1LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
1LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT MANUAL
September, 2020
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
2LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
iLOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT MANUAL
September, 2020
ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
iiLO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
iiiLOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
CONTENTS
Foreword v
Acronyms/Abbreviations vi
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1 Background to Management of Service Delivery Assessments 1
2 Background to Assessment of LG Management of Service Delivery 3
2.1 Scope of the LG Management of Service Delivery Assessment 3
2.2 Principles for the design of the assessment system 3
2.3 Overview of Minimum Conditions 3
2.4 Overview of Performance Measures and Relative Scores 4
SECTION 2: ASSESSING LG MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY 5
3 Preparatory Activities 5
3.1 Orientation of the Local Governments 5
3.2 Team Composition and Coordination 5
3.3 Training of the LG PA and QA teams 7
4 Collection of Data to Inform the Assessment Process 7
4.1 Collection of data from secondary sources at the national level 7
4.2 Field based LG Performance Assessment 8
4.3 Reporting 8
5 Quality Assurance and Results Verification 9
5.1 Spot Checks 9
5.2 Independent Verification of Process and Results 9
6 Review, Approval, Use and Dissemination of the Results 11
6.1 Grievance Handling 11
6.2 Approval of results 11
6.3 Synthesis Report 12
6.4 Use of Results and Impact 12
iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
6.4.1 Use of the results to allocate part of the development grants 12
6.4.2 Use of results for performance improvement planning 13
6.5 Dissemination of Results 13
7 Institutional Arrangements and Timing 14
7.1 Institutional Arrangements 14
7.2 Timing of Activities 15
SECTION 3: INDICATORS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE 16
8 Crosscutting Performance Assessment 16
8.1 Crosscutting Minimum Conditions 16
8.2 Crosscutting Performance Measures 19
9 Education Performance Assessment 32
9.1 Education Minimum Conditions 32
9.2 Education Performance Measures 33
10 Health Performance Assessment 41
10.1 Health Minimum Conditions 41
10.2 Health Performance Measures 42
11 Water and Environment Performance Assessment 57
11.1 Water and Environment Minimum Conditions 57
11.2 Water and Environment Performance Measures 58
12 Micro-scale Irrigation Performance Assessment 68
12.1 Micro-scale Irrigation Minimum Conditions 69
12.2 Micro-scale Irrigation Performance Measures 70
ANNEXES 82
Annex 1 Code of Ethics for the Assessment Teams 82
Annex 2 Exit Declaration Form 83
vLOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
FOREWORD
In a bid to improve delivery of services to all citizens the Government of Uganda introduced a decentralization policy under the Constitution of 1995 and the Local Government Act Cap 243. Under the decentralization policy, LGs are mandated to deliver a wide range of basic services and the Ministries, Departments and Agencies to provide standards, guidelines as well as supervisory support. To finance the delivery of basic services, the central government makes transfers to LGs.
Following a series of reviews conducted on the country’s fiscal decentralization reforms, with support from the World Bank, in FY 2015/16 GoU took measures to revise its LG transfers system under the Uganda Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfer Reform. The core program objectives include; i) Restoring adequacy in financing of decentralized service delivery; ii) Ensuring equity in allocation of funds to LGs for service delivery; and iii) Improving the efficiency of LGs in the delivery of services.
The Local Government Performance Assessment system is aimed at attaining the third objective of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfer Reform. This revised manual sets out a performance and improvement framework with more outcome driven indicators also associated with an incentive system to ensure improved institutional and service delivery performance of Local Governments.
The manual has been jointly developed by relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies(MDAs) in close consultation with local Governments. It provides detailed information and guidelines on the objectives, processes, organization and management of the Performance system to be applied including activities prior to, during and after assessment.
I trust that this manual will be efficiently utilized in order to contribute to efforts to improve LG performance and service delivery. I also encourage Local Governments to embrace this manual as a key tool to not only prepare for the assessment process but also use it as a basis for continuous improvements in the execution of their mandated roles and responsibilities.
Finally, I would like to take his opportunity to thank all representatives from the various MDAs and LGs that made compilation of this manual possible. These include; Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development; Ministry of Local Government; Local Government Finance Commission; Ministry of Education and Sports; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries; Ministry of Water and Environment; Ministry of Public Service; National Environment Management Authority and Local Governments.
My office also acknowledges the technical and financial support received through the Overseas Development Institute-Budget Strengthening Initiative (ODI-BSI) and the World Bank. I look forward to further collaboration with all stakeholders in improving service delivery in the country.
For God and my Country.
Kaima Godfrey
FOR PERMANENT SECRETARY
vi LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
AAA Automated Attendance Analysis
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
AWP Annual Work Plan
BoG Board of Governors
BoQ Bills of Quantities
CAO Chief Administration Officer
CAN Capacity Assessment Needs
CC Consultative Committees
CFO Chief Finance Officer
CMU Construction Management Unit
CPD Continuous Professional Development
CRC Centralized Grievance Redress Committee
CRP Complaints Referral Path
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
D/CAO Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
DCDO District Community Development Officer
DDEG Discretionary Development Equalization Grant
DEO District Education Officer
DES Directorate of Education Standards
DHMT District Health Management Team
DHO District Health Officer
DIS District Inspector of Schools
DPO District Production Office
DPs Development Partners
DSC District Service Commission
DTPC District Technical Planning Committee
DWO District Water Officer
DWSCC District Water and Sanitation Coordination Committee
EMIS Education Management Information System
ENR Environment and Natural Resources
ESIAs Environmental Social Impact Assessment
ESMPs Environmental Social Management Plans
FD SC Fiscal Decentralization Sub Committee
FDTC Fiscal Decentralization Technical Committee
FY Financial Year
GBV Gender Based Violence
GRC Grievance Redress Committee
viiLOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism
H/T Head Teacher
HC Health Center
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HLG Higher Local Government
HMIS Health Management Information System
HoDs Heads of Departments
HRIS Human Resource Information System
HRM Human Resource Management
HSDs Health Sub Districts
HUMC Health Unit Management Committee
IA Internal Audit
IFMIS Integrated Financial Management System
IGG Inspector General of Government
IPFs Indicative Planning Figures
IPPS Integrated Personnel Payroll System
IVF Independent Verification Agent
LG PA Local Government Performance Assessment
LG PAC Local Government Public Accounts Committee
LGDP Local Government Development Plan
LGFC Local Government Finance commission
LGs Local Governments
LLGs Lower Local Governments
LLHF Lower Local Health Facilities
M&E/LGs Directorate of Monitoring and Evaluation/Local Government
MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
MCs Minimum Conditions
MDAs Ministries, Departments, and Agencies
MEO Municipal Education Officer
MIS Management Information System
MMOH Municipal Medical Officer of Health
MoES Ministry of Education and Sports
MOFPED Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MoH Ministry of Health
MoLG Ministry of Local Government
MoLHUD Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development
MoPS Ministry of Public Service
MTPC Municipal Technical Planning Committee
viii LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
NEMA National Environment Management Authority
NWR None Wage Recurrent
OAG Office of the Auditor General
OPAMS Online Performance Assessment Management System
OPD Out Patient Department
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
OSR Own Source Revenue
OTIMS Online Transfer Information Management System
PBS Program Budgeting System
PDU Procurement Disposal Unit
PFMA Public Finance Management Act
PFO Principal Finance Officer
PHC Primary Health Care
PHRO Principal Human Resource Officer
PI Performance Improvement
PIP Performance Improvement Plan
PIT Project Implementation Team
PMO Principal Medical Officer
PMs Performance Measures
PNFP Private Not for Profit
PPDA Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority
PPEs Personal Protective Equipment
PS Permanent Secretary
QA Quality Assurance
QBPR Quarterly Budget Performance Reports
USE Universal Secondary Education
RBF Results Based Financing
SAA Senior Account Assistant
SAS Senior Assistant Secretary
SFO Senior Finance Officer
SMC School Management Committee
SPA School Performance Assessment
TC Technical Committee
TF Task Force
TPC Technical Planning Committee
ToR Terms of Reference
VAC Violence Against Children
WSCs Water and Sanitation Committees
WSS Water Supply and Sanitation Services
1LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1 Background to Management of Service Delivery Assessments
The Government of Uganda (GoU) is implementing the decentralization policy where: (i) the Local Governments (LGs) have the primary mandate of providing front line services in most basic services areas; and (ii) Central Government provides guidance through sector policies, standards, sector budget guidelines, technical supervision and support. In order to implement their service delivery mandates, Government has been transferring resources to Local Governments since 1993/94 where the funding, which was UGX 0.79 trillion (in UGX 2019/20 terms), has increased to UGX 3.81 trillion in FY 2019/20. The increase notwithstanding, there are a number of challenges notably: the limited discretion for LGs to decide on allocations of resources; visible inequities in the allocation of resources across LGs; lack of incentives for LGs to account for resources; and reduced real per capita value of transfers. Therefore, Government designed and has been implementing Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfer Reforms since 2015.
One of the key elements of the intergovernmental fiscal transfer reforms was the design and implementation of the Local Government Performance Assessment (LG PA) system under the leadership of the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM). The LG PA which has been focusing on: (i) accountability requirements; and (ii) crosscutting and sector (education, health and water) functional processes and systems, focusing on areas which were impediment for effective service delivery and bottlenecks in organization, administration and execution, has been conducted for three years where indicators were kept stable, also to ensure performance-trend analysis. The performance assessment results were used in the allocation of development grants in FYs 2019/20 and 2020/21 as well as in the design and implementation of Local Government Performance Improvement Plans (LG PIPs). The implementation of the assessment has led to improvement in the management of resources for service delivery as depicted in the improvement of LGs performance assessment results. For example, the overall average scores improved from 56% in the assessment conducted in 2017 to 68% in the assessment conducted in 2019.
The foregoing performance improvements notwithstanding, Government has noted that to address the existing constraints to the delivery of sufficient and quality services to citizens requires not only increased adequacy and equity of transfers but also strengthened: (i) Central Government oversight and support; (ii) capacity of Local Governments in the management of services; and (iii) service delivery performance at the facility level. In addition, after 3 years of implementation there is need to refine some of the indicators and up-date them based on lessons learned, e.g. removing indicators which are now largely complied with, and introducing new ones focusing on emerging challenges. Therefore, a new performance assessment and improvement framework to incentivize improved management and delivery of services has been developed under the coordination of OPM as depicted in the table below:
2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
Overview of the Revised Performance Assessment and Improvement Framework
IssueLevel 1 – Service Delivery Facility and LLG
PerformanceLevel 2 LG Management of
Service Delivery
Level 3 CG Management of Service Delivery
1a) Schools 1b) Health 1c) LLGs2a Minimum conditions (MCs)
2b: Performance measures (PMs)
Education, Health, Water & Environment, Micro-scale Irrigation and Crosscutting MDAs
1. Objective
Incentivize improvements in processes and outputs at the school level
Incentivize improvements in processes and delivery of health services
Incentivize improvements in LLG management & service delivery
Address basic safeguards and core blockages to service delivery.
Incentivize improvements in the LG management of Education, Health, Water & Environment; micro-scale Irrigation and Crosscutting issues
Incentivize improvement in Central Government Management of Service Delivery
2. Timing To be decided to be decided Sept – Jan Sept – Jan Sept – Jan Sept – Jan
3. Assessment Method and compilation of results
Use school inspection reports
Use DHMTC Reports
District /Municipal
Contracted private firm
Contracted private firm
MDAs reporting against agreed actions.
4. Quality Assurance and verification of results
Contracted firm Contracted firm Contracted firm
Contracted firm
Spot checks & Contracted firm
Contracted firm
5. Impact/use
₋ Allocation of part of the capitation grants:
₋ Performance improvement support
₋ Allocation of part of the NWR grants;
₋ Performance improvement support
₋ Allocation part of the DDEG;
₋ Performance improvement support
₋ Impact on the allocation of the performance component of the development grants;
₋ Inform performance improvement support
₋ Impact on the size of grant from World Bank to GoU
This Assessment Manual focuses on Level 2 which is Local Government Management of Service Delivery.
3LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
2 Background to Assessment of LG Management of Service Delivery
2.1 Scope of the LG Management of Service Delivery Assessment
The assessment of Local Government Management of Service Delivery has two elements:a) Minimum conditions (seen as core performance indicators) which focusses on key
bottlenecks for service delivery and safeguards management.
b) Performance measures, which are sectoral assessments, will be used to evaluate service delivery in the Districts/Municipalities as a whole, and for some areas aggregating performance information from facilities and Lower Local Governments (LLGs) and assessing compliance with performance reporting and improvement support.
The Minimum Conditions (MCs) and Performance Measures (PMs) were harmonized across the different assessment areas – see section 3. Below is a summary of the MCs and PMs.
2.2 Principles for the design of the assessment system
The selection and formulation of the minimum conditions and performance measures have been done using a number of core design principles for design of LG performance assessment systems. These are outlined below:
a) Attribution of performance measures covering areas where the efforts of the LGs matter (i.e. the LGs are able to improve performance on the selected measure):
b) Address identified core blockages to service delivery:c) Ensure credibility and neutrality of the assessment processd) Ensure effective and timely administration of rewards and sanctions:e) Cost-effectiveness in assessing the measures and aimed to provide sustainability in
LG management and operations (value for money)
2.3 Overview of Minimum Conditions
The aspects assessed under minimum conditions include:
a) For crosscutting:· Human Resource Management and Development· Safeguards:
o Fiduciary safeguards (Financial management and reporting)o Environmental and Social requirements
b) For Education, Health and Water and Micro-Scale Irrigation:· Human Resource Management and Development· Environmental and Social requirements
4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
2.4 Overview of Performance Measures and Relative Scores
The Performance Measures to be assessed are summarised below and are elaborated in sections 8 – 12 of this Manual.
Performance Area and Performance Measures for all assessments)
A Local Government Service Delivery Results.
Service Delivery Outcomes
Service Delivery Performance
Investment Performance
Achievement of standards
B Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement
Accuracy of reported information
Reporting and Performance Improvement
C Human Resource Management and Development
Budgeting for and actual recruitment and deployment of staff
Performance management
Payroll management (for crosscutting only)
Pension Payroll management (for crosscutting only)
D Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services.
Planning, Budgeting and Transfer of Funds for Service Delivery
Routine oversight and monitoring
Mobilization and promotion of service delivery
E Investment Management
Planning and budgeting for investments
Procurement, contract management/execution
F Environment and Social Safeguards
Grievance redress
Safeguards for service delivery
Safeguards in the delivery of investments
G Financial Management(for crosscutting only)
Book-keeping
Internal audit and follow-up on audit
H Local Revenues (for crosscutting only)
Predictability
Revenue mobilization performance
Revenue sharing
I Governance, Oversight, Transparency and Accountability (for crosscutting only)
Transparency and accountability
Reporting to IGG
5LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
SECTION 2: ASSESSING LG MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY
3 Preparatory Activities
3.1 Orientation of the Local Governments
To ensure that the LGs are sufficiently prepared for the assessment, the following activities will be undertaken before the actual performance assessment is conducted:
a) The Performance Assessment Manual will be printed and distributed to all LGs.
b) The LG Performance Assessment Task Force will inform, orient and train LGs on the PA Manual as well as the implications of their performance scores prior to the actual assessments.
c) The respective MDAs will provide support to the LGs in preparation for the assessments as part of their inspection, support supervision and mentoring mandates.
d) LGs shall prepare for the assessments in advance. This will involve conducting internal ‘mock’ assessments to determine the extent to which they have complied with the minimum conditions and expected performance. In case there are some gaps, these should be addressed before the assessment. LGs shall collect and have ready all documents required at the point of time for the assessment. Evidence, which is not available during the assessment/field-work, will not be considered in the scoring of performance of a LG (i.e. a LG will not receive marks on these).
e) The LGs will be informed about the assessment schedules prior to arrival of the assessment teams.
f) The sampled LGs will also be informed about visits by any quality assurance teams, which may review the quality of the process and results of the assessment and should be available for this.
3.2 Team Composition and Coordination
The LG PA of the Districts and Municipalities will be conducted by external independent teams, which will be contracted to perform the exercise in a quality and credible manner. The teams shall be mobilized and undergo training before the assessment every year.
The Local Governments will be assessed in four (4) clusters. Each cluster will have:
a) One (1) overall Team Leader who will also serve as an Internal Quality Assurance Personb) Three (3) sub- teams of eight (8) consultants each, to ensure timely implementation within
each cluster. Each sub-team will nominate a sub-team leader from amongst the Assessors who will ensure compliance to the assessment process as well as comprehensive and quality reporting. The compositions of the sub-teams and indicative activities during the performance assessment exercise is summarized in the table below:
6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
Indicative compositions of the sub-teams and activities
No Expert MDAs to be visited Activities on Day 1 Activities on Day 2
1.
LG Planning and Financial Management Specialist (Sub-team Leader)1
₋ Office of the Auditor General (OAG)
₋ Internal Auditor General
₋ MoFPED
₋ CAO/TC office₋ Chief Finance
Officer₋ Internal audit
₋ District Planner₋ Physical Planner₋ Clerk to the council
2.
LG Human Resource Management/ Administration Expert
₋ MoPS₋ MoLG
₋ CAO’s office₋ Human Resource
Management (HRM) Division
₋ Collect information from a sample of 3 LLGs (for all assessments)
3.
Project Execution Expert (Engineer)/with procurement experiences
₋ MoH (Engineering Unit)
₋ MoES (CMU)₋ MoWT
₋ District Engineer ₋ Procurement and
Disposal Unit
₋ Sample at least 3 construction sites (education, health and DDEG)
4.Environment and social Management Specialist
₋ NEMA₋ MoGLSD
₋ Environmental Officer₋ DCDO₋ District designated
Grievance Coordinator
₋ Sample at least 3 construction sites (education, health and DDEG) to assess compliance with good environmental and social safeguards practices
5. Health Specialist ₋ MoH ₋ DHO/PMO₋ Sample at least 3 Health
Facilities (not with construction)
6. Education Specialist ₋ MoES (DES,₋ DEO₋ DIS
₋ Sample at least 3 Schools (not with construction)
7.Water Management Specialist
₋ MoWE ₋ District Water Office₋ Sample at least 3 water
sources in three different sub-counties
8.
Agriculture Engineer (for LGs eligible to receive micro-irrigation grant only)
₋ MAAIF₋ District Production
Office₋ Agricultural Engineer
₋ Sample at least 3 completed micro-scale irrigation installations in different LLGs
1 This expert will also cover the few issues on governance/transparency which are cross-cutting.
7LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
3.3 Training of the LG PA and QA teams
The LG Performance Assessment Task Force will conduct a comprehensive training of both the assessment and Independent Verification teams before the assessment is conducted. The objective of the training will be to ensure that all team members have internalized the performance assessment manual, including the rationale behind the process, the scoring and means of verification of the performance measures. One of the elements that will be emphasized is the need for maintaining credibility of the assessment systems and team members will therefore be required to sign the Code of Ethics for the assessment. During the training, understanding of the task will be harmonized and data collection templates further refined and check lists for assessment drawn from the manual will be up-dated and linked with the particular year for assessment.
4 Collection of Data to Inform the Assessment Process
4.1 Collection of data from secondary sources at the national level
To ensure that the assessment system is cost-effective, data regarding performance measures that can be collected from secondary sources will be collected at the national level. The MDAs from which secondary data will be collected are summarized in the table below.
No Area MDA to be Visited
1. LG Planning and Financial Management ₋ Office of the Auditor General (OAG)₋ Internal Auditor General₋ MoFPED
2. LG Human Resource Management₋ MoPS ₋ MoLG
3. Project Execution ₋ MoH (Engineering Unit)₋ MoES (CMU)₋ MOWT
4. Environment and social Management ₋ NEMA₋ MoGLSD
5. Health ₋ MoH
6. Education ₋ MoES (DES)
7. Water Management ₋ MoWE
8. Micro-scale irrigation ₋ MAAIF
The assessment team will compile LG draft reports identifying areas that need to be further clarified during the field-work. This will be done in conjunction with the desk-based collection of information for the review of the compliance with the minimum access conditions. During the training of the assessment teams contact focal points in various MDAs and other agencies will be provided to facilitate data availability.
8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
4.2 Field based LG Performance Assessment
This will take place from September- December every year. The model of the field assessment will involve:
a) Entry meeting: When commencing the LG-PA in each LG, the Consultant will meet/get in contact with the core management team in each LG and present the full Consultant’s team, affirm itinerary and ensure agreement of the LGPA timeline.
b) Data collection from the District/Municipality and a sample of LLGs and facilities: The respective LGPA team members will visit all participating LGs in their cluster and undertake the assessment process as per the LG PA Manual. The teams are expected to visit and spend two days in each Local Government. The working style of the assessors should be friendly but firm, with opportunities to provide advice to the LGs during the process. If either the individual or documentary evidence is not available by the time of the assessment, then it should be deemed not available.
c) Debriefing meeting/session to highlight the emerging findings, seek clarifications and give the LG an opportunity to provide more information. The Consultant will strictly use a pre-determined format to present at the debrief, take minutes of the meeting and fill the Exit Form (to be provided) which will be signed by the CAO/TC with comments from the LG.
d) Compiling of the LG Performance Assessment Reports which will be a detailed report per LG, consolidating performance findings and scores from both the desk-based review and field work. Each assessor shall compile the findings and up-load in the Online Performance Assessment Management System (OPAMs) not later than 2 days after the assessment of each LG.
e) Each contracted firm must have an Internal Quality Assurance (QA) person per cluster to review the reports done by the assessors and save the results as “complete” not later than 5 days after the field work in a LG. The process of compiling the reports will be automated to ensure standardization, make the process easier, allow for deeper analysis and better publication of the results.
4.3 Reporting
Based on the above process and consultations, the LG PA team will provide a report of the results up-loaded in the OPAMs.
9LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
5 Quality Assurance and Results Verification
5.1 Spot Checks
The spot check will among other issues review a sample of LGs and their assessments, and review whether the LG PA teams are in place and operation as per TOR, duration of the field work, sampling and assessment procedures followed, working styles, and procedures. The Spot Check Teams will be composed of experienced members from the LG PA task force and will work in sub-teams.
The spot check will provide detailed reports, on the findings and observations as well as recommendations for the future assessment procedures, using a reporting format developed by the Task Force with core findings and recommendations. This will also provide observations on the weaker and strong areas of LGs performance, and input to the Performance Improvement planning.
The report from the spot check should be ready by the team leaders for the spot check teams (with input from each team member), and be presented and discussed in the LG PA Task force as well as in the FD Technical Committee.
5.2 Independent Verification of Process and Results
The purpose of quality assurance (QA) is to verify whether the process and results of the LGPA conducted by the Assessment Team(s) are valid, reliable, and hence overall credible. To achieve this the QA firm will undertake the following tasks:
a) Participate in the training to be organized by the Office of the Prime Minister and conducted by the LG PA Task Force. The objective of the training will be to ensure that all team members have internalized the LG PA manual, including the rationale behind the process, the scoring and means of verification of the minimum conditions and performance measures. One of the elements that will be emphasized is the need for maintaining credibility of the assessment system and QA team members will therefore be required to sign the Code of Ethics for this role before executing the assignment.
b) Review and verify the LG PA team composition prior to their departure to the field, against their team members (experts) indicated in the technical proposal.
c) Prepare and submit a draft Inception Report to OPM which will present the QA findings regarding (b) above and an indicative mobilization plan, with a schedule for secondary data collection and review, amongst others.
d) Collection and thorough review of requisite data from secondary sources at the national level as stipulated in the LG PA Manual.
e) Sample LGs to be visited: With the guidance of OPM, progressively sample LGs per assessment cluster to be visited by the QA team, with justification for selection, for prior approval by the client. The sampling will be done progressively to allow for review of reports, discussion, and reconciliation with the assessment firms, facilitated by the Local Government Performance Assessment Task Force (LGPA TF)2.
2 Sample of the first half of LGs to be quality assured should be done towards the end of week 1 of the LGPA and the 2nd half after week 3 of the LGPA, subject to direction by OPM.
10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
f) Conduct field-based Quality Assurance of LG Performance Assessment. This will involve:i. Entry meeting: When commencing the LG-PA QA in each LG, the Consultant will
meet/get in contact with the core management team in each LG and present the full Consultant’s team, affirm itinerary and ensure agreement of the LGPA QA timeline.
ii. The QA team shall check whether the LGPA team mobilization in the field is identical to the one presented by the assessment firm(s) during procurement and orientation training of assessors, carried out by the Task Force and check their working process/style. If firms have presented different persons, OPM should ask them to stop the affected personnel and replace the right persons (this should be within a limited time frame or else their contract is terminated, or other contractual sanctions will be undertaken.
iii. Data collection from the District/Municipality and a sample of LLGs and facilities: The respective QA team will visit the sampled LGs for QA (same sample LGs as for the LG PA). They will undertake the assessment process as per the LG PA Manual but with use of the results of the LG PA team as the starting point for reference. The teams are expected to visit and spend two days in a Local Government to enable comparison of the results.
iv. Debriefing meeting/session to, seek clarifications and give the LG an opportunity to provide more information. The Consultant will strictly use a pre-determined format to present at the debrief, take minutes of the meeting and fill the Exit Form which will be signed by the CAO/TC with comments from the LG.
v. Compiling of the LG QA Performance Assessment Reports which will be a detailed report per LG, consolidating performance findings and scores from both the desk-based review and field work. Each QA team member shall compile the findings and up-load in the Online Performance Assessment Management System (OPAMs) using the QA format no later than 2 days after the assessment of each LG. The QA format in OPAMs will provide for reporting against the Assessment reports submitted as “complete” by the assessors, exploring the reasons for any deviations in results (if any) and with a section requiring the opinion of the QA based on their findings3. The contracted firm must have an internal reviewer of their reports before they are saved in OPAMS as “complete” no later than 1 day after the field work in a LG. The process of compiling the reports will be automated as much as possible to ensure standardization, make comparison with the LG PA reports easier, allow for a section to adduce the opinion of the QA based on the LGPA results posted thus far.
g) Each of the QA sub-teams are expected to cover 2 sampled LGs per week, compile a report on those, with findings, and comparison of results with the LG PA team, provide narrative for reasons for any deviation, and present at a meeting convened by the LG PA Task Force to reconcile the findings with the assessment firm(s) in the following week. Based on this the IVA will meet with the Task Force to review findings and identify major deviations in results if any. The LG PA Task Force will follow up on
3 A specific format will be provided.
11LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
the deviations during the spot checks. Based on the outcome of such a meeting and spot check findings the assessment firm(s) will uphold the exercise as is, adjust where recommended or, if there are major deviations, be required to do re-assessment of LG(s) in question. Similarly, the IVA team may be requested to review original findings and evidence.
h) Compile a synthesis report summarizing key highlights of the findings and scores for all LGs sampled, comparison with the scores of the LGPA and narrative on each indicator of reasons for deviations and providing a succinct opinion on the validity of the LG PA results. This report will also encompass a review of changes made by the LG PA, based on the findings from the IVA, and the subsequent Task Force interventions and whether these adhere with the IVA findings. This report will follow a format provided by OPM before the exercise.
