRO

PERT

YIn

dica

tors

Qua

ntifi

catio

n of

indi

cato

rsVa

lue

1O

fficia

l ann

ual, m

id-te

rm a

nd lo

ng-te

rm p

lan

on th

e am

ount

an

d sc

hedu

le o

f col

lect

ion

of m

unici

pal c

harg

es a

nd re

venu

esTh

ere

are

an a

nnua

l and

seve

ral-y

ear p

lan

for c

olle

ctio

n of

mun

icipa

l rev

enue

s . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .3 p

oint

sTh

ere

is on

ly a

n an

nual

pla

n fo

r col

lect

ion

of m

unici

pal r

even

ues .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .2 p

oint

sTh

ere

are

no p

lans

for c

olle

ctio

n of

mun

icipa

l rev

enue

s . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .1

poin

t

1.1

Ther

e is

a pl

an a

nd it

cont

ains

all t

he e

lem

ents

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .3 p

oint

sTh

ere

is a

plan

, but

it d

oes n

ot co

ntai

n al

l the

ele

men

ts . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .2

poi

nts

Ther

e is

no p

lan

for c

olle

ctio

n of

the

mun

icipa

l rev

enue

s . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.1 p

oint

2In

stru

men

ts fo

r cal

cula

tion

and

non-

sele

ctiv

e co

llect

ion,

as w

ell

as a

rate

of c

olle

ctio

n of

the

proj

ecte

d ta

xes,

char

ges a

nd fe

es

Ther

e ar

e in

stru

men

ts fo

r eac

h in

divi

dual

reve

nue .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.5 p

oint

sTh

ere

are

inst

rum

ents

for a

por

tion

of th

e re

venu

es . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .3

poin

tsTh

ere

are

no in

stru

men

ts . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .1

poin

t

3O

fficia

l ann

ual, m

ind-

term

and

long

-term

fram

ewor

k pla

n fo

r de

velo

pmen

t and

pub

lic in

vest

men

ts o

f the

mun

icipa

lity

Ther

e ar

e an

ann

ual a

nd m

ulti-

annu

al in

vest

men

t pla

ns . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .3 p

oint

sTh

ere

is on

ly a

n an

nual

inve

stm

ents

pla

n . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .2

poi

nts

Ther

e ar

e no

inve

stm

ent p

lans

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .1 p

oint

4Ha

rmon

ized

mun

icipa

l bud

get w

ith th

e de

velo

pmen

t and

pu

blic

inve

stm

ents

pla

n of

the

mun

icipa

lity f

or th

e pe

riod

for

whi

ch th

e bu

dget

is d

evel

oped

and

ado

pted

The

budg

et is

in fu

ll acc

orda

nce

with

the

inve

stm

ent p

lan

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .3 p

oint

sTh

e bu

dget

is m

ostly

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e in

vest

men

t pla

n . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .2

poi

nts

The

budg

et is

not

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e in

vest

men

t pla

n . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .1

poi

nt

5De

gree

of p

artic

ipat

ion

of th

e pu

blic

and

the

expe

rts in

bud

get

prep

arat

ion

and

acce

ss to

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g th

e bu

dget

The

budg

et p

repa

ratio

n is

publ

icize

d, th

ere

is pa

rticip

atio

n of

the

publ

ic . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.3 p

oint

sTh

e bu

dget

pre

para

tion

is pu

blici

zed,

ther

e is

no p

artic

ipat

ion

of th

e pu

blic

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .2

poi

nts

The

budg

et p

repa

ratio

n is

not p

ublic

ized

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .1

poi

nt

6Th

e bu

dget

cont

ains

clea

r ind

icato

rs o

f the

goa

ls, d

irect

ions

, ex