6 Review, Approval, Use and Dissemination of the Results
6.1 Grievance Handling
The LGs will have a short window to submit grievances as the system has other inbuilt quality checks and balances to ensure neutrality and objectivity as outlined below.
a) The LGs should raise issues during the exit meeting focusing on processes and evidence (and sign Exit Form);
b) LGs will be given an opportunity to review their respective reports online (OPAMS) after the results have been approved by the LG PA Task Force;
c) The LGs will communicate grievance(s) (if any) in writing by the CAO/TC with supporting evidence to the Secretariat of the Performance Assessment Task force, Permanent Secretary OPM within a period not exceeding 5 working days from the time when the reports have been opened for LGs to review;
d) The LG PA Task Force will consider the grievances provide feedback to the LGs.
e) The LG PA Task Force will request the assessment teams in writing to make any adjustments that may arise from addressing of the grievances.
6.2 Approval of results
The LG Task Force will send the final LG PA results to the Fiscal Decentralisation (FD)– TC for approval. The FD-TC will review and discuss the recommendations made by the LG PA Task Force and approve the final results of the LG Performance Assessment. Results will be shared with FD-SC comprised of the core Permanent Secretaries for the performance-based grant system (OPM, MoPS, MoFPED, MoLG, MoLHUD; MoWE, MoH, MAAIF, MoES) and the Secretary of LGFC and the political oversight committee for buy-in and information.
12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
6.3 Synthesis Report
Based on the reports from the LG PA firm, the LG Performance Assessment Task Force with its Secretariat under OPM, will produce the synthesis report, purely based on the results up-loaded in the OPAMs.
6.4 Use of Results and Impact
The results of the assessment will be used to:
a) Allocate part of the development grants
a) Inform performance improvement planning
6.4.1 Use of the results to allocate part of the development grants
The allocation formulae for the performance grants will have two components:
₋ Component 1: Allocation drawn on a need-based formula:₋ Component 2: Allocation based on the performance assessment results computed
as: % of Minimum Conditions met multiplied by the results of performance measures, divided by 100 and then weighted with the basic formula, see below.
Table: Weight of the basic component and performance component as at FY 2020/21
Grant Ad hoc/core minimum allocations Performance Grant
Basic Formula %age
Performance element (% MC met X PM score/100 then weighted with the basic formula)
DDEG N/A 50 50
Education Costs for construction of secondary schools
50
50
Health Costs for up-grading health centre II to III. 0 100
Water and Environment NA 50 50
Micro-scale Irrigation NA 60 40
13LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
Table: Factoring in of compliance with minimum conditions (“key performance measures”):
For example, if
Percentage (%) of MCs met is as
With the PM Scores being (%) – example
Then the Final Score will be (%) which must be weighted to the basic formula
100 70 70 points75 70 52.5 points 50 70 35 points 25 70 17.5 points 0 70 0 points
The implications are:
a. If all MCs are met, then the final score will be equal to the score from the PMs.
b. Every MCs not met reduces the final score.
c. If all MCs are not met, then the final score is 0 irrespective of the PM score. Therefore, the LG forfeits the performance component of the grant if it does not meet all the MCs.
d. This system stresses the importance of MCs (and give this a significant impact) on a continuous calibrated scale, rather than a system of on/off to the entire performance component of the grant.
6.4.2 Use of results for performance improvement planning
The results of the LG PA exercise are used to support the development and implementation of (i) performance improvement plans for LGs that have performed poorly; and (ii) thematic performance improvement plans.
6.5 Dissemination of Results
The results will be disseminated through websites, (OTIMS/OPAMS) publications, and feed back to each of the LGs. The results will also be included in the GAPR. A national dissemination event will also be organised by OPM.
14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
7 Institutional Arrangements and Timing
7.1 Institutional Arrangements
The table below shows the main tasks of each of the stakeholders in the assessment system. Stakeholder Indicative Tasks
LG PA Task Force
₋ Develop and review the LG PA Manual;₋ Training of the contracted Assessment Firm and IVA₋ Conduct spot checks of the LG PA exercise₋ Review and recommend the results for approval to the FD TC
FD TC ₋ Verifies and approve the results of the LG PA and informs FD SC
OPM (Secretariat)
₋ Coordinates and chairs the LG PA task force₋ Operates the OPAMs₋ Guiding and supervising the contracted assessment and IVA firms₋ Coordinates the work on the synthesis report and publication of results₋ Use the results in the GAPR and other M&E tools ₋ Follow-up of actions and recommendations
MoLG₋ Coordinates the performance improvement planning and follow-up on
results
MoFPED
₋ Supports on all aspects of finance, including timely releases of funds against results
₋ Uses the results for allocation of grants₋ Uses results for general LG monitoring and evaluation systems
Sector ministries including MoPS
₋ Support the LG PA and sharing of information on guidelines, support PIP, and follow-up
₋ Use the results to explore areas where legal and institutional framework as well as guidance should be strengthened
₋ Develop mitigating measures to enhance performance
LGs₋ Provide information for the LG PA₋ Use results to address capacity gaps and performance improvements ₋ Follow-up on results, and develop PIPs
OAG ₋ Provides audit opinion of LGs to be used for the LG PA
Private assessors (teams)
₋ Conduct neutral and objective assessment
Private IVA ₋ Provide quality assurance of the results
15LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
7.2 Timing of Activities
The bar-chart below provides a snapshot of the overall process and timing4.
Bar-Chart 1: Overview of the timing of the assessment of HLGs
Core steps in the LG PA and QA process
July Aug Sept Oct Nov. Dec Jan. Feb. March April June
Team mobilized for the LG PA and the IVA
Training of the LG PA and IVA teams
Data collection central level
Field level assessment
Review of grievances based on draft reports
Independent Verification of the Process and Results (through-out the process)
Spot checks by LG Task Force (through-out)
Reconciliation between LG PA & IVA reports
Incorporation of audit results of LGs
Finalization of the LG PA
Final review in LG PA task force
Approval by FD TC
Impact on grant allocations
Synthesis report
Communication to LGs
Follow up on results, PIP, guidelines etc.
4 Due to up-start of the new LG PA system, the timing is indicative and may be adjusted as need be.
16LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
SE
CT
ION
3:
IND
ICAT
OR
S A
ND
AS
SE
SS
ME
NT
PR
OC
ED
UR
E
8 C
ross
cutt
ing
Perf
orm
ance
Ass
essm
ent
8.1
Cro
sscu
ttin
g M
inim
um C
ondi
tion
s
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Min
imum
Con
diti
onSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
A)
Hum
an
Reso
urce
M
anag
emen
t an
d D
evel
opm
ent
Max
imum
sc
ore
for
this
ar
ea is
52
1.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as r
ecru
ited
or
form
ally
req
uest
ed fo
r se
cond
men
t of
sta
ff fo
r al
l cri
tical
pos
ition
s in
the
D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
al C
ounc
il de
part
men
ts.
Max
imum
sco
re is
37.
If L
G h
as r
ecru
ited
or r
eque
sted
for
seco
ndm
ent
of:
Hea
ds o
f D
epar
tmen
ts:
a. C
hief
Fin
ance
Offi
cer/
Prin
cipa
l Fin
ance
Offi
cer,
scor
e 3
or e
lse
0b.
Dis
tric
t Pl
anne
r/Se
nior
Pla
nner
, sco
re 3
or
else
0c.
Dis
tric
t En
gine
er/P
rinc
ipal
Eng
inee
r, sc
ore
3 or
els
e 0
d. D
istr
ict
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es O
ffice
r/Se
nior
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r, sc
ore
3 or
els
e 0
e. D
istr
ict
Prod
uctio
n O
ffice
r/Se
nior
Vet
erin
ary
Offi
cer,
scor
e 3
or e
lse
0f.
Dis
tric
t C
omm
unity
Dev
elop
men
t O
ffice
r/ P
rinc
ipal
C
DO
, sco
re 3
or
else
0g.
Dis
tric
t C
omm
erci
al O
ffice
r/Pr
inci
pal C
omm
erci
al
Offi
cer,
scor
e 3
or e
lse
0
Oth
er c
riti
cal s
taff
:h.
Pr
ocur
emen
t St
affi.
A S
enio
r Pr
ocur
emen
t O
ffice
r (M
unic
ipal
: Pr
ocur
emen
t O
ffice
r, 2
or e
lse
0.
ii.
Pro
cure
men
t O
ffice
r (M
unic
ipal
Ass
ista
nt
Proc
urem
ent
Offi
cer)
, sco
re 2
or
else
0i.
Prin
cipa
l Hum
an R
esou
rce
Offi
cer,
scor
e 2
or e
lse
0j.
A S
enio
r En
viro
nmen
t O
ffice
r, sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
k.
Seni
or L
and
Man
agem
ent
Offi
cer,
scor
e 2
or e
lse
0l.
A S
enio
r A
ccou
ntan
t, s
core
2 o
r el
se 0
m. P
rinc
ipal
Inte
rnal
Aud
itor
for
Dis
tric
ts a
nd S
enio
r In
tern
al A
udito
r fo
r M
Cs,
sco
re 2
or
else
0n.
Pri
ncip
al H
uman
Res
ourc
e O
ffice
r (S
ecre
tary
DSC
),
scor
e 2
or e
lse
0
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion,
obt
ain
the
appo
intm
ent
lett
ers
of t
he D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
al C
ounc
il de
part
men
t’s s
taff
as
liste
d to
est
ablis
h th
at t
hey
are
subs
tant
ivel
y re
crui
ted.
In c
ase
the
posi
tions
are
not
fille
d, g
et
evid
ence
from
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion
that
the
LG
req
uest
ed fo
r se
cond
men
t fr
om t
he
Cen
tral
Gov
ernm
ent
(CG
)
·A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
·C
opy(
s) o
f le
tter
(s)
from
LG
to
CG
re
ques
ting
for
seco
ndm
ent
of
staff
to
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
Cou
ncil
depa
rtm
ents
.
17LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Min
imum
Con
diti
onSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
2.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as r
ecru
ited
or
form
ally
req
uest
ed fo
r se
cond
men
t of
st
aff fo
r al
l ess
entia
l pos
ition
s in
eve
ry
LLG
Max
imum
sco
re is
15
If L
G h
as r
ecru
ited
or r
eque
sted
for
seco
ndm
ent
of:
a.S
enio
r A
ssis
tant
Sec
reta
ries
in a
ll LL
GS,
sco
re 5
or
else
0
b.A
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent
Offi
cer
or S
enio
r C
DO
in
case
of
Tow
n C
ounc
ils, i
n al
l LLG
S, s
core
5 o
r el
se 0
. c.
A S
enio
r A
ccou
nts
Ass
ista
nt o
r an
Acc
ount
s A
ssis
tant
in
all L
LGS,
sco
re 5
or
else
0.
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion,
obt
ain
the
appo
intm
ent
lett
ers
of t
he L
LG s
taff
as
liste
d to
es
tabl
ish
that
the
y ar
e su
bsta
ntiv
ely
recr
uite
d.
In c
ase
the
posi
tions
are
not
fille
d, g
et
evid
ence
from
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion
that
the
LG
req
uest
ed fo
r se
cond
men
t fr
om t
he
Min
istr
y of
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t (M
oLG
)
·A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
·C
opy
of le
tter
fr
om L
G t
o M
oLG
re
ques
ting
for
seco
ndm
ent
of
staff
to
Dis
tric
t fo
r de
ploy
men
t to
LL
Gs.
B)
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Soci
al
Requ
irem
ents
Max
imum
sc
ore
is 1
6
3.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as r
elea
sed
all
fund
s al
loca
ted
for
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
env
iron
men
tal a
nd s
ocia
l saf
egua
rds
in t
he p
revi
ous
FY.
Max
imum
sco
re is
4
If t
he L
G h
as r
elea
sed
100
% o
f fu
nds
allo
cate
d in
the
pr
evio
us F
Y to
:
a. N
atur
al R
esou
rces
dep
artm
ent,
sco
re 2
or
else
0 a
nd;
b.
Com
mun
ity B
ased
Ser
vice
s de
part
men
t sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
.
From
the
Chi
ef F
inan
ce O
ffice
r/Pr
inci
pal
Fina
nce
Offi
cer
obta
in a
nd r
evie
w t
he L
G
Fina
l Acc
ount
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y an
d ch
eck
whe
ther
allo
catio
ns h
ave
been
re
leas
ed t
o th
e N
atur
al R
esou
rces
and
C
omm
unity
Bas
ed S
ervi
ces
depa
rtm
ents
fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of e
nvir
onm
enta
l and
so
cial
saf
egua
rds
as p
er g
uide
lines
.
LG F
inal
Acc
ount
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y
4.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as c
arri
ed o
ut
Envi
ronm
enta
l, So
cial
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
scre
enin
g/En
viro
nmen
t an
d So
cial
Impa
ct A
sses
smen
ts (
ESIA
s) a
nd
deve
lope
d co
sted
Env
iron
men
t an
d So
cial
Man
agem
ent
Plan
s (E
SMPs
) (i
nclu
ding
chi
ld p
rote
ctio
n pl
ans)
whe
re
appl
icab
le, p
rior
to
com
men
cem
ent
of
all c
ivil
wor
ks.
Max
imum
sco
re is
12
a. I
f th
e LG
has
car
ried
out
Env
iron
men
tal,
Soci
al a
nd
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
scre
enin
g, s
core
4 o
r el
se 0
b. I
f th
e LG
has
car
ried
out
Env
iron
men
t an
d So
cial
Im
pact
Ass
essm
ents
(ES
IAs)
pri
or t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
all
civi
l wor
ks fo
r al
l pro
ject
s im
plem
ente
d us
ing
the
Dis
cret
iona
ry D
evel
opm
ent
Equa
lizat
ion
Gra
nt (
DD
EG),
sc
ore
4 or
0.
c. I
f th
e LG
has
a C
oste
d ES
MPs
for
all p
roje
cts
impl
emen
ted
usin
g th
e D
iscr
etio
nary
Dev
elop
men
t Eq
ualiz
atio
n G
rant
(D
DEG
); s
core
4 o
r 0
.
From
the
LG
Env
iron
men
t offi
cer
and
CD
O, o
btai
n th
e En
viro
nmen
tal
and
Soci
al S
cree
ning
For
m (
or w
here
ap
plic
able
: ESI
As
repo
rts,
ESM
Ps)
for
all
proj
ects
impl
emen
ted
usin
g th
e D
DEG
for
the
prev
ious
FY,
to
veri
fy w
heth
er:
•E&
S sc
reen
ing
was
com
plet
ed,
ESIA
/ESM
Ps p
repa
red
and
cost
ed
as r
equi
red
and
impl
emen
ted/
follo
wed
up
whe
re a
pplic
able
, pri
or t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
all
civi
l wor
ks.
·En
viro
nmen
tal a
nd
Soci
al s
cree
ning
Fo
rms
·ES
IAs
repo
rts
C)
Fina
ncia
l M
anag
emen
t an
d Re
port
ing
Max
imum
sc
ore
is 3
2
5.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG d
oes
not
have
an
adve
rse
or d
iscl
aim
er a
udit
opin
ion
for
the
prev
ious
FY.
Max
imum
sco
re is
10
If a
LG
has
a c
lean
aud
it op
inio
n, s
core
10
;
If a
LG
has
a q
ualifi
ed a
udit
opin
ion,
sco
re 5
If a
LG
has
an
adve
rse
or d
iscl
aim
er a
udit
opin
ion
for
the
prev
ious
FY,
sco
re 0
From
the
Offi
ce o
f th
e A
udito
r G
ener
al
(OAG
) ob
tain
and
rev
iew
the
list
of
LGs
whi
ch h
ave
been
aud
ited
to e
stab
lish
the
audi
t op
inio
n.
Not
e: T
he a
udit
resu
lts
are
supp
osed
to
be
read
y by
the
end
of
Dec
embe
r. Th
eref
ore,
thi
s w
ill b
e th
e la
st is
sue
to b
e re
view
ed in
Jan
uary
.
·A
udit
Repo
rt
18LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Min
imum
Con
diti
onSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
6.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as p
rovi
ded
info
rmat
ion
to t
he P
S/ST
on
the
stat
us o
f im
plem
enta
tion
of In
tern
al
Aud
itor
Gen
eral
and
Aud
itor
Gen
eral
fin
ding
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us fi
nanc
ial
year
by
end
of F
ebru
ary
(PFM
A s
. 11
2g).
Thi
s st
atem
ent
incl
udes
issu
es,
reco
mm
enda
tions
, and
act
ions
aga
inst
al
l find
ings
whe
re t
he In
tern
al A
udito
r an
d A
udito
r G
ener
al r
ecom
men
ded
the
Acc
ount
ing
Offi
cer
to a
ct (
PFM
Act
20
15).
Max
imum
sco
re is
10
If t
he L
G h
as p
rovi
ded
info
rmat
ion
to t
he P
S/ST
on
the
stat
us o
f im
plem
enta
tion
of In
tern
al A
udito
r G
ener
al a
nd
Aud
itor
Gen
eral
find
ings
for
the
prev
ious
fina
ncia
l yea
r by
en
d of
Feb
ruar
y (P
FMA
s. 1
1 2g
), s
core
10
or
else
0.
From
MoF
PED
’s In
vent
ory/
reco
rd o
f LG
sub
mis
sion
s of
sta
tem
ents
ent
itled
“A
ctio
ns t
o A
ddre
ss In
tern
al A
udito
r G
ener
al’s
find
ings
”, C
heck
whe
ther
a L
G
subm
itte
d a
com
plet
e re
spon
se t
o th
e In
tern
al A
udito
r an
d A
udito
r G
ener
al’s
re
port
(s).
MoF
PED
’s In
vent
ory
of L
G s
ubm
issi
ons
of
stat
emen
ts e
ntitl
ed
“Act
ions
to
Add
ress
In
tern
al A
udito
r G
ener
al’s
find
ings
”
7.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as s
ubm
itte
d an
an
nual
per
form
ance
con
trac
t by
Aug
ust
31st
of
the
curr
ent
FY
Max
imum
sco
re is
4
If t
he L
G h
as s
ubm
itte
d an
ann
ual p
erfo
rman
ce c
ontr
act
by A
ugus
t 31
st o
f th
e cu
rren
t FY
, sco
re 4
or
else
0.
From
MoF
PED
/BPE
D in
vent
ory/
sche
dule
of
LG
sub
mis
sion
s of
per
form
ance
co
ntra
cts,
che
ck d
ates
of
subm
issi
on a
nd
issu
ance
of
ackn
owle
dgem
ent
rece
ipts
.
MoF
PED
/BPE
D
inve
ntor
y/sc
hedu
le
of L
G s
ubm
issi
ons
of p
erfo
rman
ce
cont
ract
s
8.Ev
iden
ce
that
th
e LG
ha
s su
bmit
ted
the
Ann
ual P
erfo
rman
ce R
epor
t fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y on
or
befo
re A
ugus
t 31
, of
th
e cu
rren
t Fi
nanc
ial Y
ear
Max
imum
sco
re is
4
If t
he L
G h
as s
ubm
itte
d th
e A
nnua
l Pe
rfor
man
ce R
epor
t fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y on
or
befo
re A
ugus
t 31
, of
the
cur
rent
Fi
nanc
ial Y
ear,
scor
e 4
or e
lse
0.
From
MoF
PED
/BPE
D o
ffici
al r
ecor
d/in
vent
ory
of L
G s
ubm
issi
ons
of A
nnua
l Pe
rfor
man
ce R
epor
ts t
o M
oFPE
D, c
heck
th
e da
te M
oFPE
D r
ecei
ved
the
Ann
ual
Perf
orm
ance
Rep
ort.
MoF
PED
/BPE
D o
ffici
al
reco
rd/i
nven
tory
of
LG s
ubm
issi
ons
of
Ann
ual P
erfo
rman
ce
Repo
rts
9.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as s
ubm
itte
d Q
uart
erly
Bud
get
Perf
orm
ance
Rep
orts
(Q
BPRs
) fo
r al
l the
four
qua
rter
s of
the
pr
evio
us F
Y by
Aug
ust
31, o
f th
e cu
rren
t Fi
nanc
ial Y
ear
Max
imum
sco
re is
4
If t
he L
G h
as s
ubm
itte
d Q
uart
erly
Bud
get
Perf
orm
ance
Re
port
s (Q
BPRs
) fo
r al
l the
four
qua
rter
s of
the
pre
viou
s FY
by
Aug
ust
31, o
f th
e cu
rren
t Fi
nanc
ial Y
ear,
scor
e 4
or
else
0.
From
MoF
PED
/BPE
D o
ffici
al r
ecor
d/
inve
ntor
y of
LG
sub
mis
sion
s of
QBP
Rs
to M
oFPE
D, c
heck
the
dat
e M
oFPE
D
rece
ived
the
Qua
rter
ly P
erfo
rman
ce
Repo
rts:
Not
e: T
imel
y su
bmis
sion
of
each
qu
arte
rly
repo
rt is
not
a m
inim
um
cond
itio
n. H
owev
er, b
y A
ugus
t 31
, all
quar
terl
y re
port
s sh
ould
be
ava
ilabl
e).
MoF
PED
/BPE
D o
ffici
al
reco
rd/
inve
ntor
y of
LG
sub
mis
sion
s of
Qua
rter
ly B
udge
t Pe
rfor
man
ce R
epor
ts
19LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
8.2
Cro
sscu
ttin
g Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
res
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
A.
Loca
l G
over
nmen
t Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Resu
lts.
Max
imum
poi
nts:
14 p
oint
s on
thi
s th
emat
ic a
rea
1.Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Out
com
es o
f D
DEG
inve
stm
ents
Max
imum
4
poin
ts o
n th
is
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
·Ev
iden
ce t
hat
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
impl
emen
ted
usin
g D
DEG
fund
ing
are
func
tiona
l and
util
ized
as
per
the
purp
ose
of t
he p
roje
ct(s
):
·If
so:
Sco
re 4
or
else
0
From
the
Pla
nner
rec
eive
the
list
of
all p
roje
cts:
·Se
lect
a s
ampl
e of
3 p
revi
ousl
y co
mpl
eted
pro
ject
s,
e.g.
a c
lass
room
, hea
lth
cent
er, p
ark,
ser
vice
et
c. fu
nded
by
DD
EG a
nd r
evie
w if
the
str
uctu
re
or s
ervi
ce is
use
d by
ben
efici
arie
s as
per
des
ign/
pr
ofile
.
·AW
P fo
r pr
evio
us F
Y·
Ann
ual b
udge
t pe
rfor
man
ce r
epor
t fo
r pr
evio
us F
Y·
Revi
ew s
ampl
e of
3
proj
ects
fina
nced
by
DD
EG in
the
pre
viou
s FY
.
2.Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Perf
orm
ance
M
axim
um 6
po
ints
on
this
pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.I
f th
e av
erag
e sc
ore
in t
he o
vera
ll LL
G
perf
orm
ance
ass
essm
ent
incr
ease
d fr
om
prev
ious
ass
essm
ent5 :
o
by m
ore
than
10
%: S
core
3o
5-10
% in
crea
se: S
core
2o
Belo
w 5
% S
core
0
From
the
Pla
nner
rec
eive
and
rev
iew
:
·Th
e ap
prov
ed r
esul
ts fr
om t
he a
nnua
l per
form
ance
as
sess
men
ts o
f th
e LL
Gs
for
the
curr
ent
year
as
wel
l as
the
prev
ious
ass
essm
ent
year
.
·Pe
rfor
man
ce a
sses
smen
t re
sult
s fr
om t
he r
epor
t pr
oduc
ed b
y O
PM
·Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
DD
EG fu
nded
in
vest
men
t pr
ojec
ts im
plem
ente
d in
th
e pr
evio
us F
Y w
ere
com
plet
ed a
s pe
r pe
rfor
man
ce c
ontr
act
(wit
h AW
P) b
y en
d of
the
FY.
·If
10
0%
the
pro
ject
s w
ere
com
plet
ed :
Scor
e 3
·If
80
-99%
: Sco
re 2
·If
bel
ow 8
0%
: 0
From
MoF
PED
/BPE
D o
btai
n an
d re
view
the
ann
ual
perf
orm
ance
rep
ort
to:
·Id
entif
y pr
ojec
ts p
lann
ed t
o be
impl
emen
ted
in t
he
prev
ious
FY
·O
btai
n th
e A
nnua
l Per
form
ance
rep
ort
to id
entif
y pr
ojec
ts im
plem
ente
d·
Cal
cula
te p
erce
nt o
f pl
anne
d pr
ojec
ts t
hat
wer
e co
mpl
eted
.
·A
nnua
l bud
get
perf
orm
ance
rep
ort
3.In
vest
men
t Pe
rfor
man
ce
Max
imum
4
poin
ts o
n th
is
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
a.I
f th
e LG
bud
gete
d an
d sp
ent
all t
he
DD
EG fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y on
elig
ible
pr
ojec
ts/a
ctiv
ities
as
per
the
DD
EG
gran
t, b
udge
t, a
nd im
plem
enta
tion
guid
elin
es: S
core
26 o
r el
se s
core
0.
From
the
Pla
nner
obt
ain
a lis
t of
DD
EG p
roje
cts
and:
·A
sses
s w
heth
er t
hese
are
wit
hin
the
elig
ible
ex
pend
iture
s as
defi
ned
in t
he D
DEG
gui
delin
es.
·AW
P fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y·
Ann
ual b
udge
t pe
rfor
man
ce r
epor
t fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y·
DD
EG g
rant
gui
delin
es
for
the
prev
ious
FY
b.I
f th
e va
riat
ions
in t
he c
ontr
act
pric
e fo
r sa
mpl
e of
DD
EG fu
nded
infr
astr
uctu
re
inve
stm
ents
for
the
prev
ious
FY
are
wit
hin
+/-
20%
of
the
LG E
ngin
eers
es
timat
es, s
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
Wor
ks D
epar
tmen
t, o
btai
n an
d sa
mpl
e 3
(or
all i
f le
ss t
han
3) D
DEG
fund
ed p
roje
cts
for
the
prev
ious
FY
and
calc
ulat
e th
e va
riat
ions
in t
he
cont
ract
pri
ce t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
the
y ar
e al
l wit
hin
+/-
20%
of
the
LG E
ngin
eers
est
imat
es
·Sa
mpl
e D
DEG
fund
ed
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
for
the
last
FY
·C
ost
estim
ates
as
per
the
AWP
5 N
ote:
Sco
res
can
only
be
prov
ided
whe
n th
ere
has
been
tw
o ye
ars
of a
sses
smen
ts c
ondu
cted
of
LLG
s. H
ence
a L
G w
ill b
e av
aile
d a
scor
e 0
unt
il th
en. T
his
is s
imila
r fo
r al
l LG
s an
d w
ill
ther
efor
e no
t im
pact
on
the
gran
t al
loca
tions
for
each
LG
bef
ore
this
per
form
ance
mea
sure
kic
ks in
. 6
In c
ases
whe
re o
nly
one
scor
e is
pro
vide
d, “
othe
r in
stan
ces/
non-
fulfi
lmen
t of
the
tex
t” w
ill b
e ra
nked
as:
Sco
re 0
.
20LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
B. P
erfo
rman
ce
Repo
rtin
g an
d Pe
rfor
man
ce
Impr
ovem
ent
Max
imum
poi
nts:
12 p
oint
s on
thi
s th
emat
ic a
rea
4.A
ccur
acy
of r
epor
ted
info
rmat
ion
Max
imum
4
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a.E
vide
nce
that
info
rmat
ion
on t
he
posi
tions
fille
d in
LLG
s as
per
min
imum
st
affing
sta
ndar
ds is
acc
urat
e, s
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
HRM
Div
isio
n ob
tain
the
sta
ff s
truc
ture
and
st
aff li
sts
for
LLG
s:
·Ta
ke a
ran
dom
sam
ple
of 3
LLG
s an
d re
view
w
heth
er t
he s
taffi
ng is
in p
lace
as
per
the
min
imum
st
anda
rds
and
staff
list
·LL
G S
taff
list
s fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
a.E
vide
nce
that
infr
astr
uctu
re c
onst
ruct
ed
usin
g th
e D
DEG
is in
pla
ce a
s pe
r re
port
s pr
oduc
ed b
y th
e LG
: ·
If 1
00
% in
pla
ce: S
core
2, e
lse
scor
e 0
.
Not
e: if
the
re a
re n
o re
port
s pr
oduc
ed t
o re
view
: Sco
re 0
From
the
Pla
nner
rec
eive
and
rev
iew
:
·W
heth
er t
here
are
rep
orts
on
infr
astr
uctu
re
cons
truc
ted
·Ta
ke r
ando
m s
ampl
e of
3 in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s co
mpl
eted
last
yea
r or
und
er c
ompl
etio
n an
d co
mpa
re t
he a
ctua
l lev
el o
f co
mpl
etio
n w
ith
the
repo
rts.
·AW
P·
Repo
rts
·Sa
mpl
e of
3 p
roje
cts.
5.Re
port
ing
and
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t7
Max
imum
8
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
con
duct
ed a
cr
edib
le a
sses
smen
t of
LLG
s as
ver
ified
du
ring
the
Nat
iona
l Loc
al G
over
nmen
t Pe
rfor
man
ce A
sses
smen
t Ex
erci
se.
o If
the
re is
not
diff
eren
ce in
the
as
sess
men
t re
sult
s of
the
LG
and
na
tiona
l ass
essm
ent
in a
ll LL
Gs
scor
e 4
or e
lse
0.
From
the
Pla
nner
:
·Re
ceiv
e th
e re
sult
s fr
om t
he L
LGs
perf
orm
ance
as
sess
men
t m
ade
by t
he n
atio
nal a
sses
smen
t fir
m a
nd t
he d
istr
ict/
mun
icip
ality
. Com
pare
and
de
term
ine
if th
ere
is a
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
the
two.
(Not
e on
ly a
pplic
able
whe
n th
e sy
stem
of
LLG
a
sses
smen
ts h
as
been
intr
oduc
ed)
·A
sses
smen
t re
sult
s co
nduc
ted
by t
he
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
ity·
Ass
essm
ent
resu
lts
from
th
e N
atio
nal A
sses
smen
t Te
am
b.T
he D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
ality
has
dev
elop
ed
perf
orm
ance
impr
ovem
ent
plan
s fo
r at
le
ast
30%
of
the
low
est
perf
orm
ing
LLG
s fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
, bas
ed o
n th
e pr
evio
us
asse
ssm
ent
resu
lts.
Sco
re: 2
or
else
sco
re
0c.T
he D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
ality
has
im
plem
ente
d th
e PI
P fo
r th
e 30
% lo
wes
t pe
rfor
min
g LL
Gs
in t
he p
revi
ous
FY:
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
HRM
div
isio
n ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
·Th
e pe
rfor
man
ce im
prov
emen
t pl
ans
and
impl
emen
tatio
n re
cord
s to
ass
ess
whe
ther
30
%
of t
he lo
wes
t pe
rfor
man
ce L
LGs
as d
eter
min
ed in
th
e la
st L
G P
A h
ave
been
tar
gete
d in
pla
nnin
g an
d ac
tual
exe
cutio
n.
Not
e on
ly a
pplic
able
whe
n th
e sy
stem
of
LLG
a
sses
smen
ts h
as
been
intr
oduc
ed)
·Th
e LG
PA
rep
ort
·Pe
rfor
man
ce
impr
ovem
ent
plan
s·
Impl
emen
tatio
n an
d pr
ogre
ss r
epor
ts
7 N
ote:
For
par
ts o
f th
is p
erfo
rman
ce m
easu
re, p
oint
s ca
n on
ly b
e gi
ven
in t
he s
ubse
quen
t as
sess
men
ts. H
owev
er, u
ntil
achi
evem
ent,
rat
e 0
sho
uld
be g
iven
. Th
is is
sim
ilar
for
all L
Gs,
and
will
the
refo
re n
ot
impa
ct o
n th
e re
lativ
e sc
ores
and
gra
nt a
lloca
tions
bef
ore
the
syst
em o
f LL
G a
sses
smen
t is
intr
oduc
ed.
21LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
C.
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
and
Dev
elop
men
t
Max
imum
poi
nts:
9 po
ints
on
this
th
emat
ic a
rea
6.B
udge
ting
for
and
actu
al r
ecru
itm
ent
and
depl
oym
ent
of s
taff
Max
imum
2
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a. E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
con
solid
ated
an
d su
bmit
ted
the
staffi
ng r
equi
rem
ents
fo
r th
e co
min
g FY
to
the
MoP
S by
Se
ptem
ber
30th
, wit
h co
py t
o th
e re
spec
tive
MD
As
and
MoF
PED.
Sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
MoP
S
·O
btai
n th
e le
tter
s fr
om t
he H
LG w
ith
the
requ
este
d st
affing
req
uire
men
ts a
nd r
evie
w t
he t
imin
g of
the
su
bmis
sion
.
Not
e on
tim
ing:
If a
sses
smen
t is
con
duct
ed in
e.g
. O
ctob
er 2
020
, the
sub
mis
sion
dea
dlin
e is
the
mon
th
befo
re (
30th
Sep
t 20
20)
for
the
staffi
ng r
equi
rem
ents
fo
r th
e co
min
g FY
(20
21/2
2).
·LG
Sta
ff r
equi
rem
ent
lett
ers
to M
oPS
7.Pe
rfor
man
ce
man
agem
ent
Max
imum
5
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
ality
ha
s co
nduc
ted
a tr
acki
ng a
nd a
naly
sis
of s
taff
att
enda
nce
(as
guid
ed b
y M
inis
try
of P
ublic
Ser
vice
CSI
):
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
HRM
Div
isio
n ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
·Tr
acki
ng r
epor
ts a
nd a
naly
sis
of s
taff
att
enda
nce
as
per
guid
elin
es b
y M
PS C
SI
·Tr
acki
ng r
epor
ts a
nd
anal
ysis
b.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
con
duct
ed a
n ap
prai
sal w
ith
the
follo
win
g fe
atur
es:
i. H
oDs
have
bee
n ap
prai
sed
as p
er
guid
elin
es is
sued
by
MoP
S du
ring
the
pr
evio
us F
Y: S
core
1, o
r el
se 0
ii.
(in
add
ition
to
“a”
abov
e) h
as a
lso
impl
emen
ted
adm
inis
trat
ive
rew
ards
and
sa
nctio
ns o
n tim
e as
pro
vide
d fo
r in
the
gu
idel
ines
: Sco
re 1
or
else
0iii
. Has
est
ablis
hed
a C
onsu
ltativ
e C
omm
itte
e (C
C)
for
staff
gri
evan
ce
redr
ess
whi
ch is
func
tiona
l. Sc
ore
1 or
el
se 0
From
the
HRM
Div
isio
n ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
·Re
view
per
sonn
el fi
les
to a
sses
s w
heth
er t
he H
oDs
wer
e ap
prai
sed
duri
ng t
he p
revi
ous
FY.
·W
heth
er a
dmin
istr
ativ
e re
war
ds a
nd s
anct
ions
wer
e im
plem
ente
d,
·an
d w
heth
er a
CC
for
staff
gri
evan
ce h
as b
een
esta
blis
hed
and
is o
pera
tiona
l (i.e
. has
con
side
red
case
s).
·St
aff s
truc
ture
s·
Staff
list
s·
Perf
orm
ance
pla
n·
App
rais
al r
epor
ts·
Pers
onne
l file
s·
List
of
mem
bers
of
the
cons
ulta
tive
com
mit
tee
and
min
utes
of
its
mee
tings
8.Pa
yrol
l m
anag
emen
t
Max
imum
1
poin
t on
thi
s Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
a. E
vide
nce
that
10
0%
of
the
staff
rec
ruite
d du
ring
the
pre
viou
s FY
hav
e ac
cess
ed t
he
sala
ry p
ayro
ll no
t la
ter
than
tw
o m
onth
s af
ter
appo
intm
ent:
Sco
re 1
.
From
the
HRM
Uni
t ob
tain
:·
The
list
of a
ll st
aff t
hat
wer
e re
crui
ted
and
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er t
hey
acce
ssed
the
sal
ary
payr
oll
duri
ng t
he p
revi
ous
FY, n
ot la
ter
than
2 m
onth
s af
ter
appo
intm
ent
·Sa
lary
pay
roll
·Re
crui
ted
staff
list
s
22LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
9.Pe
nsio
n Pa
yrol
l m
anag
emen
t
Max
imum
1
poin
t on
thi
s Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
a. E
vide
nce
that
10
0%
of
staff
tha
t re
tired
du
ring
the
pre
viou
s FY
hav
e ac
cess
ed
the
pens
ion
payr
oll n
ot la
ter
than
tw
o m
onth
s af
ter
retir
emen
t: S
core
1.
From
the
HRM
Uni
t ob
tain
the
list
of
staff
tha
t re
tired
du
ring
the
pre
viou
s FY
. Obt
ain
the
pens
ion
payr
oll t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
sta
ff a
cces
sed
the
pens
ion
payr
oll
wit
hin
two
mon
ths
of r
etir
emen
t.
·Pe
nsio
n pa
yrol
l ·
Retir
ed s
taff
list
D. M
anag
emen
t,
Mon
itori
ng a
nd
Supe
rvis
ion
of
Serv
ices
.
Max
imum
poi
nts:
10
poi
nts
on t
his
them
atic
are
a
10.
Effec
tive
Plan
ning
, B
udge
ting
and
Tran
sfer
of
Fund
s fo
r Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Max
imum
6
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a.I
f di
rect
tra
nsfe
rs (
DD
EG)
to L
LGs
wer
e ex
ecut
ed in
acc
orda
nce
wit
h th
e re
quir
emen
ts o
f th
e bu
dget
in p
revi
ous
FY:
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
CFO
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·W
heth
er D
DEG
to
LLG
s w
ere
tran
sfer
red
in fu
ll as
pe
r th
e re
quir
emen
ts in
the
bud
get
for
the
prev
ious
FY
.
·A
nnua
l wor
k-pl
an a
nd
budg
et·
Rele
ase
lett
ers
·D
ocum
enta
tion
for
tran
sfer
of
fund
s
b.I
f th
e LG
did
tim
ely
war
rant
ing/
ve
rific
atio
n of
dir
ect
DD
EG t
rans
fers
to
LLG
s fo
r th
e la
st F
Y, in
acc
orda
nce
to t
he
requ
irem
ents
of
the
budg
et:
Scor
e: 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
CFO
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·Fr
om t
he C
FO/S
FO o
btai
n an
d re
view
rec
ords
of
whe
n w
arra
ntin
g/ve
rific
atio
n w
as d
one
for
the
prev
ious
FY
rele
ases
of
dire
ct D
DEG
tra
nsfe
rs t
o LL
Gs
and
revi
ew w
heth
er t
hese
wer
e co
nduc
ted
timel
y (N
ote:
Tim
ely
war
rant
ing
for
a LG
mea
ns: 5
w
orki
ng d
ays
from
the
dat
e of
rec
eipt
of
rele
ases
fr
om M
oFPE
D)
.
·C
opie
s of
war
rant
s su
bmit
ted
to M
oFPE
D fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y
c.I
f th
e LG
invo
iced
and
com
mun
icat
ed
all D
DEG
tra
nsfe
rs fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y to
LL
Gs
wit
hin
5 w
orki
ng d
ays
from
the
dat
e of
fund
s re
leas
e in
eac
h qu
arte
r:
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
MoF
PED
obt
ain
and
revi
ew t
he L
LG a
lloca
tion
rele
ase
brea
kdow
ns fo
r al
l the
4 q
uart
ers
of t
he
prev
ious
FY;
From
the
CFO
obt
ain
quar
terl
y co
rres
pond
ence
issu
ed
by C
AO/T
C t
o LL
Gs
on D
DEG
rel
ease
s.
From
3 s
ampl
ed L
LGs,
obt
ain
and
chec
k th
e da
tes
of
invo
icin
g an
d co
rres
pond
ence
from
CAO
/TC
:
·Es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
, for
eac
h qu
arte
r, th
e C
AO/T
C
invo
iced
and
com
mun
icat
ed r
elea
ses
to L
LGs
wit
hin
5 w
orki
ng d
ays
from
the
rel
ease
dat
e.
·LL
G a
lloca
tion
rele
ase
brea
kdow
ns fo
r al
l the
4
quar
ters
of
the
prev
ious
FY
·C
AO/T
C q
uart
erly
co
rres
pond
ence
to
LLG
s on
DD
EG r
elea
ses
·LL
G r
ecor
ds o
n re
ceip
t of
D
DEG
rel
ease
s
23LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
11.
Rout
ine
over
sigh
t an
d m
onito
ring
Max
imum
4
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a.E
vide
nce
that
the
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
ity
has
supe
rvis
ed o
r m
ento
red
all L
LGs
in
the
Dis
tric
t /M
unic
ipal
ity a
t le
ast
once
pe
r qu
arte
r co
nsis
tent
wit
h gu
idel
ines
: Sc
ore
2 or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
Pla
nner
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·Th
e su
perv
isio
n or
men
tori
ng r
epor
ts t
o as
sess
w
heth
er a
ll LL
Gs
have
bee
n su
perv
ised
or
men
tore
d at
leas
t qu
arte
rly.
·Fi
eld
mon
itori
ng r
epor
ts
b.E
vide
nce
that
the
res
ults
/rep
orts
of
supp
ort
supe
rvis
ion
and
mon
itori
ng
visi
ts w
ere
disc
usse
d in
the
TPC
, use
d by
the
Dis
tric
t/ M
unic
ipal
ity t
o m
ake
reco
mm
enda
tions
for
corr
ectiv
e ac
tions
an
d fo
llow
ed-u
p: S
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
Pla
nner
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·W
heth
er t
he m
onito
ring
rep
orts
wer
e di
scus
sed
in
the
TPC
and
evi
denc
e fo
r co
rrec
tive
actio
ns a
nd
follo
w-u
p (e
ach
quar
terl
y m
eetin
g sh
ould
dis
cuss
an
d fo
llow
-up
on fi
ndin
gs).
·Fi
eld
mon
itori
ng r
epor
ts·
Min
utes
from
mee
tings
in
TPC
·C
orre
spon
denc
e to
LL
Gs
from
the
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
ity o
n co
rrec
tive
actio
ns t
o ta
ke
(adm
inis
trat
ive
circ
ular
s)
E. I
nves
tmen
t M
anag
emen
t
Max
imum
poi
nts:
20 p
oint
s on
thi
s th
emat
ic a
rea
12.
Plan
ning
and
bu
dget
ing
for
inve
stm
ents
is
con
duct
ed
effec
tivel
y
Max
imum
12
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a.E
vide
nce
that
the
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
ity
mai
ntai
ns a
n up
-dat
ed a
sset
s re
gist
er
cove
ring
det
ails
on
build
ings
, veh
icle
, etc
. as
per
form
at in
the
acc
ount
ing
man
ual:
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
scor
e 0
Not
e: t
he a
sset
s co
vere
d m
ust
incl
ude,
bu
t no
t lim
ited
to: l
and,
bui
ldin
gs,
veh
icle
s an
d in
fra
stru
ctur
e. If
tho
se c
ore
ass
ets
are
mis
sing
sco
re 0
From
CFO
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·W
heth
er t
he a
sset
s re
gist
er c
over
s al
l ass
ets
and
is
up t
o da
te (
note
eve
n if
a LG
is o
n IF
MIS
, it
mus
t be
ab
le t
o pr
int
out
the
asse
ts r
egis
ter)
·A
sset
s re
gist
er a
nd
prin
ts fr
om e
.g. I
FMIS
b.E
vide
nce
that
the
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
ity
has
used
the
Boa
rd o
f Su
rvey
Rep
ort
of t
he p
revi
ous
FY t
o m
ake
Ass
ets
Man
agem
ent
deci
sion
s in
clud
ing
proc
urem
ent
of n
ew a
sset
s, m
aint
enan
ce
of e
xist
ing
asse
ts a
nd d
ispo
sal o
f as
sets
: Sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
From
the
CFO
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·W
heth
er t
he B
oard
of
Surv
ey R
epor
t an
d/or
th
e as
sets
str
ateg
ic p
lan
of t
he p
revi
ous
FY w
as
used
as
a so
urce
of
guid
ance
on
proc
urem
ent,
m
aint
enan
ce, a
nd d
ispo
sal o
f as
sets
.
·Bo
ard
of S
urve
y Re
port
fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y·
Ass
ets
stra
tegi
c pl
an
24LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
c.
Evid
ence
tha
t D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
ality
ha
s a
func
tion
al p
hysi
cal p
lann
ing
com
mit
tee
in p
lace
whi
ch h
as
subm
itte
d at
leas
t 4
sets
of
min
utes
of
Phy
sica
l Pla
nnin
g C
omm
itte
e to
the
M
oLH
UD.
If s
o Sc
ore
2. O
ther
wis
e Sc
ore
0.
From
MoL
HU
D e
stab
lish
whe
ther
the
dis
tric
t/ M
LG
subm
itte
d at
leas
t 4
sets
of
min
utes
of
Phys
ical
Pl
anni
ng C
omm
itte
e to
the
MoL
HU
D.
From
the
Phy
sica
l Pla
nner
obt
ain
and
rev
iew
(no
t fo
r sc
orin
g):
·W
heth
er t
he c
omm
ittee
ha
s su
bmitt
ed a
Phy
sica
l D
evel
opm
ent
Plan
tha
t w
as
appr
oved
by
Cou
ncil
to
the
Nat
iona
l Phy
sica
l Pla
nnin
g Bo
ard.
·Li
st o
f th
e m
embe
rs o
f th
e Ph
ysic
al P
lann
ing
Com
mitt
ee t
o es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
it is
pro
perl
y an
d fu
lly c
onst
itute
d.·
Bui
ldin
g Pl
an, R
egis
trat
ion
Book
and
min
utes
of
phys
ica
l pla
nnin
g co
mm
ittee
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er
all
the
subm
issi
ons
for
new
inve
stm
ents
wer
e co
nsid
ered
with
in 3
0 d
ays
afte
r su
bmis
sion
·A
ppro
ved
Phys
ical
D
evel
opm
ent
Plan
·A
ppro
ved
Ann
ual w
ork
plan
·Pl
ans
subm
issi
on r
egis
ter
·M
inut
es o
f th
e ph
ysic
al
plan
ning
com
mit
tee
·M
inut
es o
f N
atio
nal
Phys
ical
Pla
nnin
g Bo
ard
·A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
for
the
mem
bers
of
Phys
ical
Pl
anni
ng C
omm
itte
es
For
DD
EG fi
nanc
ed p
roje
cts:
d.E
vide
nce
that
the
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
ity
has
cond
ucte
d a
desk
app
rais
al fo
r al
l pr
ojec
ts in
the
bud
get
- to
est
ablis
h w
heth
er t
he p
rior
itize
d in
vest
men
ts a
re:
(i)
deri
ved
from
the
LG
Dev
elop
men
t Pl
an; (
ii) e
ligib
le fo
r ex
pend
iture
as
per
sect
or g
uide
lines
and
fund
ing
sour
ce (
e.g.
DD
EG).
If d
esk
appr
aisa
l is
cond
ucte
d an
d if
all p
roje
cts
are
deri
ved
from
the
LG
DP:
Sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
pla
nner
obt
ain
and
revi
ew d
esk
appr
aisa
l re
port
s:
·Es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
the
des
k ap
prai
sals
wer
e co
nduc
ted
and
if in
vest
men
ts w
ere
deri
ved
from
th
e LG
Dev
elop
men
t Pl
an.
·LG
Dev
elop
men
t Pl
an·
App
rais
al r
epor
ts (
desk
ap
prai
sals
)·
Scre
enin
g no
tes
For
DD
EG fi
nanc
ed p
roje
cts:
e.E
vide
nce
that
LG
con
duct
ed fi
eld
appr
aisa
l to
chec
k fo
r (i
) te
chni
cal
feas
ibili
ty, (
ii) E
nvir
onm
enta
l and
soc
ial
acce
ptab
ility
and
(iii
) cu
stom
ized
des
ign
for
inve
stm
ent
proj
ects
of
the
prev
ious
FY
: Sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
Pla
nner
sam
ple
and
revi
ew:
·3
proj
ects
(or
all
if le
ss)
to c
heck
whe
ther
fiel
d ap
prai
sals
wer
e co
nduc
ted
and
if sc
rutin
y fo
r te
chni
cal f
easi
bilit
y en
viro
nmen
tal a
nd s
ocia
lly
acce
ptab
ility
and
des
igns
cus
tom
ized
for
inve
stm
ent
proj
ects
was
don
e.
·Fieldap
praisalrep
orts
25LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
f.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
proj
ect
profi
les
wit
h co
stin
g ha
ve b
een
deve
lope
d an
d di
scus
sed
by T
PC fo
r al
l inv
estm
ents
in
the
AWP
for
the
curr
ent
FY, a
s pe
r LG
Pl
anni
ng g
uide
line
and
DD
EG g
uide
lines
: Sc
ore
1 or
els
e sc
ore
0.
From
the
pla
nner
che
ck w
heth
er:
·Th
e m
inut
es fr
om t
he T
PC in
dica
te t
hat
all p
roje
ct
profi
les
for
inve
stm
ents
wer
e di
scus
sed
by t
he T
PC
and
chec
k w
heth
er t
hey
adhe
re t
o th
e fo
rmat
s in
the
LG
pla
nnin
g gu
idel
ine
(use
a s
ampl
e of
3
proj
ects
).
·M
inut
es o
f TP
C·
AWP
·Pr
ojec
t ap
prai
sal r
epor
ts·
Plan
ning
gui
delin
es·
Proj
ect
profi
les
g.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
scr
eene
d fo
r en
viro
nmen
tal a
nd s
ocia
l ris
ks/i
mpa
ct
and
put
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res
whe
re
requ
ired
bef
ore
bein
g ap
prov
ed fo
r co
nstr
uctio
n us
ing
chec
klis
ts: S
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r re
view
:
·W
heth
er t
he L
G d
urin
g th
e de
sk a
nd fi
eld-
base
d ap
prai
sals
and
had
scr
eene
d pr
ojec
ts fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
for
envi
ronm
enta
l and
soc
ial i
mpa
ct a
nd
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res
put
in p
lace
whe
re r
equi
red.
(s
ampl
e 3
inve
stm
ent
proj
ects
, or
all p
roje
cts
if th
e LG
has
less
pro
ject
s)
·A
ppra
isal
rep
orts
(de
sk
and
field
app
rais
als)
·LG
DP
·Fi
lled
E&S
Scre
enin
g fo
rms
·M
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s·
Sam
pled
pro
ject
s
13.