pect

ed re

sults

and

par

ties r

espo

nsib

le fo

r its

enf

orce

men

t Th

e bu

dget

cont

ains

all i

ndica

tors

of g

oals,

resu

lts, p

artie

s and

resp

onsib

ility

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .3

poi

nts

The

budg

et co

ntai

ns in

dica

tors

for a

por

tion

of th

e st

ated

ele

men

ts . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .2 p

oint

sTh

e bu

dget

doe

s not

cont

ain

indi

cato

rs o

f the

stat

ed e

lem

ents

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .1 p

oint

7Ex

isten

ce o

f a re

gula

ted

syst

em fo

r mon

itorin

g th

e bu

dget

im

plem

enta

tion,

supp

orte

d by

a co

mpu

ter s

yste

m fo

r tha

t pu

rpos

e

The

syst

em e

xist

s and

is re

gula

rly u

sed

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

5 po

ints

The

syst

em d

oes e

xist

, but

it is

not

use

d re

gula

rly . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

3 po

ints

No sy

stem

exi

sts f

or m

onito

ring

the

budg

et im

plem

enta

tion .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .1

poi

nt

8De

gree

of r

egul

arity

in p

aym

ent a

gain

st lia

bilit

ies w

hen

they

be

com

e du

e an

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

plan

of r

epay

men

t of

debt

s to

cred

itors

Paym

ents

are

carri

ed o

ut re

gula

rly, a

s lia

bilit

ies b

ecom

e du

e . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

3 po

ints

Paym

ents

are

mos

tly ca

rried

out

as l

iabi

litie

s bec

ome

due .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .2 p

oint

sPa

ymen

ts a

re n

ot ca

rried

out

as l

iabi

litie

s bec

ome

due .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .1 p

oint

9Co

nduc

ted

audi

ts, fi

ndin

gs fr

om su

ch a

udits

, rec

omm

enda

tions

an

d le

vel o

f act

ions

und

erta

ken

in lin

e w

ith th

e re

com

men

datio

ns

Ther

e is

an in

tern

al a

udit

and

it re

gula

rly co

nduc

ts a

udits

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .3

poin

tsTh

ere

is an

inte

rnal

aud

it an

d it

cond

ucts

aud

its o

ccas

iona

lly . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.2 p

oint

sTh

ere

is no

inte

rnal

aud

it in

the

mun

icipa

lity .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .1

poi

nt

9.1

The

findi

ngs o

f the

inte

rnal

aud

it ar

e po

sitiv

e . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .3

poi

nts

The

findi

ngs o

f the

inte

rnal

aud

it co

ntai

n no

opi

nion

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .2

poi

nts

The

findi

ngs o

f the

inte

rnal

aud

it ar

e ne

gativ

e . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .1

poi

nt

9.2

The

findi

ngs o

f the

inte

rnal

aud

it ar

e po

sitiv

e . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .5

poi

nts

The

findi

ngs o

f the

inte

rnal

aud

it co

ntai

n no

opi

nion

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .2

poi

nts

The

findi

ngs o

f the

inte

rnal

aud

it ar

e ne

gativ

e . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .1

poi

nt

9.3

The

mun

icipa

lity h

as a

cted

in lin

e w

ith a

ll the

reco

mm

enda

tions

of t

he a

udito

rs . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .5 p

oint

sTh

e m

unici

palit

y has

act

ed in

line

with

mos

t of t

he re

com

men

datio

ns . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .3

poi

nts

The

mun

icipa

lity h

as n

ot a

cted

at a

ll or h

as a

cted

in lin

e w

ith so

me

of th

e re

com

men

datio

ns . . . .