Proc
urem
ent,
co
ntra
ct
man
agem
ent/
exec
utio
n
Max
imum
8
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a.E
vide
nce
that
all
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
for
the
curr
ent
FY t
o be
impl
emen
ted
usin
g th
e D
DEG
wer
e in
corp
orat
ed in
the
LG
app
rove
d pr
ocur
emen
t pl
an S
core
1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
Pro
cure
men
t U
nit
obta
in a
nd r
evie
w:
·Th
e pr
ocur
emen
t pl
an a
nd c
heck
tha
t it
is a
s pe
r re
gula
tions
and
tha
t it
cove
rs a
ll in
vest
men
ts
·Pr
ocur
emen
t pl
an fo
r cu
rren
t FY
b.E
vide
nce
that
all
infr
astr
uctu
re
proj
ects
to
be im
plem
ente
d in
the
cu
rren
t FY
usi
ng D
DEG
wer
e ap
prov
ed
by t
he C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee
befo
re
com
men
cem
ent
of c
onst
ruct
ion:
Sco
re 1
or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
PD
U o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
·M
inut
es fr
om t
he m
eetin
gs in
the
con
trac
ts
com
mit
tee
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er a
ll D
DEG
in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s an
d th
e re
spec
tive
bidd
ing
docu
men
ts w
ere
appr
oved
bef
ore
com
men
cem
ent.
(s
ampl
e 3
proj
ects
)
·M
inut
es fr
om t
he
Con
trac
t C
omm
itte
e
c.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
pro
perl
y es
tabl
ishe
d th
e Pr
ojec
t Im
plem
enta
tion
team
as
spec
ified
in t
he s
ecto
r gu
idel
ines
: Sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
From
the
PD
U o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
·W
heth
er t
he L
G h
as e
stab
lishe
d th
e Pr
ojec
t Im
plem
enta
tion
Team
8 (PI
T) a
s pe
r gu
idel
ines
. ·
Con
trac
t M
anag
emen
t Pl
an in
pla
ce
·C
opie
s of
lett
ers
from
th
e C
AO/T
C d
esig
natin
g m
embe
rs o
f th
e Pr
ojec
t Im
plem
enta
tion
Team
.
8 T
he p
roje
ct im
plem
enta
tion
team
com
pris
es o
f: (
i) C
ontr
act
Man
ager
; (ii)
Pro
ject
Man
ager
; (iii
) cl
erk
of w
orks
, Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r, C
omm
unity
Dev
elop
men
t O
ffice
r &
Lab
our
Offi
cer
26LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
d.E
vide
nce
that
all
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
impl
emen
ted
usin
g D
DEG
follo
wed
the
st
anda
rd t
echn
ical
des
igns
pro
vide
d by
th
e LG
Eng
inee
r: S
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
Wor
ks D
epar
tmen
t ob
tain
info
rmat
ion
and
revi
ew:
·A
sam
ple
3 pr
ojec
ts im
plem
ente
d by
DD
EG fu
nds
and
revi
ew e
vide
nce
that
pro
ject
s im
plem
ente
d fo
llow
ed t
he t
echn
ical
des
igns
(al
so r
evie
w if
the
re
are
e.g.
no
maj
or o
r m
inor
def
ects
suc
h as
sur
face
cr
acks
in fl
oor
scre
ed, s
plas
h ap
ron
and
mas
onry
w
orks
, pee
ling
of fi
nish
es o
ff m
ason
ry s
urfa
ces
and
case
s of
poo
r fin
ishi
ng o
f w
orks
, gri
lle d
oor
off h
inge
s an
d no
han
dles
on
man
hole
cov
ers
etc
wer
e vi
sibl
e in
the
pro
ject
faci
litie
s in
the
sam
pled
pr
ojec
ts).
·Fi
eld
revi
ews
·C
ompl
etio
n re
port
s
e.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
p
rovi
ded
supe
rvis
ion
by t
he r
elev
ant
tech
nica
l offi
cers
of
each
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
ct
prio
r to
ver
ifica
tion
and
cert
ifica
tion
of
wor
ks in
pre
viou
s FY
. Sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re
0
From
the
dis
tric
t/m
unic
ipal
eng
inee
r ob
tain
and
re
view
:
·W
heth
er t
he t
echn
ical
offi
cers
(D
E/M
E,
envi
ronm
enta
l offi
cer,
CD
O)
have
sup
ervi
sed
each
pr
ojec
t (s
ite m
eetin
gs w
ith
cont
ract
ors)
pri
or t
o ve
rific
atio
n an
d ce
rtifi
catio
n of
wor
ks·
Revi
ew a
sam
ple
of 3
pro
ject
s w
hich
all
mus
t co
mpl
y.
·Pr
ocur
emen
t fil
es·
AWP
·C
ertifi
catio
n fil
es·
Com
plet
ion
cert
ifica
tes
·Si
gned
E&
S co
mpl
ianc
e ce
rtifi
catio
n fo
rms
·Su
perv
isio
n re
port
s
f.Th
e LG
has
ver
ified
wor
ks (
cert
ified
) an
d in
itiat
ed p
aym
ents
of
cont
ract
ors
wit
hin
spec
ified
tim
efra
mes
as
per
cont
ract
(w
ithi
n 2
mon
ths
if no
agr
eem
ent)
: Sco
re
1 or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
Pro
cure
men
t U
nit
obta
in a
nd r
evie
w:
·A
ll th
e w
orks
pro
cure
men
t fil
es fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y an
d de
term
ine
whe
ther
the
y w
ere
appr
opri
atel
y ce
rtifi
ed i.
e. in
teri
m a
nd c
ompl
etio
n ce
rtifi
cate
s is
sued
for
all p
roje
cts
base
d on
tec
hnic
al
supe
rvis
ion
and
whe
ther
the
con
trac
ts a
re p
aid
wit
hin
spec
ified
tim
e.
·Pr
ocur
emen
t fil
es·
AWP
·C
ertifi
catio
n fil
es·
Com
plet
ion
cert
ifica
tes
g.T
he L
G h
as a
com
plet
e pr
ocur
emen
t fil
e in
pla
ce fo
r ea
ch c
ontr
act
wit
h al
l rec
ords
as
req
uire
d by
the
PPD
A L
aw: S
core
1 o
r el
se 0
From
the
Pro
cure
men
t U
nit
revi
ew:
·Th
e co
ntra
cts
regi
ster
and
che
ck w
heth
er t
here
are
co
mpl
eted
file
s fo
r al
l pro
cure
men
ts (
sam
ple)
.
·Pr
ocur
emen
t Pl
an fo
r cu
rren
t FY
·C
ontr
acts
reg
iste
r ·
Proc
urem
ent
files
27LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
F. E
nvir
onm
ent
and
Soci
al
Safe
guar
ds.
Max
imum
poi
nts:
16 p
oint
s on
thi
s th
emat
ic a
rea
14.
Gri
evan
ce r
edre
ss
mec
hani
sm
oper
atio
nal.
Max
imum
5
poin
ts o
n th
is
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
a.E
vide
nce
that
the
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
ity
has
i) d
esig
nate
d a
pers
on t
o co
ordi
nate
re
spon
se t
o fe
ed-b
ack
(gri
evan
ce /
com
plai
nts)
and
ii)
esta
blis
hed
a ce
ntra
lized
Gri
evan
ce R
edre
ss
Com
mit
tee
(GRC
), w
ith
optio
nal c
o-op
tion
of r
elev
ant
depa
rtm
enta
l hea
ds/
staff
as
rele
vant
sco
re: 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
des
igna
ted
Gri
evan
ce R
edre
ss C
oord
inat
or
obta
in in
form
atio
n, e
stab
lish:
·W
heth
er t
he L
G h
as d
esig
nate
d a
pers
on a
nd t
hat
ther
e is
evi
denc
e th
at t
he r
espo
nsib
le p
erso
n ha
s be
en d
esig
nate
d to
coo
rdin
ate
resp
onse
to
the
feed
back
/com
plai
nts
and
whe
ther
a c
entr
aliz
ed
GRC
has
bee
n es
tabl
ishe
d.
·Le
tter
des
igna
ting
the
pers
on in
clud
ing
the
task
s·
Min
utes
from
the
GRC
b.T
he L
G h
as s
peci
fied
a sy
stem
for
reco
rdin
g, in
vest
igat
ing
and
resp
ondi
ng
to g
riev
ance
s, w
hich
incl
udes
a
cent
raliz
ed c
ompl
aint
s lo
g w
ith
clea
r in
form
atio
n an
d re
fere
nce
for
onw
ard
actio
n (a
defi
ned
com
plai
nts
refe
rral
pa
th),
and
pub
lic d
ispl
ay o
f in
form
atio
n
at d
istr
ict/
mun
icip
al o
ffice
s. I
f so
: Sco
re
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
des
igna
ted
pers
on o
btai
n in
form
atio
n on
w
heth
er t
he d
istr
ict
/mun
icip
ality
has
:
·A
spe
cifie
d sy
stem
for
reco
rdin
g, in
vest
igat
ing
and
resp
ondi
ng t
o gr
ieva
nces
, whi
ch in
clud
es a
ce
ntra
lized
com
plai
nts
log
wit
h cl
ear
info
rmat
ion
and
refe
renc
e fo
r on
war
d ac
tion
(a d
efine
d co
mpl
aint
s re
ferr
al p
ath)
, an
d th
e pu
blic
dis
play
of
info
rmat
ion
at
dist
rict
/mun
icip
al o
ffice
s.
·Fo
rmal
des
crip
tion
of t
he
CRD
sys
tem
;·
Cen
tral
ized
com
plai
nts
log;
·W
eb-s
its,
pub
lic d
ispl
ay
stan
ds
c.D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
ality
has
pub
liciz
ed t
he
grie
vanc
e re
dres
s m
echa
nism
s so
tha
t ag
grie
ved
part
ies
know
whe
re t
o re
port
an
d ge
t re
dres
s. If
so:
Sco
re 1
or
else
0
From
the
web
site
s or
oth
er p
ublic
mea
ns r
evie
w:
·W
heth
er t
he D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
ality
has
pub
liciz
ed
the
grie
vanc
e re
dres
s m
echa
nism
s so
tha
t ag
grie
ved
part
ies
know
whe
re t
o re
port
and
get
re
dres
s
·W
ebsi
tes
·Pu
blic
dis
play
sta
nds
15.
Safe
guar
ds fo
r se
rvic
e de
liver
y of
inve
stm
ents
eff
ectiv
ely
hand
led.
Max
imum
11
poin
ts o
n th
is
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t En
viro
nmen
t, S
ocia
l and
C
limat
e ch
ange
inte
rven
tions
hav
e be
en in
tegr
ated
into
LG
Dev
elop
men
t Pl
ans,
ann
ual w
ork
plan
s an
d bu
dget
s co
mpl
ied
wit
h: S
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0b.
Evid
ence
tha
t LG
s ha
ve d
isse
min
ated
to
LLG
s th
e en
hanc
ed D
DEG
gui
delin
es
(str
eng
then
ed t
o in
clud
e en
viro
nmen
t,
clim
ate
chan
ge m
itiga
tion
(gre
en
infr
astr
uctu
res,
was
te m
anag
emen
t eq
uipm
ent
and
infr
astr
uctu
res)
and
ad
apta
tion
and
soci
al r
isk
man
agem
ent
scor
e 1
or e
lse
0
From
the
pla
nner
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·W
heth
er t
he E
nvir
onm
ent,
Soc
ial a
nd C
limat
e ch
ange
inte
rven
tions
hav
e be
en in
tegr
ated
into
LG
D
evel
opm
ent
Plan
s, a
nnua
l wor
k pl
ans
and
budg
ets
(sel
ect
a sa
mpl
e of
3 in
vest
men
ts fo
r re
view
and
all
mus
t co
mpl
y to
get
a s
core
)·
Whe
ther
enh
ance
d D
DEG
gui
delin
es h
ave
been
di
ssem
inat
ed t
o LL
Gs
·LG
Dev
elop
men
t Pl
an·
AWP
·B
udge
ts·
Enha
nced
DD
EG
guid
elin
es
28LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
(For
inve
stm
ents
fina
nced
from
the
DD
EG
othe
r th
an h
ealt
h, e
duca
tion,
wat
er, a
nd
irri
gatio
n):
c.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
inco
rpor
ated
co
sted
Env
iron
men
t an
d So
cial
M
anag
emen
t Pl
ans
(ESM
Ps)
into
de
sign
s, B
oQs,
bid
ding
and
con
trac
tual
do
cum
ents
for
DD
EG in
fras
truc
ture
pr
ojec
ts o
f th
e pr
evio
us F
Y, w
here
ne
cess
ary:
sco
re 3
or
else
sco
re 0
d.
Exam
ples
of
proj
ects
wit
h co
stin
g of
the
ad
ditio
nal i
mpa
ct fr
om c
limat
e ch
ange
. Sc
ore
3 or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
tal O
ffice
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·Sc
reen
ing
form
s, c
ostin
g of
ESM
P, a
nd fr
om t
he
Proc
urem
ent
Uni
t w
heth
er t
he c
oste
d ES
MP
has
been
inco
rpor
ated
in t
he B
oQs,
and
con
trac
t/bi
ddin
g do
cum
ents
and
exa
mpl
es o
f co
stin
g of
ad
ditio
nal c
osts
of
addr
essi
ng c
limat
e ch
ange
ad
apta
tion.
·E
& S
Scr
eeni
ng fo
rms
·ES
IAs/
ESM
Ps·
BoQ
·B
iddi
ng d
ocum
ent
and
BoQ
inco
rpor
atin
g ES
HS
prov
isio
ns·
Con
trac
t do
cum
ents
e.
Evid
ence
tha
t al
l pro
ject
s ar
e im
plem
ente
d on
land
whe
re t
he
LG h
as p
roof
of
owne
rshi
p, a
cces
s,
and
avai
labi
lity
(e.g
. a la
nd t
itle,
ag
reem
ent;
For
mal
Con
sent
, MoU
s,
etc.
), w
itho
ut a
ny e
ncum
bran
ces:
Sco
re
1 or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r/C
DO
obt
ain:
·A
sam
ple
of a
t le
ast
3 pr
ojec
ts t
o ch
eck
whe
ther
th
ere
is p
roof
of
land
ow
ners
hip.
·EM
SP r
evie
w r
epor
ts·
Cer
tifica
tion
form
s·
Scre
enin
g fil
es.
f.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
envi
ronm
enta
l offi
cer
and
CD
O c
ondu
cts
supp
ort
supe
rvis
ion
and
mon
itori
ng t
o as
cert
ain
com
plia
nce
wit
h ES
MPs
; and
pro
vide
m
onth
ly r
epor
ts: S
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
tal O
ffice
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·ES
IAs/
ESM
Ps fo
r in
vest
men
t pr
ojec
ts·
E &
S m
onito
ring
rep
orts
·
Sam
ple
3 pr
ojec
ts w
hich
all
have
to
com
ply
to g
et
scor
e
·EM
SPs
· E
& S
mon
itori
ng r
epor
ts
g.
Evid
ence
tha
t E&
S co
mpl
ianc
e C
ertifi
catio
n fo
rms
are
com
plet
ed a
nd
sign
ed b
y En
viro
nmen
tal O
ffice
r an
d C
DO
pri
or t
o pa
ymen
ts o
f co
ntra
ctor
s’
invo
ices
/cer
tifica
tes
at in
teri
m a
nd
final
sta
ges
of p
roje
cts:
Sco
re 1
or
else
sc
ore
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
tal O
ffice
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·En
viro
nmen
tal a
nd S
ocia
l com
plia
nce
cert
ifica
tes
wit
h EO
’s s
igna
ture
·
Paym
ent
cert
ifica
te·
(sam
ple
3 pr
ojec
ts w
hich
all
mus
t co
mpl
y to
get
sc
ore)
.
·Si
gned
E &
S C
ompl
ianc
e C
ertifi
catio
n fo
rms
·
Mon
itori
ng r
epor
ts·
Paym
ent
reco
rds
29LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
G.
Fina
ncia
l M
anag
emen
t
Max
imum
poi
nts:
6 po
ints
on
this
th
emat
ic a
rea
16.
LG m
akes
m
onth
ly B
ank
reco
ncili
atio
ns
Max
imum
2
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a. E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
mak
es m
onth
ly
bank
rec
onci
liatio
ns a
nd a
re u
p to
-dat
e at
the
poi
nt o
f tim
e of
the
ass
essm
ent:
Sc
ore
2 or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
CFO
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·Ba
nk r
econ
cilia
tions
and
est
ablis
h th
at t
hey
are
done
and
up
to-d
ate.
(Not
e th
at u
p to
-dat
e m
eans
max
imum
of
one-
mon
th
dela
y). R
evie
w a
sam
ple
of m
onth
s, in
clud
ing
the
fina
l mon
th o
f th
e FY
. In
case
the
re a
re m
ulti
ple
bank
ac
coun
ts, m
ake
a sa
mpl
e of
3 o
f th
ese.
·Ba
nk r
econ
cilia
tions
fr
om p
revi
ous
FY a
nd
reco
ncili
atio
ns fo
r th
e m
onth
s pr
ior
to t
he
asse
ssm
ent
for
curr
ent
FY
LG e
xecu
tes
the
Inte
rnal
A
udit
func
tion
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith
the
LGA
Sec
tion
90 Max
imum
4
poin
ts o
n th
is
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
a.E
vide
nce
that
LG
has
pro
duce
d al
l qu
arte
rly
inte
rnal
aud
it (I
A)
repo
rts
for
the
prev
ious
FY.
Sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
Inte
rnal
aud
it ob
tain
and
rev
iew
·Th
e in
tern
al a
udit
repo
rts
·M
inut
es fr
om IA
·IA
rep
orts
for
prev
ious
FY
·M
inut
es fr
om IA
mee
tings
·
Subm
issi
on le
tter
s
b.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
pro
vide
d in
form
atio
n to
the
Cou
ncil/
cha
irpe
rson
an
d th
e LG
PAC
on
the
stat
us o
f im
plem
enta
tion
of in
tern
al a
udit
findi
ngs
for
the
prev
ious
FY
i.e. i
nfor
mat
ion
on fo
llow
up
on a
udit
quer
ies
from
all
quar
terl
y au
dit
repo
rts.
Sco
re 1
or
else
sc
ore
0
From
the
Inte
rnal
aud
it ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
·Th
e in
tern
al a
udit
repo
rts
·Le
tter
s on
follo
w u
p on
IA r
ecom
men
datio
ns·
Revi
ew o
f m
inut
es fr
om IA
·IA
rep
orts
·M
inut
es fr
om IA
mee
tings
·
Subm
issi
on le
tter
s·
LG P
AC m
inut
es
c.E
vide
nce
that
inte
rnal
aud
it re
port
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y w
ere
subm
itte
d to
LG
A
ccou
ntin
g O
ffice
r, LG
PAC
and
tha
t LG
PA
C h
as r
evie
wed
the
m a
nd fo
llow
ed-u
p:
Scor
e 1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
Inte
rnal
aud
it ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
·Th
e in
tern
al a
udit
repo
rts
·Le
tter
s on
follo
w u
p on
IA r
ecom
men
datio
ns·
Subm
issi
ons
to L
G a
ccou
ntin
g offi
ce a
nd L
G P
AC
·M
inut
es fr
om L
G P
AC o
n ho
w t
hey
follo
wed
up
·IA
rep
orts
·M
inut
es fr
om IA
mee
tings
·
Subm
issi
on le
tter
s·
LG P
AC m
inut
es
30LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
H.
Loc
al R
even
ues
Max
imum
6
scor
e fo
r th
is p
erfo
rman
ce
area
.
18.
LG h
as c
olle
cted
lo
cal r
even
ues
as p
er b
udge
t (c
olle
ctio
n ra
tio)
Max
imum
2
poin
ts o
n th
is
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
a.I
f re
venu
e co
llect
ion
ratio
(th
e pe
rcen
tage
of
loca
l rev
enue
col
lect
ed
agai
nst
plan
ned
for
the
prev
ious
FY
(bud
get
real
izat
ion)
is w
ithi
n +
/- 1
0 %
: th
en s
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0.
From
the
CFO
, obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·O
rigi
nal b
udge
t an
d bu
dget
exe
cutio
n re
port
s to
de
term
ine
the
ratio
of
reve
nue
budg
eted
tha
t ha
s be
en c
olle
cted
.
·A
nnua
l (or
igin
al)
budg
et
for
prev
ious
FY
·A
nnua
l fina
ncia
l st
atem
ents
for
prev
ious
FY
19.
The
LG h
as
incr
ease
d LG
ow
n so
urce
rev
enue
s in
th
e la
st fi
nanc
ial
year
com
pare
d to
th
e on
e be
fore
the
pr
evio
us fi
nanc
ial
year
(la
st F
Y ye
ar
but
one)
Max
imum
2
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re.
a.I
f in
crea
se in
OSR
(ex
clud
ing
one/
off,
e.g.
sal
e of
ass
ets,
but
incl
udin
g ar
rear
s co
llect
ed in
the
yea
r) fr
om p
revi
ous
FY
but
one
to p
revi
ous
FY
·If
mor
e th
an 1
0 %
: sco
re 2
.·
If t
he in
crea
se is
from
5%
-10
%: s
core
1.
·If
the
incr
ease
is le
ss t
han
5 %
: sco
re 0
.
From
the
CFO
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·A
nnua
l fina
ncia
l acc
ount
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us t
wo
FYs
to c
alcu
late
the
per
cent
age
incr
ease
on
OSR
co
llect
ion.
·A
nnua
l fina
ncia
l acc
ount
s fo
r pr
evio
us y
ear
and
prev
ious
yea
r bu
t on
e.
20.
Loca
l rev
enue
ad
min
istr
atio
n,
allo
catio
n, a
nd
tran
spar
ency
Max
imum
2
poin
ts o
n th
is
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re.
a. I
f th
e LG
rem
itte
d th
e m
anda
tory
LLG
sh
are
of lo
cal r
even
ues
duri
ng t
he
prev
ious
FY:
sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
CFO
obt
ain
and
revi
ew a
nnua
l fina
ncia
l ac
coun
ts t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
:
·Th
e H
LG h
as r
emit
ted
the
man
dato
ry L
LG s
hare
of
loca
l rev
enue
s
·A
nnua
l fina
ncia
l st
atem
ent
from
pre
viou
s FY
.
I. Tr
ansp
aren
cy a
nd
Acc
ount
abili
ty.
Max
imum
poi
nts:
7 po
ints
on
th
is
them
atic
are
a
21.
LG s
hare
s in
form
atio
n w
ith
citi
zens
Max
imum
6
poin
ts o
n th
is
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
re
a.E
vide
nce
that
the
pro
cure
men
t pl
an a
nd
awar
ded
cont
ract
s an
d al
l am
ount
s ar
e pu
blis
hed:
Sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
PD
U o
btai
n ev
iden
ce fo
r:
·Pu
blic
ized
info
rmat
ion
to c
itize
ns o
n aw
arde
d co
ntra
cts
and
amou
nts.
·N
otic
e bo
ards
and
oth
er
mea
ns o
f pu
blic
atio
n e.
g.
web
site
31LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
b.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
per
form
ance
as
sess
men
t re
sult
s an
d im
plic
atio
ns a
re
publ
ishe
d e.
g. o
n th
e bu
dget
web
site
for
the
prev
ious
yea
r: S
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
Pla
nner
obt
ain
evid
ence
for:
·Pu
blic
ized
info
rmat
ion
to c
itize
ns o
n LG
pe
rfor
man
ce a
sses
smen
t re
sult
s an
d im
plic
atio
ns
repo
rts
·N
otic
e bo
ards
and
oth
er
mea
ns o
f pu
blic
atio
n e.
g.
web
site
c.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
dur
ing
the
prev
ious
FY
con
duct
ed d
iscu
ssio
ns (
e.g.
mun
icip
al
urba
n fo
ra, b
araz
as, r
adio
pro
gram
mes
et
c.)
wit
h th
e pu
blic
to
prov
ide
feed
-bac
k on
sta
tus
of a
ctiv
ity im
plem
enta
tion:
Sc
ore
1 or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
Pla
nner
obt
ain
and
revi
ew e
vide
nce
of:
·M
eetin
gs o
f fe
ed-b
ack
to t
he p
ublic
on
stat
us o
f pr
ojec
t im
plem
enta
tion.
·M
inut
es o
f m
eetin
gs w
ith
LLG
s an
d w
ith
the
publ
ic·
Scri
pts
for
radi
o pr
ogra
ms,
etc
.
d.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
mad
e pu
blic
ly
avai
labl
e in
form
atio
n on
i) t
ax r
ates
, ii)
co
llect
ion
proc
edur
es, a
nd ii
i) p
roce
dure
s fo
r ap
peal
: If
all i
, ii,
iii c
ompl
ied
wit
h:
Scor
e 1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
CFO
and
not
ice
boar
ds, r
evie
w e
vide
nce
that
:
·(i
), (
ii) a
nd (
iii)
have
bee
n co
nduc
ted
and
that
in
form
atio
n is
ava
ilabl
e at
poi
nt o
f tim
e fo
r LG
PA
.
·N
otic
e bo
ards
·O
ther
pub
licat
ion
mea
ns
22.
Repo
rtin
g to
IGG
Max
imum
1
poin
t on
thi
s Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
a. L
G h
as p
repa
red
an IG
G r
epor
t w
hich
will
in
clud
e a
list
of c
ases
of
alle
ged
frau
d an
d co
rrup
tion
and
thei
r st
atus
incl
. ad
min
istr
ativ
e an
d ac
tion
take
n/be
ing
take
n, a
nd t
he r
epor
t ha
s be
en p
rese
nted
an
d di
scus
sed
in t
he c
ounc
il an
d ot
her
fora
. Sco
re 1
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
cle
rk t
o th
e co
unci
l obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·Th
e Re
port
on
IGG
wit
h is
sues
and
mea
sure
s ta
ken
·M
inut
es fr
om t
he c
ounc
il m
eetin
gs a
nd r
evie
w
actio
ns t
aken
·Re
port
on
IGG
issu
es
·C
ounc
il m
inut
es
32LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
9 E
duca
tion
Per
form
ance
Ass
essm
ent
9.1
Edu
cati
on M
inim
um C
ondi
tion
s
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Min
imum
Con
diti
onSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
A)
Hum
an
Reso
urce
M
anag
emen
t an
d D
evel
opm
ent
Max
imum
sco
re
is 7
0
1.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as
subs
tant
ivel
y re
crui
ted
or fo
rmal
ly
requ
este
d fo
r se
cond
men
t of
sta
ff
for
all c
ritic
al p
ositi
ons
in t
he
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
Edu
catio
n O
ffice
na
mel
y:
If t
he L
G h
as s
ubst
antiv
ely
recr
uite
d or
fo
rmal
ly r
eque
sted
for
seco
ndm
ent
of:
a) D
istr
ict
Educ
atio
n O
ffice
r/ P
rinc
ipal
Ed
ucat
ion
Offi
cer,
scor
e 30
or
else
0.
b) A
ll D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
al In
spec
tor
of
Scho
ols,
sco
re 4
0 o
r el
se 0
.