. . . .1

poin

t

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


26

10Ex

iste

nce

of a

cts

regu

latin

g th

e m

aint

enan

ce o

f rec

ords

, fin

ding

s an

d re

com

men

datio

ns o

f the

aud

its c

ondu

cted

in th

e m

unic

ipal

ity

Ther

e ar

e ac

ts, r

ecor

ds a

re k

ept i

n lin

e w

ith th

ose

acts

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

3 po

ints

Ther

e ar

e ac

ts, r

ecor

ds a

re n

ot k

ept e

ntire

ly in

line

with

them

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .2

poin

tsTh

ere

are

no a

cts

regu

latin

g th

e re

cord

kee

ping

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. .1 p

oint

11Ex

plan

atio

n fo

r the

reas

ons

and

goal

s of

the

reba

lanc

e ar

e br

ough

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e pl

an fo

r pub

lic in

vest

men

ts a

nd

proc

urem

ents

as

cont

aine

d in

the

prop

osed

reba

lanc

e

Ther

e is

an

expl

anat

ion,

bas

ed o

n th

e in

vest

men

t and

pro

cure

men

t pla

n . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

3 po

ints

Th

ere

is a

n ex

plan

atio

n, b

ut is

not

bas

ed o

n th

e in

vest

men

t and

pro

cure

men

t pla

n . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . .2

poi

nts

Ther

e is

no

expl

anat

ion

for t

he re

bala

nce

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .1

poin

t

12Le

vel o

f gap

bet

wee

n th

e pl

anne

d ite

ms

for i

nves

tmen

ts a

nd

publ

ic p

rocu

rem

ents

as

wel

l as

the

fund

s sp

ent f

or th

at p

urpo

se

Ther

e is

an

insi

gnifi

cant

gap

bet

wee

n th

e pl

anne

d an

d sp

ent f

unds

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .3

poin

ts

Ther

e is

a s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

plan

ned

and

spen

t fun

ds . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.1 p

oint

13Ex

iste

nce

of a

nd c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith th

e ac

ts o

n th

e ba

sis

of w

hich

th

e m

unic

ipal

pro

pert

y is

rent

ed o

ut a

nd s

old

The

mun

icip

ality

has

act

s re

gula

ting

in d

etai

l the

rent

ing

and

selli

ng o

f pro

pert

y . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. .3 p

oint

sTh

e m

unic

ipal

ity h

as a

cts

part

ially

regu

latin

g th

e re

ntin

g an

d se

lling

of p

rope

rty .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .2

poi

nts

The

mun

icip

ality

has

no

acts

regu

latin

g th

e re

ntin

g an

d se

lling

of p

rope

rty .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

1 po

int

13.1

Prop

erty

is a

lway

s re

nted

out

and

sol

d up

on a

pub

lic in

vita

tion

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .5

poi

nts

Prop

erty

is in

mos

t cas

es re

nted

out

and

sol

d up

on a

pub

lic in

vita

tion

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .3

poin

ts

Prop

erty

is re

nted

out

and

sol

d w

ithou

t a p

ublic

invi

tatio

n . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.1 p

oint

14Ex

iste

nce

of a

cts

and

prop

erty

inve

ntor

y co

mm

ittee

, reg

ular

ity

in ta

king

inve

ntor

y an

d co

nduc

t ext

erna

l con

trol

s Th

ere

are

no a

cts

and

com

mitt

ee, i

nven

tory

take

n re

gula

rly . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . .3

poin

tsTh

ere

are

no a

cts

and

com

mitt

ee, i

nven

tory

not

take

n re

gula

rly . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

.2 p

oint

sTh

ere

are

no a

cts

and

com

mitt

ee, i

nven

tory

not

take

n . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . .1

poi

nt

27

DAT

A G

ATH

ERIN

G TA

BLE

– PU

BLIC

PRO

CURE

MEN

T“C

ritic

al P

oint

s” o

f the

corr

uptio

n An

ticor

rupt

ion

mec

hani

smIn

dica

tors

1Pl

anni

ng a

nd re

aliza

tion

of p

ublic

pro

cure

men

ts th

at a

re n

ot in

ac

cord

ance

with

the

budg

et a

nd th

e m

unic

ipal

ity d

evel

opm

ent

plan

All p

ublic

pro

cure

men

ts o