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion,
obt
ain
the
appo
intm
ent
lett
ers
of t
he D
istr
ict
Educ
atio
n/M
unic
ipal
O
ffice
sta
ff a
s lis
ted
to e
stab
lish
that
the
y ar
e su
bsta
ntiv
ely
recr
uite
d.
In c
ase
the
posi
tions
are
not
fille
d, g
et
evid
ence
from
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion
that
the
LG
re
ques
ted
for
seco
ndm
ent
from
the
Min
istr
y of
Edu
catio
n (M
oES)
.
·A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
·C
opy
of le
tter
from
LG
to
MoE
S re
ques
ting
for
seco
ndm
ent
of s
taff
to
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
Ed
ucat
ion
Offi
ce.
B)
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Soci
al
Requ
irem
ents
Max
imum
sco
re
is 3
0
2.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
prio
r to
co
mm
ence
men
t of
all
civi
l w
orks
for
all E
duca
tion
sect
or
proj
ects
the
LG
has
car
ried
out
: En
viro
nmen
tal,
Soci
al a
nd C
limat
e C
hang
e sc
reen
ing/
Envi
ronm
ent
Soci
al Im
pact
Ass
essm
ents
(ES
IAs)
If t
he L
G c
arri
ed o
ut:
a.E
nvir
onm
enta
l, So
cial
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
scre
enin
g/En
viro
nmen
t,
scor
e 15
or
else
0.
b.S
ocia
l Im
pact
Ass
essm
ents
(ES
IAs)
, sc
ore
15 o
r el
se 0
.
From
the
LG
Env
iron
men
t offi
cer,
obta
in t
he
Envi
ronm
enta
l and
Soc
ial S
cree
ning
For
m (
or
whe
re a
pplic
able
: ESI
As
repo
rts,
ESM
Ps)
for
all E
duca
tion
proj
ects
for
the
prev
ious
FY,
to
veri
fy w
heth
er:
•E
& S
scr
eeni
ng w
as c
ompl
eted
, ESI
As/
ESM
Ps p
repa
red
and
cost
ed a
nd
impl
emen
ted/
follo
wed
up.
·En
viro
nmen
tal a
nd S
ocia
l sc
reen
ing
Form
s·
ESIA
s re
port
s·
Cos
ted
ESM
Ps
33LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
9.2
Educ
atio
n Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
res
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
A.
Loca
l G
over
nmen
t Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Resu
lts
Max
imum
24
scor
e fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
ar
ea
1.Le
arni
ng O
utco
mes
: The
LG
has
impr
oved
PLE
and
U
SE p
ass
rate
s.
Max
imum
7 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) T
he L
G P
LE p
ass
rate
has
impr
oved
bet
wee
n th
e pr
evio
us s
choo
l yea
r bu
t on
e an
d th
e pr
evio
us
year
₋If
impr
ovem
ent
by m
ore
than
5%
sco
re 4
₋Be
twee
n 1
and
5% s
core
2₋
No
impr
ovem
ent
scor
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Ed
ucat
ion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
·Th
e PL
E re
sult
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us s
choo
l yea
r bu
t on
e an
d th
e pr
evio
us y
ear
·C
alcu
late
the
per
cent
age
of p
upils
tha
t pa
ssed
bet
wee
n gr
ade
1 an
d 3
for
both
yea
rs·
Then
cal
cula
te t
he p
erce
ntag
e in
crea
se b
etw
een
the
prev
ious
sc
hool
yea
r bu
t on
e an
d th
e pr
evio
us y
ear
₋U
NEB
PLE
Res
ults
b) T
he L
G U
CE
pass
rat
e ha
s im
prov
ed b
etw
een
the
prev
ious
sch
ool y
ear
but
one
and
the
prev
ious
ye
ar₋
If im
prov
emen
t by
mor
e th
an 5
% s
core
3₋
Betw
een
1 an
d 5%
sco
re 2
₋N
o im
prov
emen
t sc
ore
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Ed
ucat
ion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
·U
CE
resu
lts
for
USE
sch
ools
onl
y fo
r th
e pr
evio
us s
choo
l yea
r bu
t on
e an
d th
e pr
evio
us y
ear
·C
alcu
late
the
per
cent
age
of s
tude
nts
that
pas
sed
betw
een
grad
e 1
and
3 fo
r bo
th y
ears
·Th
en c
alcu
late
the
per
cent
age
incr
ease
bet
wee
n th
e pr
evio
us
scho
ol y
ear
but
one
and
the
prev
ious
yea
r
₋U
NEB
UC
E Re
sult
s
2.Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Perf
orm
ance
: Inc
reas
e in
the
ave
rage
sco
re
in t
he e
duca
tion
LLG
pe
rfor
man
ce a
sses
smen
t.
Max
imum
2 p
oint
s
a) A
vera
ge s
core
in t
he e
duca
tion
LLG
per
form
ance
ha
s im
prov
ed b
etw
een
the
prev
ious
yea
r bu
t on
e an
d th
e pr
evio
us y
ear
₋If
impr
ovem
ent
by m
ore
than
5%
sco
re 2
₋Be
twee
n 1
and
5% s
core
1₋
No
impr
ovem
ent
scor
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pl
anne
r ob
tain
:
The
LLG
per
form
ance
rep
ort
and
calc
ulat
e th
e pe
rcen
tage
ch
ange
in s
core
of
the
educ
atio
n LL
G p
erfo
rman
ce a
sses
smen
t
Not
e: T
o be
sco
red
Zero
for
all
LGs
in Y
1 &
Y2
Repo
rt o
n LL
G
perf
orm
ance
as
sess
men
t
3.In
vest
men
t Pe
rfor
man
ce:
The
LG h
as m
anag
ed
educ
atio
n pr
ojec
ts a
s pe
r gu
idel
ines
Max
imum
8 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) I
f th
e ed
ucat
ion
deve
lopm
ent
gran
t ha
s be
en
used
on
elig
ible
act
iviti
es a
s de
fined
in t
he s
ecto
r gu
idel
ines
: sco
re 2
₋El
se s
core
0
₋Fr
om t
he D
istr
ict
Educ
atio
n O
ffice
, obt
ain
sect
or g
uide
lines
and
de
term
ine
elig
ible
act
iviti
es t
hen
revi
ew t
he b
udge
t pe
rfor
man
ce
repo
rt t
o es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
the
edu
catio
n de
velo
pmen
t gr
ant
was
use
d on
elig
ible
act
iviti
es
₋B
udge
t Pe
rfor
man
ce
Repo
rts
₋Ed
ucat
ion
sect
or
guid
elin
es
b) I
f th
e D
EO, E
nvir
onm
ent
Offi
cer
and
CD
O
cert
ified
wor
ks o
n Ed
ucat
ion
cons
truc
tion
proj
ects
im
plem
ente
d in
the
pre
viou
s FY
bef
ore
the
LG
mad
e pa
ymen
ts t
o th
e co
ntra
ctor
s sc
ore
2 or
els
e sc
ore
0
₋Fr
om t
he C
hief
Fin
ance
Offi
cer
(CFO
) ob
tain
and
rev
iew
pa
ymen
t vo
uche
rs fo
r al
l Edu
catio
n co
nstr
uctio
n pr
ojec
ts
cont
ract
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y to
est
ablis
h w
heth
er c
ertifi
catio
n of
w
orks
was
don
e be
fore
the
LG
mad
e pa
ymen
ts t
o co
ntra
ctor
s.
₋Pa
ymen
t vo
uche
rs
to c
ontr
acto
rs
c) I
f th
e va
riat
ions
in t
he c
ontr
act
pric
e ar
e w
ithi
n +
/-20
% o
f th
e M
oWT
estim
ates
sco
re 2
or
else
sc
ore
0
₋Fr
om t
he L
G E
ngin
eer,
obta
in: (
i) M
oWT
estim
ates
; and
(ii)
co
ntra
cts
and
calc
ulat
e th
e va
riat
ions
in t
he c
ontr
act
pric
e to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
y ar
e w
ithi
n +
/-20
% o
f th
e M
oWT
estim
ates
•En
gine
ers
Estim
ates
•C
ontr
acts
d)
Evid
ence
tha
t ed
ucat
ion
proj
ects
wer
e co
mpl
eted
as
per
wor
k pl
an in
the
pre
viou
s FY
₋If
10
0%
sco
re 2
₋Be
twee
n 80
– 9
9% s
core
1₋
Belo
w 8
0%
sco
re 0
₋Fr
om t
he D
istr
ict
Educ
atio
n O
ffice
, obt
ain:
(i)
the
con
trac
ts
and
wor
k sc
hedu
le; a
nd (
ii) b
udge
t pe
rfor
man
ce r
epor
t fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
edu
catio
n pr
ojec
ts w
ere
com
plet
ed a
s pe
r w
ork
plan
in t
he p
revi
ous
FY
•C
ontr
acts
; and
•B
udge
t pe
rfor
man
ce r
epor
t
34LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
4.Ac
hiev
emen
t of
st
anda
rds:
The
LG
has
m
et p
resc
ribe
d sc
hool
st
affing
and
infr
astr
uctu
re
stan
dard
s
Max
imum
6 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
rec
ruite
d pr
imar
y sc
hool
tea
cher
s as
per
the
pre
scri
bed
MoE
S st
affing
gui
delin
es
₋If
10
0%
: sco
re 3
₋If
80
- 9
9%: s
core
2₋
If 7
0 –
79%
sco
re: 1
, ₋
Belo
w 7
0%
sco
re 0
₋Fr
om t
he H
uman
Res
ourc
e O
ffice
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
·Th
e st
affing
str
uctu
re fo
r sc
hool
s
·Te
ache
r st
aff li
st·
Cal
cula
te t
he p
erce
nt o
f fil
led
staff
pos
ition
s
₋LG
app
rove
d st
ruct
ure
₋H
RM s
taff
reg
iste
rs
b)
Perc
ent
of s
choo
ls in
LG
tha
t m
eet
basi
c re
quir
emen
ts a
nd m
inim
um s
tand
ards
set
out
in
the
DES
gui
delin
es,
₋If
abo
ve 7
0%
sco
re: 3
₋If
bet
wee
n 60
- 6
9%, s
core
: 2₋
If b
etw
een
50 -
59%
, sco
re: 1
₋Be
low
50
sco
re:0
₋Fr
om t
he D
EO, o
btai
n lis
t of
reg
iste
red
UPE
and
USE
sch
ools
; and
th
e co
nsol
idat
ed S
choo
ls A
sset
Reg
iste
r fo
r bo
th U
PE a
nd U
SE
scho
ols
from
the
pre
viou
s tw
o FY
s.
₋C
alcu
late
the
per
cent
of
scho
ols
that
mee
t pr
escr
ibed
min
imum
st
anda
rds.
₋D
ES b
asic
re
quir
emen
ts a
nd
min
imum
sta
ndar
ds
for
scho
ols.
₋Li
st o
f re
gist
ered
sc
hool
s in
pe
rfor
man
ce
cont
ract
₋C
onso
lidat
ed
LG s
choo
l ass
et
regi
ster
B.
Perf
orm
ance
Re
port
ing
and
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t
Max
imum
16
scor
e fo
r th
is p
er-
form
ance
are
a
5.Ac
cura
cy o
f re
port
ed
info
rmat
ion:
The
LG
has
ac
cura
tely
rep
orte
d on
te
achi
ng s
taff
in p
lace
, sc
hool
infr
astr
uctu
re a
nd
serv
ice
perf
orm
ance
.
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
acc
urat
ely
repo
rted
on
teac
hers
and
whe
re t
hey
are
depl
oyed
.₋
If a
ccur
acy
of in
form
atio
n is
10
0%
sco
re 2
-El
se s
core
: 0
₋Fr
om t
he L
G E
duca
tion
office
obt
ain
teac
her
depl
oym
ent
₋Sa
mpl
e at
leas
t 3
scho
ols
in d
iffer
ent
LLG
s in
a L
G t
o ve
rify
w
heth
er t
he s
taff
are
in s
choo
ls w
here
the
y ar
e re
port
ed
depl
oyed
.
₋Te
ache
r de
ploy
men
t lis
t
b) E
vide
nce
that
LG
has
a s
choo
l ass
et r
egis
ter
accu
rate
ly r
epor
ting
on t
he in
fras
truc
ture
in a
ll re
gist
ered
pri
mar
y sc
hool
s.₋
If a
ccur
acy
of in
form
atio
n is
10
0%
sco
re 2
₋El
se s
core
: 0
₋Fr
om t
he L
G E
duca
tion
office
obt
ain
info
rmat
ion
on 3
sch
ools
sa
mpl
ed fr
om d
iffer
ent
LLG
and
for
each
cas
e, v
erif
y w
heth
er
infr
astr
uctu
re a
nd e
quip
men
t is
in p
lace
as
per
the
cons
olid
ated
as
set
regi
ster
₋C
onso
lidat
ed
LG s
choo
l ass
et
regi
ster
6.Sc
hool
com
plia
nce
and
perf
orm
ance
im
prov
emen
t:
Max
imum
12
poin
ts o
n th
is p
erfo
rman
ce m
easu
re
a)
The
LG h
as e
nsur
ed t
hat
all r
egis
tere
d pr
imar
y sc
hool
s ha
ve c
ompl
ied
wit
h M
oES
annu
al
budg
etin
g an
d re
port
ing
guid
elin
es a
nd t
hat
they
hav
e su
bmit
ted
repo
rts
(sig
ned
by t
he
head
tea
cher
and
cha
ir o
f th
e SM
C)
to t
he D
EO
by J
anua
ry 3
0.
Repo
rts
shou
ld in
clud
e am
ong
othe
rs, i
) hi
ghlig
hts
of s
choo
l per
form
ance
, ii)
a
reco
ncile
d ca
sh fl
ow s
tate
men
t, ii
i) a
n an
nual
bu
dget
and
exp
endi
ture
rep
ort,
and
iv)
an a
sset
re
gist
er:
-If
10
0%
sch
ool s
ubm
issi
on t
o LG
, sco
re: 4
-Be
twee
n 80
– 9
9% s
core
: 2-
Belo
w 8
0%
sco
re 0
•Fr
om D
EO/M
EO, o
btai
n an
d re
view
sub
mit
ted
copi
es o
f an
nual
sc
hool
rep
orts
and
bud
gets
from
the
pre
viou
s FY
.•
Sam
ple
at le
ast
3 sc
hool
s to
est
ablis
h th
e ex
tent
to
whi
ch
regi
ster
ed p
rim
ary
scho
ols
have
com
plie
d w
ith
MoE
S an
nual
bu
dget
ing
and
repo
rtin
g gu
idel
ines
and
tha
t th
ey h
ave
subm
itte
d re
port
s
•Li
st o
f re
gist
ered
sc
hool
s in
pe
rfor
man
ce
cont
ract
•Re
conc
iled
cash
flo
w s
tate
men
t,
•A
nnua
l bud
get
and
expe
nditu
re r
epor
t•
An
asse
t re
gist
er
35LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
b)U
PE s
choo
ls s
uppo
rted
to
prep
are
and
impl
emen
t SI
Ps in
line
wit
h in
spec
tion
reco
mm
enda
tions
:-
If 5
0%
sco
re: 4
-Be
twee
n 3
0–
49%
sco
re: 2
-Be
low
30
% s
core
0
•Fr
om t
he L
G E
duca
tion
office
, obt
ain
and
revi
ew t
he in
spec
tion
repo
rt fr
om t
he p
revi
ous
FY a
nd id
entif
y th
e sc
hool
s w
hich
wer
e su
ppor
ted
to d
evel
op S
IPs
• S
ampl
e 3
scho
ols
and
veri
fy w
heth
er t
hey
wer
e su
ppor
ted
to
deve
lop
SIPs
•Re
port
on
SIPs
•Sc
hool
im
prov
emen
t pl
ans
in s
ampl
e sc
hool
s
c)
If t
he L
G h
as c
olle
cted
and
com
pile
d EM
IS r
etur
n fo
rms
for
all r
egis
tere
d sc
hool
s fr
om t
he p
revi
ous
FY y
ear:
-If
10
0%
sco
re: 4
:-
Betw
een
90 –
99%
sco
re 2
-Be
low
90
% s
core
0
•Fr
om M
oES
obta
in a
nd c
ross
-che
ck E
MIS
dat
a su
bmis
sion
s ag
ains
t th
e lis
t of
sch
ools
sub
mit
ted
by t
he L
G in
the
pe
rfor
man
ce c
ontr
act.
•Li
st o
f Sc
hool
s fr
om
LG p
erfo
rman
ce
cont
ract
•EM
IS d
ata
extr
act
from
MoE
S•
List
of
scho
ols
from
PB
S an
d ve
rify
wit
h th
at o
n O
TIM
S
C.
Hum
an
Reso
urce
M
anag
emen
t an
d D
evel
opm
ent
Max
imum
16
scor
e fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
ar
ea
7.B
udge
ting
for
and
actu
al r
ecru
itm
ent
and
depl
oym
ent
of s
taff
: LG
has
sub
stan
tivel
y re
crui
ted
all p
rim
ary
scho
ol t
each
ers
whe
re
ther
e is
a w
age
bill
prov
isio
n
Max
imum
8 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
bud
gete
d fo
r a
head
te
ache
r an
d a
min
imum
of
7 te
ache
rs p
er
scho
ol o
r a
min
imum
of
one
teac
her
per
clas
s fo
r sc
hool
s w
ith
less
tha
n P.
7 fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
: Sc
ore
4 or
els
e, s
core
: 0
-Fr
om t
he L
G P
erfo
rman
ce C
ontr
act:
i) o
btai
n th
e lis
t of
sch
ools
; ii)
the
sta
ff li
st; a
nd e
stab
lish
whe
ther
the
LG
has
bud
gete
d fo
r sc
hool
tea
cher
s as
per
sta
ffing
nor
ms/
guid
elin
es.
•Pe
rfor
man
ce
cont
ract
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
dep
loye
d te
ache
rs a
s pe
r se
ctor
gui
delin
es in
the
cur
rent
FY,
Scor
e 3
else
sco
re: 0
-Fr
om t
he D
EO, o
btai
n an
d re
view
: i)
the
teac
hers
’ lis
t to
est
ablis
h w
heth
er t
each
ers
have
bee
n de
ploy
ed a
s pe
r se
ctor
gui
delin
e/st
affing
nor
ms
-Sa
mpl
e at
leas
t 3
scho
ols
to v
erif
y w
heth
er t
he t
each
ers
as
indi
cate
d in
the
sta
ff li
sts
are
depl
oyed
in t
hose
sch
ools
.
•Li
st o
f sc
hool
s•
Staff
list
s •
Staff
att
enda
nce
regi
ster
c)
If t
each
er d
eplo
ymen
t da
ta h
as b
een
diss
emin
ated
or
publ
iciz
ed o
n LG
and
or
scho
ol
notic
e bo
ard,
sco
re: 1
els
e, s
core
: 0
•Fr
om t
he D
EO, i
nfor
mat
ion
on t
each
er d
eplo
ymen
t •
Sam
ple
at le
ast
3 sc
hool
s pe
r su
b-c
ount
y an
d ch
eck
whe
ther
the
lis
t of
tea
cher
s de
ploy
ed is
dis
play
ed o
n th
e sc
hool
not
ice
boar
d.
•St
aff li
sts
and
actu
al d
eplo
ymen
t pe
r sc
hool
on
LG
and
scho
ol n
otic
e bo
ards
36LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
8.Pe
rfor
man
ce
man
agem
ent:
App
rais
als
have
bee
n co
nduc
ted
for
all e
duca
tion
man
agem
ent
staff
, hea
d te
ache
rs in
the
reg
iste
red
prim
ary
and
seco
ndar
y sc
hool
s, a
nd t
rain
ing
cond
ucte
d to
add
ress
id
entifi
ed c
apac
ity g
aps.
Max
imum
8 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) I
f al
l pri
mar
y sc
hool
hea
d te
ache
rs h
ave
been
ap
prai
sed
wit
h ev
iden
ce o
f ap
prai
sal r
epor
ts
subm
itte
d to
HRM
wit
h co
py t
o D
EO/M
EO
Scor
e: 2
or
else
, sco
re: 0
•Fr
om H
RM, o
btai
n an
d re
view
cop
ies
of H
/T a
ppra
isal
s fr
om S
AS
for
the
prev
ious
sch
ool y
ear.
•Sc
hool
and
hea
d te
ache
r lis
ts•
SAS’
s H
/T a
ppra
isal
re
port
s su
bmit
ted
to H
RM
b) I
f al
l sec
onda
ry s
choo
l hea
d te
ache
rs h
ave
been
ap
prai
sed
wit
h ev
iden
ce o
f ap
prai
sal r
epor
ts
subm
itte
d by
D/C
AO (
or C
hair
BoG
) to
HRM
Sc
ore:
2 o
r el
se, s
core
: 0
•Fr
om H
uman
Res
ourc
e M
anag
emen
t, o
btai
n an
d re
view
cop
ies
of H
/T a
ppra
isal
s re
ceiv
ed fo
r th
e pr
evio
us s
choo
l yea
r. •
Scho
ol a
nd h
ead
teac
her
lists
•H
/T p
erfo
rman
ce
plan
•H
/T a
ppra
isal
re
port
s
c) I
f al
l sta
ff in
the
LG
Edu
catio
n de
part
men
t ha
ve
been
app
rais
ed a
gain
st t
heir
per
form
ance
pla
ns
scor
e: 2
.-
Else
, sco
re: 0
•Fr
om t
he L
G H
R de
part
men
t, o
btai
n an
d re
view
app
rais
als
for
all
scho
ol in
spec
tors
and
edu
catio
n m
anag
emen
t st
aff c
ondu
cted
in
the
prev
ious
FY.
•H
RM s
taff
reg
iste
r•
Staff
per
form
ance
pl
ans
and
appr
aisa
l re
port
s
d) T
he L
G h
as p
repa
red
a tr
aini
ng p
lan
to a
ddre
ss
iden
tified
sta
ff c
apac
ity g
aps
at t
he s
choo
l and
LG
leve
l, sc
ore:
2-
Else
, sco
re: 0
•Fr
om t
he D
EO/M
EO, o
btai
n an
d re
view
the
tra
inin
g pl
an
deve
lope
d ov
er t
he p
revi
ous
FY.
•LG
Tra
inin
g pl
an
for
the
Educ
atio
n D
epar
tmen
t
D.
Man
agem
ent,
M
onito
ring
an
d Su
perv
i-si
on o
f Se
r-vi
ces
Max
imum
sco
re
20 fo
r th
is p
er-
form
ance
are
a
9.Pl
anni
ng, B
udge
ting
and
Tran
sfer
of
Fund
s fo
r Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery:
The
Lo
cal G
over
nmen
t ha
s al
loca
ted
and
spen
t fu
nds
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery
as
pres
crib
ed in
the
sec
tor
guid
elin
es.
Max
imum
8 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) T
he L
G h
as c
onfir
med
in w
ritin
g th
e lis
t of
sc
hool
s, t
heir
enr
olm
ent
and
budg
et a
lloca
tion
in t
he P
rogr
amm
e B
udge
ting
Syst
em (
PBS)
by
Dec
embe
r 15
th a
nnua
lly.
If 1
00
% c
ompl
ianc
e, s
core
:2 o
r el
se, s
core
: 0
•Fr
om M
oES
obta
in c
opie
s of
LG
sub
mis
sion
s an
d le
tter
s co
mm
unic
atin
g co
rrec
tions
/ re
visi
ons
of s
choo
l lis
ts a
nd
enro
lmen
t nu
mbe
rs.
•Li
st o
f sc
hool
s fr
om
PBS
vs. s
choo
l lis
t su
bmit
ted
to M
oES
•Le
tter
from
CAO
/TC
sub
mit
ting
or
corr
ectin
g th
e lis
t of
sch
ools
and
en
rolm
ent.
b) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
mad
e al
loca
tions
to
insp
ectio
n an
d m
onito
ring
func
tions
in li
ne w
ith
the
sect
or g
uide
lines
.If
10
0%
com
plia
nce,
sco
re:2
els
e, s
core
: 0
•Fr
om t
he D
EO o
btai
n an
d re
view
a c
opy
of t
he E
duca
tion
sect
or
guid
elin
es•
From
the
Pla
nner
, obt
ain
and
revi
ew t
he a
nnua
l sec
tor
wor
k pl
an
for
the
prev
ious
FY
alon
gsid
e ex
pend
iture
s on
the
insp
ectio
n an
d m
onito
ring
func
tions
to
chec
k w
heth
er a
ctiv
ities
tha
t w
ere
cond
ucte
d co
mpl
ied
to s
ecto
r gu
idel
ines
•Se
ctor
Gui
delin
es•
Ann
ual W
ork
plan
•G
uide
lines
C
ompl
ianc
e re
port
s fr
om M
oFPE
D
c) E
vide
nce
that
LG
sub
mit
ted
war
rant
s fo
r sc
hool
’s
capi
tatio
n w
ithi
n 5
days
for
the
last
3 q
uart
ers
If 1
00
% c
ompl
ianc
e, s
core
: 2 e
lse
scor
e: 0
•Fr
om M
oFPE
D o
btai
n PB
S tim
esta
mp
of L
G w
arra
nt s
ubm
issi
on
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er L
G s
ubm
itte
d w
arra
nts
for
scho
ol’s
ca
pita
tion
wit
hin
5 da
ys fo
r th
e la
st 3
qua
rter
s
•PB
S re
port
s fr
om
MoF
PED.
d) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
invo
iced
and
the
DEO
/M
EO h
as c
omm
unic
ated
/ pu
blic
ized
cap
itatio
n re
leas
es t
o sc
hool
s w
ithi
n th
ree
wor
king
day
s of
re
leas
e fr
om M
oFPE
D.If
10
0%
com
plia
nce,
sco
re: 2
els
e, s
core
: 0
•Fr
om M
oFPE
D o
btai
n an
d re
view
cop
ies
of L
G r
elea
se c
ircu
lars
ov
er t
he la
st 3
qua
rter
s, a
nd fr
om t
he L
G o
btai
n in
voic
es o
f ca
pita
tion
to s
choo
ls.