f the

mun

icip

ality

is to

be

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith it

s bud

get a

nd d

evel

opm

ent p

lan

Exist

ence

and

leve

l of r

espe

ct fo

r the

ann

ual p

ublic

pro

cure

men

t pl

an, w

hich

is in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

budg

et a

nd th

e m

unic

ipal

ity

deve

lopm

ent p

lan

2Th

e m

unic

ipal

ity h

as fa

iled

to su

bmit

the

annu

al p

ublic

pr

ocur

emen

t pla

n to

the

Publ

ic P

rocu

rem

ent O

ffice

Th

e an

nual

pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ent p

lan

is to

be

subm

itted

with

the

Publ

ic P

rocu

rem

ent O

ffice

The

annu

al p

ublic

pro

cure

men

t pla

n is

rece

ived

by

the

Publ

ic

Proc

urem

ent O

ffice

3Di

visio

n of

larg

er p

rocu

rem

ents

into

smal

ler p

arts

, to

avoi

d th

e ob

ligat

ion

of o

rgan

izing

a p

ublic

tend

er

Proc

urem

ents

of t

he sa

me

type

ove

r the

yea

r are

to b

e ca

rried

out

as

a b

ulk,

thro

ugh

a pu

blic

tend

erIm

plem

enta

tion

of p

roce

dure

s for

smal

l val

ue p

rocu

rem

ent o

f the

sa

me

type

of g

oods

and

serv

ices

in th

e co

urse

of o

ne y

ear

4De

finin

g th

e te

chni

cal s

peci

ficat

ion

of th

e go

ods a

nd se

rvic

es in

a

way

that

favo

rs a

cert

ain

supp

lier

Deta

iled

tech

nica

l spe

cific

atio

n of

the

good

s or s

ervi

ces i

s defi

ned

clea

rly a

nd is

an

inte

gral

par

t of t

he te

nder

doc

umen

tatio

n,

with

out s

peci

fyin

g a

spec

ific t

rade

nam

e or

bra

nd

Exist

ence

of a

pre

cise

tech

nica

l spe

cific

atio

n of

the

good

s and

se

rvic

es in

the

tend

er d

ocum

enta

tion,

doc

umen

tatio

n th

at st

ated

th

e tra

de n

ame

or b

rand

5De

finin

g th

e cr

iteria

for a

war

ding

poi

nts i

n a

way

that

favo

rs a

ce

rtai

n su

pplie

rTh

e ev

alua

tion

crite

ria co

ntai

n bo

th d

etai

led

and

clea

r sub

-crit

eria

fo

r the

way

in w

hich

poi

nts a

re a

war

ded

to th

e bi

ds

Exist

ence

of p

reci

se cr

iteria

for e

valu

atio

n an

d su

b-cr

iteria

for

awar

ding

poi

nts t

o th

e bi

ds

6Im

plem

enta

tion

of a

pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ent w

ithou

t pre

viou

s re

sear

ch o

f the

mar

ket,

pric

es a

nd fe

atur

es o

f the

goo

ds a

nd

serv

ices

to b

e pr

ocur

ed

The

prev

ious

mar

ket r

esea

rch

prov

ides

orie

ntat

ion

as to

the

pric

e an

d fe

atur

es o

f the

goo

ds a

nd se

rvic

es, w

hich

is o

f ass

istan

ce in

th

e de

cisio

n-m

akin

g pr

oces

s

Exist

ence

of d

ata

on p

revi

ously

cond

ucte

d m

arke

t res

earc

h in

te

rms o

f the

pric

es a

nd q

ualit

y of

the

good

s and

serv

ices

to b

e pr

ocur

ed

7Im

plem

enta

tion

of p

ublic

pro

cure

men

ts u

pon

a ne

gotia

tion

proc

edur

e, w

ithou

t not

ifyin

g th

e Pu

blic

Pro

cure

men

t Offi

ce a

nd

obta

inin

g its

cons

ent

The

publ

ic p

rocu

rem

ents

upo

n a

nego

tiatio

n pr

oced

ure

are

carri

ed o

ut fo

llow

ing

a pr

evio

us n

otifi

catio

n an

d co

nsen

t of t

he

Publ

ic P

rocu

rem

ent O

ffice

Num

ber a

nd v

alue

of p

ublic

pro

cure

men

ts u

pon

a ne

gotia

tion

proc

edur

e ab

out w

hich

the

Publ

ic P

rocu

rem

ent O

ffice

is n

ot

notifi

ed a

nd h

as n

ot g

rant

ed co

nsen

t for

such

pro

cure

men

t

8Pu

blic

atio

n of

and

invi

tatio

n fo

r bid

s don

e in

a w

ay th

at n

ot a

s m

any

as p

ossib

le b

idde

rs a

re in

form

ed a

bout

itTh

e pu

blic

pro

cure

men

ts, p

artic

ular

ly th

ose

of a

larg

er v

alue

, sh

ould

be

publ

ished

in a

dai

ly n

ewsp

aper

of a

larg

er ci

rcul

atio

n,

inst

ead

of in

new

spap

ers o

f sm

all o

r ins

igni

fican

t circ

ulat

ion

Nu

mbe

r and

val

ue o

f pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ents

carri

ed o

ut th

roug

h ad

ds in

pap

ers o

f lar

ge ci

rcul

atio

n

9Su