Nex
t, s
ampl
e 3
scho
ols
from
diff
eren
t su
b co
untie
s in
a L
G t
o ve
rify
whe
ther
the
DEO
/MEO
com
mun
icat
ed/
publ
iciz
ed w
ithi
n th
ree
wor
king
day
s of
the
rel
ease
.
•LG
Rel
ease
cir
cula
r fr
om M
oFPE
D•
Rele
ase
info
rmat
ion
on L
G/S
choo
l not
ice
boar
ds•
Invo
ices
of
capi
tatio
n to
sch
ools
37LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
10.
Rout
ine
over
sigh
t an
d m
onito
ring
Max
imum
10
poi
nts
on
this
per
form
ance
mea
sure
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
Edu
catio
n de
part
men
t ha
s pr
epar
ed a
n in
spec
tion
plan
and
mee
tings
co
nduc
ted
to p
lan
for
scho
ol in
spec
tions
.-
If 1
00
% c
ompl
ianc
e, s
core
: 2, e
lse
scor
e: 0
•Fr
om D
EO/M
EO o
r D
IS, o
btai
n co
pies
of
the
insp
ectio
n pl
an a
nd
or m
inut
es o
f pr
epar
ator
y in
spec
tion
and
mon
itori
ng m
eetin
gs
for
the
prev
ious
thr
ee s
choo
l ter
ms.
•LG
insp
ectio
n pl
an•
Min
utes
of
prep
arat
ory
insp
ectio
n an
d m
onito
ring
act
iviti
es
b)
Perc
ent
of r
egis
tere
d U
PE s
choo
ls t
hat
have
bee
n in
spec
ted
and
mon
itore
d, a
nd fi
ndin
gs c
ompi
led
in t
he D
EO/M
EO’s
mon
itori
ng r
epor
t:-
If 1
00
% s
core
: 2-
Betw
een
80 –
99%
sco
re 1
-Be
low
80
%: s
core
0
•Fr
om t
he D
IS o
btai
n LG
insp
ectio
n an
d m
onito
ring
rep
orts
, to
esta
blis
h th
e nu
mbe
r of
sch
ools
insp
ecte
d an
d m
onito
red
from
th
e pr
evio
us t
hree
sch
ool t
erm
s, a
nd c
ompa
re w
ith
the
tota
l lis
t of
reg
iste
red
UPE
sch
ools
from
PB
S.
•Sc
hool
list
from
PB
S •
LG in
spec
tion
plan
fr
om t
he p
revi
ous
FY•
LG in
spec
tion
and
mon
itori
ng r
epor
ts
from
the
pre
viou
s th
ree
scho
ol t
erm
s.
c) E
vide
nce
that
insp
ectio
n re
port
s ha
ve b
een
disc
usse
d an
d us
ed t
o re
com
men
d co
rrec
tive
actio
ns, a
nd t
hat
thos
e ac
tions
hav
e su
bseq
uent
ly
been
follo
wed
-up,
Scor
e: 2
or
else
, sco
re: 0
•Fr
om t
he D
EO/
MEO
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
•M
inut
es o
f de
part
- m
enta
l mee
tings
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er:
Scho
ol in
spec
tion
repo
rts
wer
e di
scus
sed
and
used
to
mak
e re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r co
rrec
tive
actio
ns d
urin
g th
e pr
evio
us F
Y.•
Sam
ple
3 sc
hool
s to
ver
ify
whe
ther
the
DIS
has
follo
wed
up
on
insp
ectio
n re
com
men
datio
ns.
•In
form
atio
n fr
om
Sam
ple
scho
ols
•M
inut
es fr
om
Dep
artm
enta
l m
eetin
gs•
Vis
itor’
s bo
ok a
t th
e sc
hool
leve
l
d)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
IS a
nd D
EO h
ave
pres
ente
d fin
ding
s fr
om in
spec
tion
and
mon
itori
ng r
esul
ts t
o re
spec
tive
scho
ols
and
subm
itte
d th
ese
repo
rts
to t
he D
irec
tora
te o
f Ed
ucat
ion
Stan
dard
s (D
ES)
in t
he M
inis
try
of E
duca
tion
and
Spor
ts (
MoE
S):
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
scor
e: 0
•Fr
om t
he D
EO o
btai
n th
e lis
t of
sch
ools
and
sam
ple
3 sc
hool
s fr
om d
iffer
ent
LLG
s to
est
ablis
h w
heth
er c
opie
s of
the
insp
ectio
n re
port
s fr
om t
he p
revi
ous
thre
e te
rms
wer
e le
ft b
ehin
d.•
From
DES
obt
ain
and
revi
ew: A
list
of
LGs
that
hav
e su
bmit
ted
scho
ol in
spec
tion
repo
rts.
•Fr
om D
EO/M
EO c
heck
whe
ther
: the
DEO
/MEO
has
a le
tter
of
ackn
owledg
emen
tfromDES
•In
form
atio
n fr
om
Sam
ple
scho
ols
•M
inut
es fr
om
Dep
artm
enta
l m
eetin
gs•
Scho
ol in
spec
tion
repo
rts
•M
inut
es o
f SM
C
mee
tings
•D
ES r
ecor
ds o
n sc
hool
insp
ectio
n.•
Ack
now
ledg
emen
t le
tter
s
e) E
vide
nce
that
the
cou
ncil
com
mit
tee
resp
onsi
ble
for
educ
atio
n m
et a
nd d
iscu
ssed
ser
vice
del
iver
y is
sues
in
clud
ing
insp
ectio
n an
d m
onito
ring
fin
ding
s, p
erfo
rman
ce a
sses
smen
t re
sult
s, L
G P
AC
repo
rts
etc.
dur
ing
the
prev
ious
FY:
sco
re 2
or
else
sc
ore:
0
•Fr
om t
he C
lerk
to
Cou
ncil
obta
in a
nd r
evie
w:
•Ed
ucat
ion
sect
or
sta
ndin
g co
mm
itte
e m
eetin
g m
inut
es –
ch
eck
if th
e co
unci
l has
dis
cuss
ed s
ervi
ce d
eliv
ery
issu
es.
•M
inut
es fr
om s
ecto
r co
mm
itte
e m
eetin
gs•
Min
utes
from
C
ounc
il mee
tings
11.
Mob
iliza
tion
of p
aren
ts t
o at
trac
t le
arne
rs
Max
imum
2 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
Edu
catio
n de
part
men
t ha
s co
nduc
ted
activ
ities
to
mob
ilize
, att
ract
and
ret
ain
child
ren
at s
choo
l, s
core
: 2 o
r el
se s
core
: 0
•Fr
om t
he D
EO o
btai
n an
d re
view
rep
orts
from
eve
nts
or
mee
tings
hel
d w
ith
scho
ol c
omm
uniti
es.
•M
inut
es o
r re
port
s fr
om m
obili
zatio
n ev
ents
hel
d•
Reco
rds
of
com
mun
icat
ion
incl
udin
g po
ster
s or
ra
dio
talk
sho
ws
etc.
38LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
E.
Inve
stm
ent
Man
agem
ent
Max
imum
sco
re
12 fo
r th
is p
erfo
r-m
ance
are
a
12.
Plan
ning
and
bud
getin
g fo
r in
vest
men
ts
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) E
vide
nce
that
the
re is
an
up t
o-da
te L
G a
sset
re
gist
er w
hich
set
s ou
t sc
hool
faci
litie
s an
d eq
uipm
ent
rela
tive
to b
asic
sta
ndar
ds, s
core
: 2,
else
sco
re: 0
•Fr
om t
he L
G e
duca
tion
depa
rtm
ent
obta
in a
cop
y of
the
ass
et
regi
ster
from
the
pre
viou
s FY
and
che
ck a
sam
ple
of 3
sch
ools
in
diff
eren
t su
b-c
ount
ies
to v
alid
ate
this
info
rmat
ion.
•Fo
rmat
1 in
the
Se
ctor
gui
delin
es•
LG s
choo
ls’ a
sset
re
gist
er•
Sam
ple
of s
choo
ls
b) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
con
duct
ed a
des
k ap
prai
sal f
or a
ll se
ctor
pro
ject
s in
the
bud
get
to e
stab
lish
whe
ther
the
pri
oriti
zed
inve
stm
ent
is: (
i) d
eriv
ed fr
om t
he L
GD
P; (
ii) e
ligib
le fo
r ex
pend
iture
und
er s
ecto
r gu
idel
ines
and
fund
ing
sour
ce (
e.g.
sec
tor
deve
lopm
ent
gran
t, D
DEG
).
If a
ppra
isal
s w
ere
cond
ucte
d fo
r al
l pro
ject
s th
at
wer
e pl
anne
d in
the
pre
viou
s FY
, sco
re: 1
or
else
, sc
ore:
0
-Fr
om t
he L
G P
lann
er o
btai
n an
d re
view
the
ann
ual w
ork
plan
and
as
cert
ain
alig
nmen
t of
pla
ns w
ith
info
rmat
ion
from
the
LG
DP
and
the
elig
ibili
ty c
rite
ria
wit
hin
the
sect
or g
uide
lines
.-
Then
from
the
LG
eng
inee
r, ob
tain
cop
ies
of fi
eld
appr
aisa
ls
cond
ucte
d fo
r th
e pl
anne
d pr
ojec
ts.
•LG
DP
•Se
ctor
Gui
delin
es•
Sect
or P
roje
ct
appr
aisa
l rep
orts
c) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
con
duct
ed fi
eld
App
rais
al fo
r: (
i) t
echn
ical
feas
ibili
ty; (
ii)
envi
ronm
enta
l and
soc
ial a
ccep
tabi
lity;
and
(iii
) cu
stom
ized
des
igns
ove
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y, s
core
1
else
sco
re: 0
•Fr
om t
he E
nvir
onm
ent
office
r ob
tain
and
rev
iew
the
com
plet
ed
copy
of
the
proj
ect
scre
enin
g fo
rm/c
heck
list:
•
Che
ck a
sam
ple
of 3
sch
ool c
onst
ruct
ion
proj
ects
to
valid
ate
LG
repo
rted
info
rmat
ion
•En
viro
nmen
tal a
nd
soci
al s
afeg
uard
s sc
reen
ing
chec
klis
t (F
orm
at 3
in t
he
sect
or g
uide
lines
)•
Fiel
d A
ppra
isal
re
port
in li
ne w
ith
the
chec
klis
t
13.
Proc
urem
ent,
con
trac
t m
anag
emen
t/ex
ecut
ion
Max
imum
9 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) I
f th
e LG
Edu
catio
n de
part
men
t ha
s bu
dget
ed fo
r an
d en
sure
d th
at p
lann
ed s
ecto
r in
fras
truc
ture
pr
ojec
ts h
ave
been
app
rove
d an
d in
corp
orat
ed
into
the
pro
cure
men
t pl
an, s
core
: 1, e
lse
scor
e: 0
•Fr
om t
he P
DU
obt
ain
and
revi
ew p
rocu
rem
ent
plan
for
the
curr
ent
FY t
o es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
edu
catio
n se
ctor
infr
astr
uctu
re
proj
ects
hav
e be
en in
corp
orat
ed
•A
ppro
ved
Proc
urem
ent
Plan
b) E
vide
nce
that
the
sch
ool i
nfra
stru
ctur
e w
as
appr
oved
by
the
Con
trac
ts C
omm
itte
e an
d cl
eare
d by
the
Sol
icito
r G
ener
al (
whe
re a
bove
th
e th
resh
old)
bef
ore
the
com
men
cem
ent
of
cons
truc
tion,
sco
re: 1
, els
e sc
ore:
0
•Fr
om t
he P
rocu
rem
ent
Uni
t, o
btai
n an
d re
view
the
sec
tor
proc
urem
ent
plan
and
min
utes
to
esta
blis
h w
heth
er p
lann
ed
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
wer
e di
scus
sed
and
appr
oved
.
•Se
ctor
pro
cure
men
t pl
an•
Min
utes
from
co
ntra
cts
com
mit
tee
mee
tings
c) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
est
ablis
hed
a Pr
ojec
t Im
plem
enta
tion
Team
(PI
T) fo
r sc
hool
co
nstr
uctio
n pr
ojec
ts c
onst
ruct
ed w
ithi
n th
e la
st
FY a
s pe
r gu
idel
ines
sco
re: 1
, els
e sc
ore:
0
•Fr
om t
he D
istr
ict
engi
neer
, obt
ain
the
com
posi
tion
of t
he P
roje
ct
Impl
emen
tatio
n Te
am•
PIT
Com
posi
tion
d) E
vide
nce
that
the
sch
ool i
nfra
stru
ctur
e fo
llow
ed
the
stan
dard
tec
hnic
al d
esig
ns p
rovi
ded
by t
he
MoE
S Sc
ore:
1, e
lse,
sco
re: 0
•Fr
om t
he M
oES
CM
U o
btai
n an
d re
view
sta
ndar
d te
chni
cal
desi
gns
for
scho
ols.
•V
isit
the
scho
ol in
fras
truc
ture
to
asce
rtai
n w
heth
er t
he s
tand
ard
tech
nica
l des
igns
pro
vide
d by
the
MoE
S w
ere
follo
wed
•M
oES
tech
nica
l de
sign
s•
Phys
ical
che
cks
in
sam
ple
scho
ols
•C
lerk
s of
wor
ks
repo
rts
to E
ngin
eer
and
DEO
.
39LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
e) E
vide
nce
that
mon
thly
site
mee
tings
wer
e co
nduc
ted
for
all s
ecto
r in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s pl
anne
d in
the
pre
viou
s FY
sco
re: 1
, els
e sc
ore:
0
•Fr
om t
he L
G o
btai
n an
d re
view
rep
orts
/ m
inut
es o
f th
e pr
ojec
ts
site
mee
tings
tha
t w
ere
mon
itore
d.
•Li
st o
f se
ctor
sp
ecifi
c in
fras
truc
ture
pr
ojec
ts in
AW
P•
Repo
rts
and
Min
utes
from
site
m
onito
ring
vis
its
f)
If t
here
’s e
vide
nce
that
dur
ing
criti
cal s
tage
s of
co
nstr
uctio
n of
pla
nned
sec
tor
infr
astr
uctu
re
proj
ects
in t
he p
revi
ous
FY, a
t le
ast
1 m
onth
ly
join
t te
chni
cal s
uper
visi
on in
volv
ing
engi
neer
s,
envi
ronm
ent
office
rs, C
DO
s et
c ..,
has
bee
n co
nduc
ted
scor
e: 1
, els
e sc
ore:
0
•Fr
om t
he L
G e
ngin
eer
obta
in r
ecor
ds/
repo
rts
from
site
su
perv
isio
n ac
tiviti
es t
o en
sure
tha
t th
is in
volv
ed p
artic
ipat
ion
of e
ngin
eers
, env
iron
men
t offi
cers
, CD
Os,
at
criti
cal s
tage
s of
co
nstr
uctio
n.
•Re
port
s an
d M
inut
es fr
om s
ite
supe
rvis
ion
and
mon
itori
ng v
isit
s
g) I
f se
ctor
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
have
bee
n pr
oper
ly e
xecu
ted
and
paym
ents
to
cont
ract
ors
mad
e w
ithi
n sp
ecifi
ed t
imef
ram
es w
ithi
n th
e co
ntra
ct, s
core
: 1, e
lse
scor
e: 0
•Fr
om t
he C
FO, o
btai
n an
d re
view
of
cont
ract
s an
d de
term
ine
whe
ther
pay
men
t re
ques
ts fo
r se
ctor
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
wer
e in
itiat
ed a
nd e
xecu
ted
as p
er c
ontr
act
and
impl
emen
tatio
n re
sult
s.
•Li
st o
f se
ctor
pr
ojec
ts fr
om A
WP
•Pr
ojec
t co
ntra
cts
and
paym
ents
sc
hedu
le•
Site
sup
ervi
sion
re
port
s•
Cop
y of
con
trac
tor
paym
ent
slip
s
h) I
f th
e LG
Edu
catio
n de
part
men
t tim
ely
subm
itte
d a
proc
urem
ent
plan
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
the
PPD
A
requ
irem
ents
to
the
proc
urem
ent
unit
by A
pril
30,
scor
e: 1
, els
e, s
core
: 0
•Fr
om t
he P
rocu
rem
ent
unit
(PD
U o
btai
n fil
es/
reco
rds
on a
ll se
ctor
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
impl
emen
ted
in t
he p
revi
ous
FY t
o as
cert
ain
com
plia
nce.
•Se
ctor
Pro
cure
men
t Pl
an
•C
ontr
act
impl
emen
tatio
n pr
ogre
ss r
epor
ts•
Min
utes
from
co
ntra
cts
com
mit
tee
mee
tings
i)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
a c
ompl
ete
proc
urem
ent
file
for
each
sch
ool i
nfra
stru
ctur
e co
ntra
ct w
ith
all r
ecor
ds a
s re
quir
ed b
y th
e PP
DA
La
w9
scor
e 1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
₋Fr
om t
he P
DU
obt
ain
and
revi
ew p
rocu
rem
ent
files
for
scho
ol
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
for
the
prev
ious
FY
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er
they
are
com
plet
e.
•Pr
ocur
emen
t fil
es fo
r sc
hool
in
fras
truc
ture
pr
ojec
ts
9 A
com
plet
e pr
ocur
emen
t fil
e m
ust
have
the
Eva
luat
ion
Repo
rt a
ppro
ved
by t
he C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee,
Wor
ks C
ontr
act,
and
min
utes
of
Con
trac
ts C
omm
itte
e de
cisi
ons
40LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Perf
orm
ance
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
F.
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Soci
al
Safe
guar
ds
Max
imum
sc
ore
12 fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
ar
ea
14.
Gri
evan
ce r
edre
ss: L
G
Educ
atio
n gr
ieva
nces
ha
ve b
een
reco
rded
, in
vest
igat
ed, a
nd
resp
onde
d to
in li
ne w
ith
the
LG g
riev
ance
red
ress
fr
amew
ork.
Max
imum
3 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) E
vide
nce
that
gri
evan
ces
have
bee
n re
cord
ed,
inve
stig
ated
, res
pond
ed t
o an
d re
cord
ed in
line
w
ith
the
grie
vanc
e re
dres
s fr
amew
ork
scor
e: 3
, el
se s
core
: 0
•Fr
om t
he L
G d
esig
nate
Gri
evan
ce R
edre
ss O
ffice
r ob
tain
and
re
view
the
gri
evan
ce r
edre
ss fr
amew
ork
to e
stab
lish
whe
ther
the
gr
ieva
nces
hav
e be
en r
ecor
ded,
inve
stig
ated
, res
pond
ed t
o an
d re
cord
ed in
line
wit
h th
e gr
ieva
nce
redr
ess
fram
ewor
k
•G
riev
ance
red
ress
fr
amew
ork
15.
Safe
guar
ds fo
r se
rvic
e de
liver
y.
Max
imum
3 p
oint
on
this
pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) E
vide
nce
that
LG
has
dis
sem
inat
ed t
he E
duca
tion
guid
elin
es t
o pr
ovid
e fo
r ac
cess
to
land
(w
itho
ut
encu
mbr
ance
), p
rope
r si
ting
of s
choo
ls, ‘
gree
n’
scho
ols
and
ener
gy a
nd w
ater
con
serv
atio
n
Scor
e: 3
, or
else
sco
re: 0
•Fr
om t
he E
nvir
onm
ent
Offi
cer,
obta
in a
nd r
evie
w e
vide
nce
of
diss
emin
atio
n of
Edu
catio
n gu
idel
ines
.•
Che
ck a
sam
ple
of 3
sch
ools
in d
iffer
ent
sub
-cou
ntie
s to
con
firm
w
heth
er e
duca
tion
gui
delin
es h
ave
been
dis
sem
inat
ed
•Ev
iden
ce o
f di
ssem
inat
ion
of e
duca
tion
guid
elin
es
inco
rpor
atin
g E&
S re
quir
emen
ts.
•Sa
mpl
e sc
hool
s.
16.
Safe
guar
ds in
the
del
iver
y of
inve
stm
ents
Max
imum
6 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a) L
G h
as in
pla
ce a
cos
ted
ESM
P an
d th
is is
in
corp
orat
ed w
ithi
n th
e Bo
Qs
and
cont
ract
ual
docu
men
ts, s
core
: 2, e
lse
scor
e: 0
•Fr
om t
he L
G p
rocu
rem
ent
unit
revi
ew E
SMP
and
proj
ect
BoQ
s to
ens
ure
that
saf
egua
rd r
equi
rem
ents
wit
hin
the
Educ
atio
n gu
idel
ines
hav
e be
en in
corp
orat
ed.
•ES
MP
•Bo
Qs
b) I
f th
ere
is p
roof
of
land
ow
ners
hip,
acc
ess
of -
sc
hool
con
stru
ctio
n pr
ojec
ts, s
core
: 1, e
lse
scor
e:
0
•Fr
om t
he E
nvir
onm
ent
Offi
cer
Proc
urem
ent
unit
obta
in a
nd
revi
ew d
ocum
ents
to
asce
rtai
n th
at la
nd is
ava
ilabl
e to
con
duct
pl
anne
d sc
hool
con
stru
ctio
n pr
ojec
ts.
•La
nd t
itle/
ag
reem
ent
•M
oU o
r Le
tter
of
cons
ent
from
the
la
ndow
ner
c) E
vide
nce
that
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r an
d C
DO
co
nduc
ted
supp
ort
supe
rvis
ion
and
mon
itori
ng
(wit
h th
e te
chni
cal t
eam
) to
asc
erta
in c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith
ESM
Ps in
clud
ing
follo
w u
p on
rec
omm
ende
d co
rrec
tive
actio
ns; a
nd p
repa
red
mon
thly
m
onito
ring
rep
orts
, sco
re: 2
, els
e sc
ore:
0
•Fr
om t
he e
nvir
onm
enta
l and
com
mun
ity d
evel
opm
ent
offici
als,
ob
tain
and
rev
iew
pro
ject
rep
orts
on
mon
itori
ng a
nd s
uper
visi
on
activ
ities
con
duct
ed o
ver
the
prev
ious
FY.
•M
onth
ly R
epor
ts
from
mon
itori
ng
and
supe
rvis
ion
activ
ities
d) I
f th
e E&
S ce
rtifi
catio
ns w
ere
appr
oved
and
si
gned
by
the
envi
ronm
enta
l offi
cer
and
CD
O
prio
r to
exe
cutin
g th
e pr
ojec
t co
ntra
ctor
pa
ymen
ts
Scor
e: 1
, els
e sc
ore:
0
•Fr
om t
he E
nvir
onm
ent
Offi
cer,
obta
in a
cop
y of
con
trac
tor
cert
ifica
tes
and
veri
fy w
heth
er t
he e
nvir
onm
enta
l offi
cer
and
CD
O c
ount
er-s
igne
d at
the
inte
rim
and
fina
l sta
ges
of a
ll on
goin
g pr
ojec
ts.
•D
ates
and
Si
gnat
ures
on
Con
trac
tor
cert
ifica
tion
form
s
41LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
10
Hea
lth
Perf
orm
ance
Ass
essm
ent
10.1
H
ealt
h M
inim
um C
ondi
tion
s
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Min
imum
Con
diti
onSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
A)
Hum
an
Reso
urce
M
anag
emen
t an
d D
evel
opm
ent
1.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
Dis
tric
t ha
s su
bsta
ntiv
ely
recr
uite
d or
form
ally
req
uest
ed fo
r se
cond
men
t of
sta
ff fo
r al
l cr
itica
l pos
ition
s.
App
licab
le t
o D
istr
icts
onl
y.
Max
imum
sco
re is
70
If t
he L
G h
as s
ubst
antiv
ely
recr
uite
d or
form
ally
re
ques
ted
for
seco
ndm
ent
of:
a. D
istr
ict
Hea
lth
Offi
cer,
scor
e 10
or
else
0.
b. A
ssis
tant
Dis
tric
t H
ealt
h O
ffice
r M
ater
nal,
Chi
ld
Hea
lth
and
Nur
sing
, sco
re 1
0 o
r el
se 0
c. A
ssis
tant
Dis
tric
t H
ealt
h O
ffice
r En
viro
nmen
tal
Hea
lth,
sco
re 1
0 o
r el
se 0
.d.
Pri
ncip
al H
ealt
h In
spec
tor
(Sen
ior
Envi
ronm
ent
Offi
cer)
, sco
re 1
0 o
r el
se 0
.e.
Sen
ior
Hea
lth
Educ
ator
, sco
re 1
0 o
r el
se 0
.f.
Bio
stat
istic
ian,
sco
re 1
0 o
r 0
.g.
Dis
tric
t C
old
Cha
in T
echn
icia
n, s
core
10
or
else
0.
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion,
obt
ain
and
revi
ew t
he
appo
intm
ent
lett
ers
of t
he D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
al
Hea
lth
Offi
ce s
taff
as
liste
d to
est
ablis
h th
at
they
are
sub
stan
tivel
y re
crui
ted.