bmiss

ion

of a

smal

l num

ber o

f fict

itiou

s, le

ss co

mpe

titiv

e bi

ds

by co

mpa

nies

clos

e to

the

supp

lier i

nten

ded

to w

in th

e te

nder

The

maj

ority

of t

he b

idde

rs e

nsur

es h

ighe

r com

petit

iven

ess a

nd

mor

e fa

vora

ble

cond

ition

s for

the

mun

icip

ality

in th

e pu

blic

pr

ocur

emen

t pro

cess

Av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of b

ids i

n an

ope

n an

d lim

ited

invi

tatio

n

10No

tran

spar

ency

in th

e pr

oced

ure

and

the

docu

men

tatio

n re

late

d to

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

publ

ic p

rocu

rem

ent

The

proc

edur

e fo

r im

plem

entin

g pu

blic

pro

cure

men

ts sh

ould

be

trans

pare

nt, a

nd th

e in

form

atio

n re

late

d to

it sh

ould

be

avai

labl

e fo

r the

bid

ders

and

the

publ

ic

Info

rmin

g al

l bid

ders

with

the

outc

ome

of th

e co

mpl

eted

pub

lic

proc

urem

ents

and

allo

win

g ac

cess

to re

late

d in

form

atio

n

11Fo

llow

ing

the

com

plet

ion

of th

e pu

blic

pro

cure

men

t, th

e re

late

d do

cum

ents

and

info

rmat

ion

are

not a

rchi

ved

in a

com

plet

e, e

asily

un

ders

tand

able

file

Th

e en

tire

docu

men

tatio

n fro

m th

e pu

blic

pro

cure

men

t sho

uld

be

arch

ived

in a

sepa

rate

, eas

y to

find

and

ana

lyze

file

Exist

ence

of s

epar

ate,

nea

tly a

rchi

ved

files

cont

aini

ng a

ll do

cum

ents

and

info

rmat

ion

rela

ted

to th

e sp

ecifi

c pub

lic

proc

urem

ent

12En

terin

g in

to a

gree

men

ts fo

r pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ent a

t a lo

wer

pric

e an

d un

der t

erm

s and

cond

ition

s tha

t do

not

com

plet

ely

coin

cide

w

ith th

e se

lect

ed b

id

The

publ

ic p

rocu

rem

ent a

gree

men

t is t

o be

sign

ed a

t the

pric

es,

tech

nica

l spe

cific

atio

n an

d co

nditi

ons t

hat a

re id

entic

al w

ith th

ose

in th

e se

lect

ed b

id

Agre

emen

ts st

atin

g no

pric

e, co

ntai

ning

insu

ffici

ent e

lem

ents

re

gard

ing

qual

ity a

nd/o

r del

iver

y te

rms o

r with

term

s and

co

nditi

ons d

iffer

ent f

rom

thos

e off

ered

in th

e se

lect

ed b

id

13Ch

angi

ng th

e ag

reem

ents

with

ann

exes

, am

endi

ng th

e pr

ice,

qu

ality

of t

he g

oods

or s

ervi

ces a

nd th

e te

rms o

f the

pub

lic

proc

urem

ent

The

pric

e, q

ualit

y an

d te

rms o

f the

agr

eem

ent m

ay o

nly

be

chan

ged

as a

n ex

cept

ion

and

with

a re

ason

able

exp

lana

tion

for

the

reas

ons f

or su

ch a

chan

ge

Num

ber a

nd v

alue

of p

rocu

rem

ents

whe

re th

e pr

ice,

feat

ures

and

te

rms o

f the

pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ent h

ave

been

chan

ged

by a

n an

nex

to th

e in

itial

agr

eem

ent

14Ke

epin

g re

cord

s of c

ompa

nies

that

faile

d to

mee

t the

cond

ition

s fro

m th

e pr

evio

us p

ublic

pro

cure

men

t agr

eem

ents

with

the

mun

icip

ality

Inco

mpl

ete

or lo

w q

ualit

y re

aliza

tion

of p

revi

ous p

ublic

pr

ocur

emen

ts sh

ould

a se

rious

obs

tacl

e to

win

ning

new

cont

ract

s w

ith th

e m

unic

ipal

ity

Exist

ence

of r

ecor

ds o

f com

pani

es th

at h

ave

met

thei

r obl

igat

ions

un

der p

revi

ous p

ublic

pro

cure

men

ts a

gree

men

ts in

com

plet

ely

or

with

poo

r qua

lity

Met

ho

do

log

y fo

r M

easu

rin

g t

he

ind

ex o

f re

spo


28

IND

EX D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

TABL

E –

PU

BLIC

PRO

CURE

MEN

T In

dica

tors

Qua

ntifi

cati

on o

f ind

icat

ors

Valu

e

1Ex

iste

nce

and

degr

ee o

f abi

ding

by

the

annu

al p

ublic

pr

ocur

emen

t pla

n, w

hich

is in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

budg

et a

nd

deve

lopm

ent p

lan

of th

e m

unic

ipal

ity

Ther

e is

an

annu

al p

lan

and

it is

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e bu

dget

and