In c
ase
the
posi
tion
is n
ot fi
lled,
get
evi
denc
e fr
om t
he H
uman
Res
ourc
e M
anag
emen
t (H
RM)
Div
isio
n th
at t
he L
G r
eque
sted
for
seco
ndm
ent
for
dist
rict
s fr
om t
he M
inis
try
of H
ealt
h (M
oH)
and
Mun
icip
aliti
es fr
om t
he
Dis
tric
t
•A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
•C
opy
of le
tter
fr
om L
G t
o M
oH
requ
estin
g fo
r se
cond
men
t of
sta
ff
to D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
al
Hea
lth
Offi
ce.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e M
unic
ipal
ity h
as in
pla
ce
or fo
rmal
ly r
eque
sted
for
seco
ndm
ent
of s
taff
for
all
criti
cal p
ositi
ons.
App
licab
le t
o M
Cs
only
.
Max
imum
sco
re is
70
If t
he M
C h
as in
pla
ce o
r fo
rmal
ly r
eque
sted
for
seco
ndm
ent
of s
taff
:
h. M
edic
al O
ffice
r of
Hea
lth
Serv
ices
/Pr
inci
pal
Med
ical
Offi
cer,
scor
e 30
or
else
0.
i. Pr
inci
pal H
ealt
h In
spec
tor,
scor
e 20
or
else
0.
j. H
ealt
h Ed
ucat
or, s
core
20
or
else
0
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion,
obt
ain
and
revi
ew t
he
appo
intm
ent
lett
ers
of t
he D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
al
Hea
lth
Offi
ce s
taff
as
liste
d to
est
ablis
h th
at
they
are
sub
stan
tivel
y re
crui
ted.
In c
ase
the
posi
tions
are
not
fille
d, g
et
evid
ence
from
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion
that
the
LG
re
ques
ted
for
seco
ndm
ent
for
dist
rict
s fr
om t
he M
inis
try
of H
ealt
h (M
oH)
and
Mun
icip
aliti
es fr
om t
he D
istr
ict
•A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
•C
opy
of le
tter
fr
om L
G t
o M
oH
requ
estin
g fo
r se
cond
men
t of
sta
ff
to D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
al
Hea
lth
Offi
ce.
B)
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Soci
al
Requ
irem
ents
Max
imum
sc
ore
is 3
0
2.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
prio
r to
co
mm
ence
men
t of
all
civi
l wor
ks fo
r al
l Hea
lth
sect
or p
roje
cts,
the
LG
has
ca
rrie
d ou
t: E
nvir
onm
enta
l, So
cial
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
scre
enin
g/En
viro
nmen
t So
cial
Impa
ct A
sses
smen
ts
(ESI
As)
If t
he L
G c
arri
ed o
ut:
a.E
nvir
onm
enta
l, So
cial
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
scre
enin
g/En
viro
nmen
t, s
core
15
or e
lse
0.
b.S
ocia
l Im
pact
Ass
essm
ents
(ES
IAs)
, sc
ore
15 o
r el
se
0.
From
the
LG
Env
iron
men
t offi
cer
and
CD
O,
obta
in t
he
Envi
ronm
enta
l and
Soc
ial S
cree
ning
(E&
S)
Form
for
all H
ealt
h pr
ojec
ts fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
, to
ver
ify
whe
ther
:
•E&
S w
as c
ompl
eted
and
, whe
ther
ESI
As/
ESM
Ps w
ere
prep
ared
and
cos
ted
and
impl
emen
ted/
follo
wed
up.
•Fi
lled
in
envi
ronm
enta
l and
So
cial
scr
eeni
ng
Form
s•
ESIA
s re
port
s
42LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
10.2
H
ealt
h Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
res
Gui
danc
e on
Sam
plin
g of
site
s fo
r in
dic
ator
s w
here
site
vis
its
are
requ
ired
: Sam
ple
3 he
alt
h fa
cilit
ies
or a
ll w
here
the
y ar
e le
ss t
han
3. P
refe
rabl
y us
e th
e sa
me
site
s sa
mpl
ed w
here
fiel
d ve
rific
atio
n is
re
quir
ed t
hrou
ghou
t th
e a
sses
smen
t fo
r a
giv
en L
G, t
o m
inim
ize
on t
rans
port
log
isti
cal r
equi
rem
ents
and
for
effec
tive
use
of
tim
e.
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
A.
Loca
l Gov
ernm
ent
Serv
ice
Del
iver
y Re
sult
s
Max
imum
sco
re:
18 fo
r th
is p
erfo
rman
ce
area
1.O
utco
me:
The
LG
has
reg
iste
red
high
er
perc
enta
ge o
f th
e po
pula
tion
acce
ssin
g he
alth
car
e se
rvic
es.
Max
imum
2 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
If t
he L
G r
egis
tere
d In
crea
sed
utili
zatio
n of
Hea
lth
Car
e Se
rvic
es
(foc
us o
n to
tal O
PD a
tten
danc
e,
and
deliv
erie
s.•
By 2
0%
or
mor
e, s
core
2•
Less
tha
n 20
%, s
core
0
From
the
Bio
stat
istic
ian,
sam
ple
3 H
ealt
h U
nit
Ann
ual R
epor
ts (
HM
IS 1
07)
an
d co
mpa
re O
PD a
tten
danc
e an
d de
liver
ies
in F
Y un
der
asse
ssm
ent
wit
h th
e FY
bef
ore.
Hea
lth
Uni
t A
nnua
l Rep
orts
(H
MIS
10
7) a
t th
e D
istr
ict
2.Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Perf
orm
ance
: Ave
rage
sc
ore
in t
he H
ealt
h LL
G p
erfo
rman
ce
asse
ssm
ent.
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
Not
e: T
o ha
ve z
ero
wai
t fo
r ye
ar o
ne.
a.
If t
he a
vera
ge s
core
in H
ealt
h fo
r LL
G
perf
orm
ance
ass
essm
ent
is:
•A
bove
70
%; s
core
2•
50 –
69%
sco
re 1
•Be
low
50
%; s
core
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pl
anne
r ob
tain
the
LLG
pe
rfor
man
ce r
epor
t an
d ca
lcul
ate
the
aver
age
scor
e of
heal
th fo
r LL
G p
erfo
rman
ce a
sses
smen
t
Not
e: T
o be
sco
red
Zero
for
all
LGs
in
Y1 &
Y2
Repo
rt o
n LL
G a
nnua
l pe
rfor
man
ce a
sses
smen
t
b.
If t
he a
vera
ge s
core
in t
he R
BF
quar
terl
y qu
ality
faci
lity
asse
ssm
ent
for
HC
IIIs
and
IVs
is:
•A
bove
75%
; sco
re 2
•65
– 7
4%; s
core
1•
Belo
w 6
5%10
; sco
re 0
From
the
DH
O o
btai
n an
d re
view
RBF
Fa
cilit
y as
sess
men
t re
cord
s to
est
ablis
h th
e av
erag
e sc
ore
atta
ined
by
HC
IIIs
an
d H
C IV
s in
a L
G p
artic
ipat
ing
in R
BF
Dis
tric
t Re
port
s on
RBF
Fac
ility
A
sses
smen
t fo
r th
e la
st q
uart
er o
f th
e Fi
nanc
ial Y
ear.
3.In
vest
men
t pe
rfor
man
ce: T
he L
G
has
man
aged
hea
lth
proj
ects
as
per
guid
elin
es.
Max
imum
8 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
If t
he L
G b
udge
ted
and
spen
t al
l th
e he
alth
dev
elop
men
t gr
ant
for
the
prev
ious
FY
on e
ligib
le a
ctiv
ities
as
per
the
hea
lth
gran
t an
d bu
dget
gu
idel
ines
, sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
.
From
the
Pla
nner
, obt
ain
and
revi
ew
the
budg
et p
erfo
rman
ce r
epor
t fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y to
est
ablis
h w
heth
er t
he
heal
th d
evel
opm
ent
gran
t w
as u
sed
on
elig
ible
act
iviti
es.
•A
nnua
l Bud
get
Perf
orm
ance
Re
port
for
the
prev
ious
FY.
•LG
hea
lth
gran
t an
d bu
dget
gu
idel
ines
for
the
prev
ious
FY
b.
If t
he D
HO
/MM
OH
, LG
Eng
inee
r, En
viro
nmen
t O
ffice
r an
d C
DO
ce
rtifi
ed w
orks
on
heal
th p
roje
cts
befo
re t
he L
G m
ade
paym
ents
to
the
cont
ract
ors/
sup
plie
rs s
core
2 o
r el
se
scor
e 0
From
the
Chi
ef F
inan
ce O
ffice
r ob
tain
an
d re
view
pay
men
t vo
uche
rs fo
r al
l he
alth
pro
ject
con
trac
ts fo
r th
e pr
evio
us
FY, t
o es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
cer
tifica
tion
of w
orks
was
don
e be
fore
the
LG
mad
e pa
ymen
ts t
o th
e su
pplie
rs
•Pa
ymen
t vo
uche
rs fo
r al
l co
ntra
ctor
s/ s
uppl
iers
10
Min
imum
Sco
re fo
r fa
cilit
ies
to q
ualif
y fo
r RB
F is
65%
thu
s sh
ould
not
go
belo
w.
43LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
c.
If t
he v
aria
tions
in t
he c
ontr
act
pric
e of
sam
pled
hea
lth
infr
astr
uctu
re in
vest
men
ts a
re
wit
hin
+/-
20%
of
the
MoW
T En
gine
ers
estim
ates
, sco
re 2
or
else
sc
ore
0
•Fr
om t
he L
G E
ngin
eer,
obta
in
and
sam
ple
3 (o
r al
l if
less
tha
n 3)
wor
ks/s
uppl
ier
cont
ract
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y an
d ca
lcul
ate
the
vari
atio
ns in
the
con
trac
t pr
ice
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er t
hey
are
wit
hin
+/-
20%
of
the
MoW
T En
gine
ers
estim
ates
•M
oWT
Engi
neer
s Es
timat
es•
Sam
ple
wor
ks/s
uppl
ier
cont
ract
s fo
r H
ealt
h in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s fo
r th
e la
st F
Y
d.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e he
alth
sec
tor
inve
stm
ent
proj
ects
impl
emen
ted
in
the
prev
ious
FY
wer
e co
mpl
eted
as
per
wor
k pl
an b
y en
d of
the
FY
•If
10
0 %
Sco
re 2
•Be
twee
n 80
and
99%
sco
re 1
•le
ss t
han
80 %
: Sco
re 0
From
the
LG
Eng
inee
r ob
tain
: (i)
the
w
orks
con
trac
ts; a
nd (
ii) t
he A
nnua
l bud
-ge
t pe
rfor
man
ce r
epor
t fo
r the
pre
viou
s FY
, to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er h
ealt
h pr
ojec
ts
whe
re c
ontr
acts
wer
e si
gned
wer
e co
m-
plet
ed.
•W
orks
con
trac
ts fo
r he
alth
pr
ojec
ts fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y•
4.Ac
hiev
emen
t of
Sta
ndar
ds:
The
LG
has
met
he
alth
sta
ffing
and
infr
astr
uctu
re fa
cilit
y st
anda
rds
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
rec
ruite
d st
aff fo
r al
l HC
IIIs
and
HC
IVs
as p
er
staffi
ng s
truc
ture
•
If a
bove
90
% s
core
2•
If 7
5% -
90
%: s
core
1•
Belo
w 7
5 %
: sco
re 0
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
•Th
e st
affing
str
uctu
re fo
r H
CIII
s an
d H
CIV
s •
The
LG H
ealt
h w
age
•Th
e st
aff li
st/H
uman
Res
ourc
e In
form
atio
n Sy
stem
rep
ort/
D
atab
ase
•Pa
yrol
l
Cal
cula
te t
he %
age
of h
ealt
h fa
cilit
y w
orke
rs p
ositi
ons
tha
t ar
e fil
led
•St
aff s
truc
ture
•St
aff L
ist/
/ H
uman
Res
ourc
e In
form
atio
n Sy
stem
rep
ort/
D
atab
ase
•A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
from
Re
cord
s/Re
gist
ry•
Bud
get
of t
he c
urre
nt F
Y sh
owin
g th
e W
age
bill
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
hea
lth
infr
astr
uctu
re c
onst
ruct
ion
proj
ects
m
eet
the
appr
oved
MoH
Fac
ility
In
fras
truc
ture
Des
igns
.•
If 1
00
% s
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
LG
Eng
inee
r ob
tain
:
•Th
e in
vent
ory
of e
xist
ing
and
new
ly
cons
truc
ted
heal
th fa
cilit
ies.
•Fo
r al
l hea
lth
faci
litie
s an
d ch
eck
whe
ther
the
y co
nfor
m t
o th
e ap
prov
ed d
esig
ns.
•M
oH H
ealt
h fa
cilit
y in
fras
truc
ture
des
igns
•
Inve
ntor
y of
exi
stin
g an
d ne
wly
co
nstr
ucte
d he
alth
faci
litie
s
B.
Perf
orm
ance
Re
port
ing
and
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t
Max
imum
sco
re 1
8 fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
5.Ac
cura
cy o
f Re
port
ed In
form
atio
n: T
he
LG m
aint
ains
and
rep
orts
acc
urat
e in
form
atio
n
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t in
form
atio
n on
po
sitio
ns o
f he
alth
wor
kers
fille
d is
ac
cura
te: S
core
2 o
r el
se 0
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Offi
ce
•O
btai
n th
e st
aff li
st fo
r cu
rren
t FY
.•
Sam
ple
3 he
alth
faci
litie
s fr
om
the
staff
list
for
the
curr
ent
FY t
o es
tabl
ish
that
the
hea
lth
wor
kers
ar
e in
pla
ce a
s in
dica
ted
in t
he
staff
list
.
•H
ealt
h fa
cilit
y st
aff li
st fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
•C
urre
nt F
Y Re
port
on
faci
lity
staffi
ng L
evel
s.
44LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t in
form
atio
n on
hea
lth
faci
litie
s up
grad
ed o
r co
nstr
ucte
d an
d fu
nctio
nal i
s ac
cura
te: S
core
2
or e
lse
0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H o
btai
n:
•Th
e lis
t of
upg
rade
d or
co
nstr
ucte
d he
alth
faci
litie
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y. E
stab
lish
whe
ther
in
form
atio
n su
bmit
ted
in t
he
PBS
on c
onst
ruct
ion
stat
us a
nd
func
tiona
lity
is a
ccur
ate.
•Li
st o
f up
grad
ed o
r co
nstr
ucte
d he
alth
faci
litie
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y.
•A
nnua
l PB
S Re
port
for
prev
ious
FY.
6.H
ealt
h Fa
cilit
y C
ompl
ianc
e to
the
Bud
get
and
Gra
nt G
uide
lines
, Res
ult
Base
d Fi
nanc
ing
and
Perf
orm
ance
Impr
ovem
ent:
LG
has
enf
orce
d H
ealt
h Fa
cilit
y C
ompl
ianc
e, R
esul
t Ba
sed
Fina
ncin
g an
d im
plem
ente
d Pe
rfor
man
ce Im
prov
emen
t su
ppor
t.
Max
imum
14
poin
ts o
n th
is p
erfo
rman
ce
mea
sure
a)
Hea
lth
faci
litie
s pr
epar
ed a
nd
subm
itte
d A
nnua
l Wor
k pl
ans
&
budg
ets
to t
he D
HO
/MM
OH
by
Mar
ch 3
1st
of t
he p
revi
ous
FY a
s pe
r th
e LG
Pla
nnin
g G
uide
lines
for
Hea
lth
Sect
or:
•Sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H o
btai
n co
pies
of
Hea
lth
faci
lity
Ann
ual W
ork
plan
s &
Bud
-ge
ts fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y.
•Sa
mpl
e su
bmis
sion
s of
3 fa
cilit
ies
and
chec
k w
heth
er t
heir
bud
gets
co
nfor
m t
o th
e pr
escr
ibed
form
ats
•H
ealt
h Fa
cilit
y an
nual
wor
k pl
an a
nd b
udge
t fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y•
Loca
l Gov
ernm
ent
Plan
ning
G
uide
lines
for
the
Hea
lth
Sect
or.
b)
Hea
lth
faci
litie
s pr
epar
ed a
nd
subm
itte
d to
the
DH
O/M
MO
H
Ann
ual B
udge
t Pe
rfor
man
ce
Repo
rts
for
the
prev
ious
FY
by J
uly
15th
of
the
prev
ious
FY
as p
er t
he
Bud
get
and
Gra
nt G
uide
lines
11:
•Sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H o
btai
n co
pies
of
Hea
lth
faci
lity
Ann
ual B
udge
t Pe
rfor
-m
ance
Rep
orts
for
the
prev
ious
FY.
Sam
ple
subm
issi
ons
of 3
faci
litie
s an
d ch
eck
whe
ther
the
ir A
nnua
l Bud
get
Perf
orm
ance
Rep
orts
con
form
to
the
Bud
get
and
Gra
nt G
uide
lines
.
•H
ealt
h Fa
cilit
y A
nnua
l Bud
get
Perf
orm
ance
Rep
ort
for
the
prev
ious
FY
c)
Hea
lth
faci
litie
s ha
ve d
evel
oped
an
d re
port
ed o
n im
plem
enta
tion
of fa
cilit
y im
prov
emen
t pl
ans
that
inco
rpor
ate
perf
orm
ance
is
sues
iden
tified
in m
onito
ring
and
as
sess
men
t re
port
s
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H o
btai
n co
pies
of
subm
issi
on o
f H
ealt
h fa
cilit
y im
prov
e-m
ent
plan
s fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
.
•Sa
mpl
e su
bmis
sion
s of
3
faci
litie
s an
d ch
eck
whe
ther
the
ir
impr
ovem
ent
plan
s in
corp
orat
e pe
rfor
man
ce is
sues
iden
tified
in
DH
MT
mon
itori
ng a
nd a
sses
smen
t re
port
s:
•H
ealt
h Fa
cilit
y im
prov
emen
t pl
ans
for
the
curr
ent
FY
•D
HM
T m
onito
ring
and
as
sess
men
t re
port
s
11
The
gui
delin
es p
resc
ribe
the
form
at to
incl
ude:
a) h
ighl
ight
s of
perf
orm
ance
, b) a
reco
ncile
d ca
sh fl
ow st
atem
ent,
c) a
n an
nual
exp
endi
tureand
bud
getrep
ort,d)anassetregisterand
f)th
erepo
rthasbee
nen
dorsed
byth
eincha
rgee
and
the
chai
r of t
he H
UM
C/Ho
spita
l Boa
rd
45LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
d)
Evid
ence
tha
t he
alth
faci
litie
s su
bmit
ted
up t
o da
te m
onth
ly a
nd
quar
terl
y H
MIS
rep
orts
tim
ely
(7
days
follo
win
g th
e en
d of
eac
h m
onth
and
qua
rter
) If
10
0%
, sco
re
2 or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H c
heck
for
the
reco
rd o
f su
bmis
sion
s an
d es
tabl
ish
timel
ines
s of
mon
thly
and
qua
rter
ly
Repo
rts.
Sam
ple
subm
issi
ons
of 3
faci
litie
s an
d ch
eck
for
timel
ines
s of
all
mon
thly
(1
2) a
nd q
uart
erly
(4)
rep
orts
for
the
prev
ious
FY.
Hea
lth
Faci
lity
HM
IS R
epor
ts 1
04
and
105
for
the
prev
ious
FY.
e)
Evid
ence
tha
t H
ealt
h fa
cilit
ies
subm
itte
d RB
F in
voic
es t
imel
y (b
y 15
th o
f th
e m
onth
follo
win
g en
d of
th
e qu
arte
r). I
f 10
0%
, sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
Not
e: M
unic
ipa
litie
s su
bmit
to d
istr
icts
From
the
DH
O c
heck
for
the
reco
rd o
f su
bmis
sion
s an
d es
tabl
ish
timel
ines
s.
Sam
ple
subm
issi
ons
of 3
Hea
lth
faci
litie
s RB
F in
voic
es a
nd c
heck
for
timel
ines
s of
su
bmis
sion
for
the
prev
ious
qua
rter
.
Hea
lth
Faci
lity
reco
rd o
f su
bmis
sion
s of
RBF
invo
ices
f)If
the
LG
tim
ely
(by
end
of 3
rd
wee
k of
the
mon
th fo
llow
ing
end
of t
he q
uart
er)
veri
fied,
com
pile
d an
d su
bmit
ted
to M
OH
faci
lity
RBF
invo
ices
for
all R
BF H
ealt
h Fa
cilit
ies,
if
100
%, s
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
MoH
obt
ain
copy
of
DH
MT
subm
issi
ons
of fa
cilit
y RB
F in
voic
es, a
nd
chec
k su
bmis
sion
dat
es.
•D
HM
T su
bmis
sion
s of
faci
lity
RBF
invo
ices
to
MoH
g)
If t
he L
G t
imel
y (b
y en
d of
the
firs
t m
onth
of
the
follo
win
g qu
arte
r)
com
pile
d an
d su
bmit
ted
all
quar
terl
y (4
) B
udge
t Pe
rfor
man
ce
Repo
rts.
If 1
00
%, s
core
1 o
r el
se
scor
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t/M
unic
ipal
Pla
nner
ob
tain
cop
y of
Hea
lth
Dep
artm
ent
Subm
issi
ons
of Q
uart
erly
Bud
get
Perf
orm
ance
Rep
orts
for
the
prev
ious
FY
and
not
e th
e da
tes
of s
ubm
issi
on t
o Pl
anne
r fo
r C
onso
lidat
ion.
•LG
sub
mis
sion
s to
MoF
PED
•H
ealt
h D
epar
tmen
t qu
arte
rly
perf
orm
ance
rep
orts
h)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
:i.
Dev
elop
ed a
n ap
prov
ed
Perf
orm
ance
Impr
ovem
ent
Plan
for
the
wea
kest
per
form
ing
heal
th fa
cilit
ies,
sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
ii.
Impl
emen
ted
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t Pl
an fo
r w
eake
st
perf
orm
ing
faci
litie
s, s
core
1 o
r el
se 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t H
ealt
h O
ffice
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
•(i
) th
e A
ppro
ved
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t Pl
an; a
nd (
ii)
PIP
impl
emen
tatio
n re
port
s to
es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
the
LG
dev
elop
ed
and
impl
emen
ted
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t Pl
an fo
r th
e lo
wes
t pe
rfor
min
g he
alth
faci
litie
s.
•A
ppro
ved
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t Pl
an.
•PI
P im
plem
enta
tion
repo
rts
46LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
C.
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
and
Dev
elop
men
t
Max
imum
sco
re 1
6 fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
7.B
udge
ting
for,
actu
al r
ecru
itmen
t an
d de
ploy
men
t of
sta
ff: T
he L
ocal
G
over
nmen
t ha
s bu
dget
ed fo
r, re
crui
ted
and
depl
oyed
sta
ff a
s pe
r gu
idel
ines
Max
imum
9 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
:i.
Bud
gete
d fo
r he
alth
wor
kers
as
per
gui
delin
es/i
n ac
cord
ance
wit
h th
e st
affing
nor
ms
scor
e 2
or e
lse
0ii.
Dep
loye
d he
alth
wor
kers
as
per
guid
elin
es (
all t
he h
ealt
h fa
cilit
ies
to
have
at
leas
t 75
% o
f st
aff r
equi
red)
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith
the
staffi
ng n
orm
s sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
(i)
the
LG p
erfo
rman
ce c
ontr
act;
and
(i
i) s
taff
list
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er t
he
LG B
udge
ted
for
heal
th w
orke
rs a
s pe
r gu
idel
ines
and
dep
loye
d th
em a
s pe
r gu
idel
ines
•LG
Per
form
ance
con
trac
t•
App
rove
d st
ruct
ures
•de
ploy
men
t lis
t
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t he
alth
wor
kers
are
w
orki
ng in
hea
lth
faci
litie
s w
here
th
ey a
re d
eplo
yed,
sco
re 3
or
else
sc
ore
0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H, o
btai
n th
e he
alth
w
orke
rs d
eplo
ymen
t lis
t an
d sa
mpl
e 3
heal
th fa
cilit
ies.
At
each
of
thes
e 3
heal
th fa
cilit
ies,
rev
iew
:
•(i
)the
Hea
lth
wor
kers
’ sta
ff li
sts;
(ii)
fa
cilit
y at
tend
ance
boo
k/re
gist
er
(DH
MT
supe
rvis
ion/
mon
itori
ng
repo
rts;
Aut
omat
ed A
tten
danc
e A
naly
sis
(AA
A)
repo
rt t
o de
term
ine
that
hea
lth
wor
kers
are
wor
king
w
here
the
y ar
e de
ploy
ed.
•H
ealt
h w
orke
r’s
depl
oym
ent
list
for
the
curr
ent
FY
•W
ork
Atte
ndan
ce b
ooks
/re
gist
ers
•D
HM
T su
perv
isio
n/
mon
itori
ng r
epor
ts fo
r cu
rren
t FY
•A
utom
ated
Att
enda
nce
Ana
lysi
s (A
AA
) re
port
•H
RIS
Dat
abas
e
c)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
pub
liciz
ed
heal
th w
orke
rs d
eplo
ymen
t an
d di
ssem
inat
ed b
y, a
mon
g ot
hers
, po
stin
g on
faci
lity
notic
e bo
ards
, fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
sco
re 2
or
else
sc
ore
0
From
DH
O/M
MO
Hs:
•ob
tain
and
che
ck c
ircu
lar
on
depl
oym
ent
of h
ealt
h w
orke
rs t
o he
ath
faci
litie
s fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
Sam
ple
3 he
alth
faci
litie
s an
d ch
eck
whe
ther
list
of
heal
th w
orke
rs fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
dep
loye
d is
dis
play
ed o
n th
e he
alth
faci
litie
s no
tice
boar
ds
•H
ealt
h Fa
cilit
y no
tice
boar
ds•
Cir
cula
r fr
om D
HO
/MM
OH
to
heal
th fa
cilit
y in
-cha
rges
47LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
8.Pe
rfor
man
ce m
anag
emen
t: T
he L
G h
as
appr
aise
d, t
aken
cor
rect
ive
actio
n an
d tr
aine
d H
ealt
h W
orke
rs.