dev

elop

men

t pla

n . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .3

poin

tsTh

ere

is a

n an

nual

pla

n, b

ut is

not

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e bu

dget

and

dev

elop

men

t pla

n . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

2 po

ints

Ther

e is

no

annu

al p

lan .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 po

int

1.1

Proc

urem

ents

are

in c

ompl

ete

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e an

nual

pla

n . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .3 p

oint

sTh

e m

ajor

ity o

f pro

cure

men

ts a

re in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

annu

al p

lan .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .2 p

oint

sA

smal

ler p

ortio

n of

the

proc

urem

ents

are

don

e in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

annu

al p

lan

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 po

int

2Th

e an

nual

pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ent p

lan

is re

ceiv

ed b

y th

e Pu

blic

Pr

ocur

emen

t Offi

ceTh

e an

nual

pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ent p

lan

is su

bmitt

ed to

the

Publ

ic P

rocu

rem

ent O

ffice

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

3 po

ints

The

annu

al p

ublic

pro

cure

men

t pla

n is

not

subm

itted

to th

e Pu

blic

Pro

cure

men

t Offi

ce . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .1

poi

nt

3Im

plem

enta

tion

of p

roce

dure

s for

smal

l val

ue p

rocu

rem

ents

of

the

sam

e ty

pe o

f goo

ds a

nd se

rvic

es in

the

cour

se o

f one

yea

rSm

all v

alue

pro

cure

men

ts o

f the

sam

e ty

pe a

re v

ery

rare

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .3

poi

nts

Smal

l val

ue p

rocu

rem

ents

of t

he sa

me

type

are

don

e oc

casi

onal

ly . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .2

poi

nts

Smal

l val

ue p

rocu

rem

ents

of t

he sa

me

type

are

don

e fre

quen

tly . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .1

poi

nt

4Ex

iste

nce

of a

pre

cise

tech

nica

l spe

cific

atio

n of

the

good

s and

se

rvic

es in

the

tend

er d

ocum

enta

tion

Th

ere

is a

lway

s a p

reci

se te

chni

cal s

peci

ficat

ion .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .3

poi

nts

Ther

e is

a p

reci

se te

chni

cal d

ocum

enta

tion

in m

ost o

f the

cas

es . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .2

poin

tsTh

ere

is a

pre

cise

tech

nica

l doc

umen

tatio

n in

som

e of

the

case

s . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .1 p

oint

4.1

Exis

tenc

e of

a te

chni

cal s

peci

ficat

ion

of th

e go

ods,

whi

ch st

ates

th

e tr

ade

nam

e or

bra

nd

No

trad

e na

me

or b

rand

are

stat

ed . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .3

poi

nts

A tr

ade

nam

e or

bra

nd is

stat

ed in

a p

ortio

n of

the

proc

urem

ents

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .2

poi

nts

A tr

ade

nam

e or

bra

nd is

stat

ed in

the

maj

ority

of p

rocu

rem

ents

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 po

int

5Ex

iste

nce

of p

reci

se e

valu

atio

n cr

iteria

and

sub-

crite

ria fo

r aw

ardi

ng p

oint

s to

the

bids

Ther

e ar

e al

way

s pre

cise

crit

eria

for a

war

ding

poi

nts .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .3

poin

tsTh

ere

are

prec

ise

crite

ria fo

r aw

ardi

ng p

oint

s in

mos

t of t

he c

ases

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .2

poin

tsTh

ere

are

prec

ise

crite

ria fo

r aw

ardi

ng p

oint

s in

som

e of

the

case

s . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .1

poi

nt

6Ex

iste

nce

of d

ata

on p

revi

ousl

y co

nduc

ted

mar

ket r

esea

rch

rela

ted

to p

rices

and

qua

lity

of g

oods

and

serv

ices

pro

cure

d Pr

evio

us m

arke

t res

earc

h is

don

e fre

quen

tly . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .3 p

oint

sPr

evio

us m

arke

t res

earc

h is

don

e oc

casi

onal

ly . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .2

poi

nts

No

prev

ious

mar

ket r

esea

rch

is d

one

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .1

poi

nt

7N

umbe

r and

val

ue o

f neg

otia

ted

publ

ic p

rocu

rem

ents

for

whi

ch th

e Pu

blic

Pro

cure

men

t Offi

ce is

not

info

rmed

and

has

no

t gra

nted

con

sent

No

nego

tiate

d pr

ocur

emen

ts th

at th

e Pu

blic

Pro

cure

men

t Offi

ce is

not

info

rmed

abo

ut . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .5

poi

nts

A s

mal

l num

ber o

f neg

otia

ted

proc

urem

ents

with

no

notifi

catio

n of

the

PP O

ffice

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .3

poin

tsA

larg

e nu

mbe

r of n

egot

iate

d pr

ocur

emen

ts w

ith n

o no

tifica

tion

of th

e PP

Offi

ce . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .1 p

oint

7.1

No

proc

urem

ents

with

out a

pub

lic te

nder

to w

hich

the

PP O

ffice

has

no

cons

ent . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .5

poin

tsA

sm

all p

ortio

n of

the

proc

urem

ents

with

out a

pub

lic te

nder

are

don

e w

ithou

t the

co

nsen

t of t

he P

ublic

Pro

cure

men

t Offi

ce . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .3

poin

tsA

larg

e po

rtio

n of

the

proc

urem

ents

with

out a

pub

lic te

nder

are

don

e w

ithou

t the

co

nsen

t of t

he P

ublic

Pro

cure

men

t Offi

ce . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .1

poi

nt

8N

umbe

r and

val

ue o

f pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ents

don

e by

pub

liciz

ing

in

a da

ily n

ewsp

aper

of a

larg

er c

ircul

atio

n M

ost o

f the

pub

lic te

nder

s ar

e pu

blic

ized

in a

new

spap

er o

f a la

rge

circ

ulat

ion

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.5 p

oint

sA

por

tion

of th

e pu

blic

tend

ers

is p

ublic

ized

in a

new

spap

er o

f a la

rge

circ

ulat

ion .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .3

poin

tsM

ost o

f the

pub

lic te

nder

s ar

e pu

blic

ized

in a

new

spap

er o

f a s

mal

l circ

ulat

ion .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .1 p

oint

8.1

The

tota

l val

ue o

f the

pro

cure

men

ts p

ublic

ized

in a

larg

e ci

rcul

atio

n pa

per i

s hi

gh . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

5 po

ints

The

tota

l val

ue o

f the

pro

cure

men

ts p

ublic

ized

in a

larg

e ci

rcul

atio

n pa

per i

s no

t hig

h . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .3

poi

nts

The

tota

l val

ue o

f the

pro

cure

men

ts p

ublic

ized

in a

larg

e ci

rcul

atio

n pa

per i

s lo

w . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .1

poin

t

9Av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of b

ids

in a

n op

en a

nd li

mite

d pu

blic

invi

tatio

nM

ore

than

five

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .5

poin

tsTh

ree

to fi

ve . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .3

poin

tsTh

ree .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .1

poin

t

10In

form

ing

all b

idde

rs w

ith th

e ou

tcom

e of

the

publ

ic p

rocu

rem

ent

and

allo

win

g ac

cess

to th

e re

late

d in

form

atio

n

Bidd

ers

are

regu

larly

info

rmed

abo

ut th

e ou

tcom

e of

the

tend

er . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

3 po

ints

Bidd

ers

are

freq

uent

ly in

form

ed a

bout

the

outc

ome

of th

e te

nder

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.2 p

oint

sBi

dder

s ar

e ra

rely

info

rmed

abo

ut th

e ou

tcom

e of

the

tend

er . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 po

int

29

Bidd

ers

are

freq

uent

ly a

llow

ed a

cces

s to

the

tend

er in

form

atio

n . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .5 p

oint

sTh

e ac

cess

to in

form

atio

n ab

out t

he te

nder

is p

artia

l or r

are .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .2

poin

tsBi

dder

s ar

e no

t allo

wed

acc

ess

to in

form

atio

n ab

out t

he te

nder

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 po

int

11Ex

iste

nce

of s

epar

ate,

nea

tly a

rchi

ved

files

con

tain

ing

all

docu

men

ts a

nd in

form

atio

n re

late

d to

a s

peci

fic p

ublic

pr

ocur

emen

t

All

files

are

com

plet

e an

d or

derly

kep

t . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .3 p

oint

sM

ost o

f the

file

s ar

e co

mpl

ete

and

orde

rly k

ept .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .2

poin

tsA

sm

all n

umbe

r of fi

les

are

com

plet

e an

d or

derly

kep

t . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . .1

poin

t

12A

gree

men

ts s

tatin

g no

pric

e, in

suffi

cien

t num

ber o

f ele

men

ts

rega

rdin

g qu

ality

, ter

ms

of d

eliv

ery

or a

gree

men

ts w

ith te

rms

diffe

rent

from

thos

e in

the

sele

cted

bid

No

agre

emen

ts th

at d

o no

t coi

ncid

e w

ith th

e se

lect

ed b

id . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

3 po

ints

An

insi

gnifi

cant

num

ber o

f the

agr

eem

ents

do

not c

oinc

ide

with

the

sele

cted

bid

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .2

poin

tsA

sig

nific

ant n

umbe

r of t

he a

gree

men

ts d

o no

t coi

ncid

e w

ith th

e se

lect

ed b

id . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 po

int

13N

umbe

r and

val

ue o

f pro

cure

men

ts w

here

the

pric

e, fe

atur

es a

nd

term

s an

d co

nditi

ons

of th

e pu

blic

pro

cure

men

t wer

e ch

ange

d by

an

ann

ex to

the

initi

al a

gree

men

t

Ther

e ar

e no

ann

exes

to a

ny o

f the

pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ent a

gree

men

ts . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .5

poin

tsTh

ere

are

anne

xes

to a

n in

sign

ifica

nt n

umbe

r of p

ublic

pro

cure

men

t agr

eem

ents

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .2

poin

tsTh

ere

are

anne

xes

to th

e m

ajor

ity o

f the

pub

lic p

rocu

rem

ent a

gree

men

ts . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

.1 p

oint

13.1

The

tota

l val

ue o

f the

pro

cure

men

ts w

ith a

nnex

es to

the

agre

emen

ts is

ver

y lo

w . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .5

poi

nts

The

tota

l val

ue o

f the

pro

cure

men

ts w

ith a

nnex

es to

the

agre

emen

ts is

not

hig

h . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .2 p

oint

The

tota

l val

ue o

f the

pro

cure

men

ts w

ith a

nnex

es to

the

agre

emen

ts is

ver

y hi

gh . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. .1 p

oint

14Ex

iste

nce

of re

cord

s of

com

pani

es th

at h

ave

met

thei

r obl

igat

ions

in

pre

viou

s pr

ocur

emen

ts in

an

inco

mpl

ete

or p

oor q

ualit

y w

ay

Reco

rds

are

kept

and

this

is a

n ob

stac

le fo

r tho

se b

idde

rs’ p

artic

ipat

ion

in te

nder

s . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

5 po

ints

Reco

rds

are

kept

, but

this

is n

o ob

stac

le fo

r tho

se b

idde

rs’ p

artic

ipat

ion

in te

nder

s . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .3

poi

nts

No

reco

rds

are

kept

of c

ompa

nies

with

unf

ulfil

led

oblig

atio

ns to

war

ds th

e m

unic

ipal

ity . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1 po

int

CIP - Каталогизација во публикацијаНационална и универзитетска библиотека „Св. Климент Охридски“, Скопје

343.352:352

Methodology for measuring the Index of responsibility, transparency and accountability at local level. - Skopje : United Nations Development Programme, 2008. - 30 стр. : 21 cm

ISBN 978-9989-188-41-1

а) Локална самоуправа - Корупција - Спречување - Методологија - ВодичиCOBISS,MK-ID 73450762

Methodology to measure local responsibility, transparency and accountability

Documents

Transcript of Methodology to measure local responsibility, transparency and accountability