Max
imum
6 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
HO
/MM
OH
s ha
s:
i.C
ondu
cted
ann
ual
perf
orm
ance
app
rais
al o
f al
l Hea
lth
faci
lity
In-c
harg
es a
gain
st t
he a
gree
d pe
rfor
man
ce p
lans
and
sub
mit
ted
a co
py
to H
RO d
urin
g th
e pr
evio
us F
Y sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
ii.
Ensu
red
that
Hea
lth
Faci
lity
In-c
harg
es c
ondu
cted
per
form
ance
ap
prai
sal o
f al
l hea
lth
faci
lity
wor
kers
ag
ains
t th
e ag
reed
per
form
ance
pla
ns
and
subm
itte
d a
copy
thr
ough
DH
O/
MM
OH
to
HRO
dur
ing
the
prev
ious
FY
scor
e 1
or e
lse
0iii.
Take
n co
rrec
tive
actio
ns
base
d on
the
app
rais
al r
epor
ts, s
core
2
or e
lse
0
From
the
LG
HR
depa
rtm
ent,
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
•A
sam
ple
of 1
0 h
ealt
h pe
rson
al fi
les
for
heal
th w
orke
rs t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
the
y w
ere
appr
aise
d du
ring
the
pre
viou
s FY
•C
heck
whe
ther
cor
rect
ive
actio
ns,
if an
y, w
ere
take
n ba
sed
on t
he
appr
aisa
l rep
orts
.
•Pe
rson
al fi
les
of h
ealt
h fa
cilit
y in
-cha
rges
and
sta
ff•
App
rais
al r
epor
ts o
f fa
cilit
y he
alth
wor
kers
by
in-c
harg
es
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
:i.
cond
ucte
d tr
aini
ng o
f he
alth
w
orke
rs (
Con
tinuo
us P
rofe
ssio
nal
Dev
elop
men
t) in
acc
orda
nce
to t
he
trai
ning
pla
ns a
t D
istr
ict/
MC
leve
l, sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
ii.
Doc
umen
ted
trai
ning
act
iviti
es
in t
he t
rain
ing/
CPD
dat
abas
e, s
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H o
btai
n an
d re
view
fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y:
•(i
) tr
aini
ng r
epor
ts; (
ii) t
rain
ing
data
base
to
esta
blis
h th
at t
rain
ing
activ
ities
wer
e co
nduc
ted
and
docu
men
ted
in t
he t
rain
ing
data
base
•Tr
aini
ng r
epor
ts•
Trai
ning
dat
abas
e/ C
PD
Dat
abas
e
•C
PD p
lans
D.
Man
agem
ent,
M
onito
ring
and
Su
perv
isio
n of
Se
rvic
es
Max
imum
sco
re 2
0 fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
9.Pl
anni
ng, b
udge
ting
, and
tra
nsfe
r of
fun
ds
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery:
The
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t ha
s bu
dget
ed, u
sed
and
diss
emin
ated
fu
nds
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery
as p
er g
uide
lines
.
Max
imum
9 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e C
AO/T
own
Cle
rk c
onfir
med
the
list
of
Hea
lth
faci
litie
s (G
oU a
nd P
NFP
rec
eivi
ng
PHC
NW
R gr
ants
) an
d n
otifi
ed t
he
MO
H in
wri
ting
by S
epte
mbe
r 30
th
if a
heal
th fa
cilit
y ha
d be
en li
sted
in
corr
ectly
or
mis
sed
in t
he p
revi
ous
FY, s
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
HRO
(Re
gist
ry)
obta
in a
cop
y of
the
lett
er n
otif
ying
MoH
of
the
list
of
faci
litie
s ac
cess
ing
the
PHC
NW
R G
rant
s fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
.
Obt
ain
and
revi
ew t
he B
udge
t an
d G
rant
G
uide
lines
for
the
curr
ent
FY:
•C
heck
whe
ther
the
list
of
heal
th
faci
litie
s (G
oU a
nd P
NFP
faci
litie
s re
ceiv
ing
PHC
NW
R gr
ants
) rh
ymes
wit
h th
e on
e th
e C
AO/T
C
subm
itte
d in
the
LG
Bud
get
for
the
curr
ent
FY.
•C
opy
of le
tter
from
the
CAO
/To
wn
Cle
rk n
otif
ying
the
MO
H
of s
tatu
s of
list
of
heal
th
faci
litie
s if
corr
ect
or w
rong
.
48LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
mad
e al
loca
tions
tow
ards
mon
itori
ng
serv
ice
deliv
ery
and
man
agem
ent
of D
istr
ict
heal
th s
ervi
ces
in li
ne w
ith
the
heal
th s
ecto
r gr
ant
guid
elin
es
(15%
of
the
PHC
NW
R G
rant
for
LLH
F al
loca
tion
mad
e fo
r D
HO
/MM
OH
),
scor
e 2
or e
lse
scor
e 0
.
From
the
Pla
nner
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
•A
nnua
l Bud
get
Perf
orm
ance
Rep
ort
for
the
prev
ious
FY
and
chec
k w
heth
er a
lloca
tions
for
man
agem
ent
of D
istr
ict/
Mun
icip
al h
ealt
h se
rvic
es
was
mad
e.
Ann
ual B
udge
t Pe
rfor
man
ce
Repo
rt fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y
c.
If t
he L
G m
ade
timel
y12 w
arra
ntin
g/ve
rific
atio
n of
dir
ect
gran
t tr
ansf
ers
to h
ealt
h fa
cilit
ies
for
the
last
FY,
in
acco
rdan
ce t
o th
e re
quir
emen
ts o
f th
e bu
dget
sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
CFO
/SFO
obt
ain
and
revi
ew
reco
rds
of w
hen
war
rant
ing/
veri
ficat
ion
was
don
e fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y re
leas
es o
f PH
C N
WR
gran
t to
faci
litie
s
Cop
ies
of w
arra
nts
subm
itte
d to
M
oFPE
D fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y
d.
If t
he L
G in
voic
ed a
nd c
omm
unic
ated
al
l PH
C N
WR
Gra
nt t
rans
fers
for
the
prev
ious
FY
to h
ealt
h fa
cilit
ies
wit
hin
5 w
orki
ng d
ays
from
the
day
of
fund
s re
leas
e in
eac
h qu
arte
r, sc
ore
2 or
el
se s
core
0
From
MoF
PED
obt
ain
and
revi
ew t
he
cost
cen
tre
list
& L
LG a
lloca
tion
rele
ase
brea
kdow
ns fo
r al
l the
4 q
uart
ers
of t
he
prev
ious
FY.
From
the
CAO
/Tow
n C
lerk
obt
ain
quar
terl
y co
rres
pond
ence
to
faci
litie
s on
PH
C N
WR
gran
t re
leas
es.
From
3 s
ampl
ed h
ealt
h fa
cilit
ies,
ob
tain
and
rev
iew
ban
k st
atem
ents
to
esta
blis
h th
e da
tes;
com
pare
wit
h th
e co
rres
pond
ence
from
CAO
/Tow
n C
lerk
:
•Es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
, for
eac
h qu
arte
r, th
e C
AO/T
own
Cle
rk in
voic
ed a
nd
com
mun
icat
ed r
elea
ses
to h
ealt
h fa
cilit
ies
wit
hin
5 w
orki
ng d
ays
from
th
e re
leas
e da
te.
•C
ost
cent
re li
st &
LLG
al
loca
tion
rele
ase
brea
kdow
ns
for
all t
he 4
qua
rter
s of
the
pr
evio
us F
Y•
CAO
/Tow
n C
lerk
qua
rter
ly
corr
espo
nden
ce t
o he
alth
fa
cilit
ies
on P
HC
NW
R gr
ant
rele
ases
•H
ealt
h Fa
cilit
y re
cord
s on
re
ceip
t of
PH
C N
WR
gran
t re
leas
es
e.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
pub
liciz
ed
all t
he q
uart
erly
fina
ncia
l rel
ease
s to
al
l hea
lth
faci
litie
s w
ithi
n 5
wor
king
da
ys fr
om t
he d
ate
of r
ecei
pt o
f th
e ex
pend
iture
lim
its
from
MoF
PED
- e.
g.
thro
ugh
post
ing
on p
ublic
not
ice
boar
ds: s
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0
Che
ck t
he L
G N
otic
e Bo
ards
and
LG
w
ebsi
te.
•es
tabl
ish
if th
e LG
(C
AO/T
own
Cle
rk)
publ
iciz
ed a
ll he
alth
faci
litie
s re
ceiv
ing
non-
wag
e re
curr
ent
gran
ts
•LG
not
ice
boar
ds
•LG
web
site
12
Tim
ely
war
rant
ing
for
a LG
mea
ns: 5
wor
king
day
s fr
om t
he d
ate
of r
ecei
pt o
f re
leas
es fr
om M
oFPE
D.
49LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
10.
Rout
ine
over
sigh
t an
d m
onito
ring
: The
LG
m
onito
red,
pro
vide
d ha
nds
-on
supp
ort
supe
rvis
ion
to h
ealt
h fa
cilit
ies.
Max
imum
7 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
hea
lth
depa
rtm
ent
impl
emen
ted
actio
n(s)
re
com
men
ded
by t
he D
HM
T Q
uart
erly
pe
rfor
man
ce r
evie
w m
eetin
g (s
) he
ld
duri
ng t
he p
revi
ous
FY, s
core
2 o
r el
se
scor
e 0
From
the
DH
O o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
•M
inut
es o
f th
e D
HM
T qu
arte
rly
revi
ew m
eetin
gs•
Repo
rts
on im
plem
enta
tion
of
actio
ns a
risi
ng fr
om t
he q
uart
erly
re
view
mee
tings
.
•M
inut
es o
f Q
uart
erly
rev
iew
m
eetin
gs•
DH
O/M
MO
H q
uart
erly
im
plem
enta
tion
repo
rts
b.If
the
LG
qua
rter
ly p
erfo
rman
ce
revi
ew m
eetin
gs in
volv
e al
l hea
lth
faci
litie
s in
cha
rges
, im
plem
entin
g pa
rtne
rs, D
HM
Ts, k
ey L
G d
epar
tmen
ts
e.g.
WA
SH, C
omm
unity
Dev
elop
men
t,
Educ
atio
n de
part
men
t, s
core
1 o
r el
se 0
From
the
DH
O/
obta
in a
nd re
view
min
utes
of
th
e qu
arte
rly
DH
MT
perf
orm
ance
re
view
mee
tings
•Es
tabl
ish
atte
ndan
ce
•M
inut
es o
f D
HM
T qu
arte
rly
perf
orm
ance
rev
iew
mee
tings
c.I
f the
LG
sup
ervi
sed
100
% o
f HC
IVs
and
Gen
eral
hos
pita
ls (
incl
udin
g PN
FPs
rece
ivin
g PH
C g
rant
) at
leas
t on
ce
ever
y qu
arte
r in
the
pre
viou
s FY
(w
here
ap
plic
able
) : s
core
1 o
r el
se, s
core
0If
not
app
licab
le, p
rovi
de t
he s
core
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H:
•O
btai
n th
e LG
qu
arte
rly
supp
ort
supe
rvis
ion
repo
rts
• M
inut
es o
f D
HT/
MH
T m
eetin
gs
•LG
qua
rter
ly s
uppo
rt s
uper
visi
on
repo
rts
d.E
vide
nce
that
DH
T/M
HT
ensu
red
that
H
ealth
Sub
Dis
tric
ts (
HSD
s) c
arrie
d ou
t su
ppor
t sup
ervi
sion
of l
ower
leve
l hea
lth
faci
litie
s w
ithin
the
pre
viou
s FY
(w
here
ap
plic
able
), s
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0•
If n
ot a
pplic
able
, pro
vide
the
sco
re
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H s
ampl
e 3
faci
litie
s an
d re
view
(fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y):
•H
SD S
uppo
rt S
uper
visi
on a
nd
Mon
itori
ng v
isit
repo
rts
•Fe
edba
ck fr
om t
he L
G H
ealt
h de
part
men
t to
HSD
s.
•H
SD s
uper
visi
on a
nd m
onito
ring
re
port
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y•
Feed
back
from
LG
hea
lth
depa
rtm
ent
to H
SDs
duri
ng t
he
last
FY
e.E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
use
d re
sult
s/re
port
s fr
om d
iscu
ssio
n of
the
su
ppor
t su
perv
isio
n an
d m
onito
ring
vi
sits
, to
mak
e re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r sp
ecifi
c co
rrec
tive
actio
ns a
nd t
hat
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
se w
ere
follo
wed
up
dur
ing
the
prev
ious
FY,
sco
re 1
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
sam
pled
3 h
ealt
h fa
cilit
ies,
de
term
ine
whe
ther
the
Hea
lth
depa
rtm
ent
prov
ided
rec
omm
enda
tions
fr
om t
he s
uper
visi
on v
isit
s an
d ev
iden
ce
that
the
ir im
plem
enta
tion
was
follo
wed
-up
•Fe
edba
ck fr
om t
he L
G H
ealt
h de
part
men
t to
faci
litie
s•
Hea
lth
faci
lity
activ
ity r
epor
ts•
Supe
rvis
ion
Book
f.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG p
rovi
ded
supp
ort
to a
ll he
alth
faci
litie
s in
the
m
anag
emen
t of
med
icin
es a
nd h
ealth
su
pplie
s, d
urin
g th
e pr
evio
us F
Y: s
core
1
or e
lse,
sco
re 0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H o
btai
n m
edic
ines
an
d H
ealt
h su
pplie
s m
anag
emen
t su
perv
isio
n re
port
s:
•C
heck
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er
guid
ance
was
giv
en t
o he
alth
fa
cilit
y in
-cha
rges
on
secu
re, s
afe
stor
age
and
disp
osal
of
med
icin
es
and
heal
th s
uppl
ies
•Fe
edba
ck t
o he
alth
faci
lity
in-c
harg
es o
n m
edic
ines
m
anag
emen
t su
perv
isio
n re
com
men
datio
ns
•su
ppor
t su
perv
isio
n re
port
s
50LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
11.
Hea
lth
prom
otio
n, d
isea
se p
reve
ntio
n an
d so
cia
l mob
iliza
tion
: The
LG
Hea
lth
depa
rtm
ent c
ondu
cted
Hea
lth p
rom
otio
n,
dise
ase
prev
entio
n an
d so
cial
mob
iliza
tion
activ
ities
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
If t
he L
G a
lloca
ted
at le
ast
30%
of
Dis
tric
t /
Mun
icip
al H
ealt
h O
ffice
bu
dget
to
heal
th p
rom
otio
n an
d pr
even
tion
activ
ities
, Sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
Pla
nner
obt
ain
and
revi
ew:
•th
e D
HO
/MM
OH
bud
get
for
the
prev
ious
FY
•th
e A
nnua
l Bud
get
perf
orm
ance
re
port
for
Hea
lth
for
the
prev
ious
FY
Esta
blis
h w
heth
er a
t le
ast
30%
of
the
budg
et w
as a
lloca
ted.
•LG
App
rove
d A
nnua
l Bud
get
for
the
prev
ious
FY
•LG
Ann
ual B
udge
t Pe
rfor
man
ce R
epor
t fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y
b.
Evid
ence
of
DH
T/M
HT
led
heal
th
prom
otio
n, d
isea
se p
reve
ntio
n an
d so
cial
mob
iliza
tion
activ
ities
as
per
ToRs
for
DH
Ts, d
urin
g th
e pr
evio
us
FY s
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H O
btai
n an
d re
view
:
•Q
uart
erly
Hea
lth
Prom
otio
n A
ctiv
ity r
epor
ts a
nd m
eetin
g m
inut
es t
o es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
the
D
HT/
MH
T im
plem
ente
d he
alth
pr
omot
ion,
dis
ease
pre
vent
ion
and
soci
al m
obili
zatio
n ac
tiviti
es in
the
pr
evio
us F
Y
•Q
uart
erly
pro
gres
s re
port
s•
Mee
ting
min
utes
c.
Evid
ence
of
follo
w-u
p ac
tions
ta
ken
by t
he D
HT/
MH
T on
hea
lth
prom
otio
n an
d di
seas
e pr
even
tion
issu
es in
the
ir m
inut
es a
nd r
epor
ts:
scor
e 1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H O
btai
n an
d re
view
:
•Q
uart
erly
pro
gres
s re
port
s, D
HT/
MH
T m
inut
es t
o ch
eck
whe
ther
fo
llow
-up
actio
ns w
ere
take
n on
th
e he
alth
pro
mot
ion,
dis
ease
pr
even
tion
and
soci
al m
obili
zatio
n as
pect
s.
•Q
uart
erly
pro
gres
s re
port
s•
Mee
ting
min
utes
E.
Inve
stm
ent
Man
agem
ent
Max
imum
sco
re 1
4 fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
12.
Plan
ning
and
Bud
geti
ng fo
r In
vest
men
ts:
The
LG h
as c
arri
ed o
ut P
lann
ing
and
Bud
getin
g fo
r he
alth
inve
stm
ents
as
per
guid
elin
es.
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
an
upda
ted
Ass
et r
egis
ter
whi
ch s
ets
out
heal
th fa
cilit
ies
and
equi
pmen
t re
lativ
e to
bas
ic s
tand
ards
: Sco
re 1
or
els
e 0
From
the
MoH
, obt
ain
the
stan
dard
lis
t of
med
ical
equ
ipm
ent
for
Hea
lth
Faci
litie
s an
d se
rvic
e st
anda
rds.
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H o
btai
n a
Hea
lth
Faci
litie
s A
sset
Reg
iste
r fo
r th
e pr
evio
us
FY:
•Re
view
and
com
pare
bot
h to
es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
the
Ass
et
regi
ster
det
ails
hea
lth
faci
litie
s an
d eq
uipm
ent
in t
he L
G, r
elat
ive
to t
he
med
ical
equ
ipm
ent
list
and
serv
ice
stan
dard
s.
•H
ealt
h Fa
cilit
ies
Ass
et
Regi
ster
•Se
rvic
e St
anda
rds
list
for
heal
th fa
cilit
ies
•M
edic
al E
quip
men
t Li
st
51LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e pr
iori
tize
d in
vest
men
ts in
the
hea
lth
sect
or fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y w
ere:
(i)
der
ived
fr
om t
he L
G D
evel
opm
ent
Plan
; (i
i) d
esk
appr
aisa
l by
the
LG; a
nd
(iii)
elig
ible
for
expe
nditu
re u
nder
se
ctor
gui
delin
es a
nd fu
ndin
g so
urce
(e.
g. s
ecto
r de
velo
pmen
t gr
ant,
Dis
cret
iona
ry D
evel
opm
ent
Equa
lizat
ion
Gra
nt (
DD
EG))
: sco
re 1
or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
Plan
ner,
obta
in a
nd re
view
m
inut
es o
f D
TPC
for
the
prev
ious
FY,
to
che
ck if
pri
oriti
zed
AWP
inve
st-
men
ts fo
r he
alth
:
•ar
e de
rive
d fr
om t
he L
ocal
G
over
nmen
t D
evel
opm
ent
Plan
•de
sk a
ppra
ised
by
DTP
C/M
TPC
•el
igib
le u
nder
sec
tor
or fu
ndin
g so
urce
gra
nt g
uide
lines
•Fi
ve-y
ear
deve
lopm
ent
plan
•M
inut
es fr
om T
PC
•AW
P
•Pr
ojec
t ap
prai
sal r
epor
ts
c.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
ha
s co
nduc
ted
field
App
rais
al t
o ch
eck
for:
(i)
tec
hnic
al fe
asib
ility
; (i
i) e
nvir
onm
ent
and
soci
al
acce
ptab
ility
; and
(iii
) cu
stom
ized
de
sign
s to
site
con
ditio
ns: s
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
Plan
ner
obta
in fi
eld
visi
t re
port
s an
d ch
eck
if pr
iori
tize
d AW
P in
vest
men
ts fo
r he
alth
:
•w
ere
field
app
rais
ed fo
r te
chni
cal
feas
ibili
ty, e
nviro
nmen
tal a
nd
soci
al a
ccep
tabi
lity
•ha
d th
eir
desig
ns c
usto
miz
ed to
su
it si
te c
ondi
tions
, whe
re a
p-pl
icab
le
•Pr
ojec
t fie
ld a
ppra
isal
re
port
s
•
d.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e he
alth
faci
lity
inve
stm
ents
wer
e sc
reen
ed fo
r en
viro
nmen
tal a
nd s
ocia
l ris
ks
and
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res
put
in
plac
e be
fore
bei
ng a
ppro
ved
for
cons
truc
tion
usin
g th
e ch
eckl
ist:
sc
ore
1 or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r ob
tain
an
d re
view
:•
Fille
d sc
reen
ing
form
s to
asc
erta
in
whe
ther
scr
eeni
ng w
as d
one
and
ESIA
s/ES
MPs
pre
pare
d an
d co
sted
•
revi
ew s
ite v
isit
repo
rts
to c
heck
for
com
plia
nce
to t
he r
isk
miti
gatio
n pl
an
•Fi
lled
scre
enin
g fo
rms
•ES
IAs/
ESM
Ps•
Site
vis
it re
port
s
52LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
13.
Proc
urem
ent,
con
trac
t m
anag
emen
t/ex
ecut
ion:
The
LG
pro
cure
d an
d m
anag
ed
heal
th c
ontr
acts
as
per
guid
elin
es
Max
imum
10
poi
nts
on t
his
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
hea
lth
depa
rtm
ent
timel
y (b
y Ap
ril 3
0
for
the
curr
ent F
Y )
subm
itte
d al
l its
infr
astr
uctu
re a
nd o
ther
pr
ocur
emen
t re
ques
ts t
o PD
U fo
r in
corp
orat
ion
into
the
app
rove
d LG
ann
ual w
ork
plan
, bud
get
and
proc
urem
ent
plan
s: s
core
1 o
r el
se
scor
e 0
b.
If th
e LG
Hea
lth d
epar
tmen
t su
bmitt
ed p
rocu
rem
ent r
eque
st
form
(Fo
rm P
P5)
to t
he P
DU
by
1st
Qua
rter
of t
he c
urre
nt F
Y: s
core
1 o
r el
se, s
core
0
From
the
PD
U o
btai
n an
d re
view
•
Subm
issi
ons
to P
DU
.
From
PD
U c
ross
chec
k •
Subm
issi
on fr
om D
HO
/MM
OH
•Su
bmis
sion
lett
ers
to t
he
PDU
/mem
os•
AWP
for
the
sect
or fo
r cu
rren
t FY
. •
Subm
issi
on le
tter
s /
mem
os
of c
opy
of F
orm
PP5
to
PDU
.
c.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e he
alth
in
fras
truc
ture
inve
stm
ents
for
the
prev
ious
FY
was
app
rove
d by
the
C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee
and
clea
red
by t
he S
olic
itor
Gen
eral
(w
here
ab
ove
the
thre
shol
d), b
efor
e co
mm
ence
men
t of
con
stru
ctio
n:
scor
e 1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
Pro
cure
men
t U
nit
obta
in a
nd
revi
ew:
•M
inut
es o
f th
e C
ontr
acts
C
omm
itte
e to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
hea
lth
infr
astr
uctu
re
inve
stm
ents
wer
e ap
prov
ed.
•Le
tter
from
the
Sol
icito
r G
ener
al,
whe
re a
pplic
able
•C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee
min
utes
for
the
prev
ious
FY
•Le
tter
from
the
Sol
icito
r G
ener
al
d.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
pr
oper
ly e
stab
lishe
d a
Proj
ect
Impl
emen
tatio
n te
am fo
r al
l hea
lth
proj
ects
com
pose
d of
: (i)
13 :
sco
re 1
or
els
e sc
ore
0If
the
re is
no
proj
ect,
pro
vide
the
sc
ore
From
the
LG
Eng
inee
r ch
eck
the
proj
ect
files
for
the
prev
ious
FY
to e
stab
lish
whe
ther
the
Pro
ject
Impl
emen
tatio
n Te
am w
as a
ppro
pria
tely
est
ablis
hed
Cop
ies
of le
tter
s/m
emos
from
the
C
AO/T
C d
esig
natin
g m
embe
rs o
f th
e Pr
ojec
t Im
plem
enta
tion
Team
.
e.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e he
alth
in
fras
truc
ture
follo
wed
the
sta
ndar
d te
chni
cal d
esig
ns p
rovi
ded
by t
he
MoH
: sco
re 1
or
else
sco
re 0
If t
here
is n
o pr
ojec
t, p
rovi
de t
he s
core
From
the
MoH
obt
ain
the
stan
dard
te
chni
cal d
esig
ns is
sued
to
LGs.
•Sa
mpl
e 3
heal
th fa
cilit
ies,
ch
eck
and
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er:
Foun
datio
n, w
allin
g, r
oom
si
zes,
roo
f st
ruct
ure
etc.
. are
as
per
des
igns
(ac
cord
ing
to
the
appl
icab
le le
vel o
f th
e co
nstr
uctio
n)
•st
anda
rd t
echn
ical
des
igns
•Si
te v
isit
13
The
pro
ject
impl
emen
tatio
n te
am c
ompr
ises
of:
(i)
Con
trac
t M
anag
er; (
ii) P
roje
ct M
anag
er; (
iii)
cler
k of
wor
ks: (
iv)
Envi
ronm
ent
Offi
cer;
(v)
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent
Offi
cer
& L
abou
r O
ffice
r
53LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
f.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
Cle
rk o
f W
orks
m
aint
ains
dai
ly r
ecor
ds t
hat
are
cons
olid
ated
wee
kly
to t
he D
istr
ict
Engi
neer
in c
opy
to t
he D
HO
, for
ea
ch h
ealt
h in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
: sc
ore
1 or
els
e sc
ore
0
If t
here
is n
o pr
ojec
t, p
rovi
de t
he
scor
e
From
the
LG
Eng
inee
r ob
tain
a c
opy
of
the
repo
rts
from
the
Cle
rk o
f W
orks
:
•re
view
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er t
he
wee
kly
repo
rts
are
cons
olid
ated
fr
om t
he d
aily
site
rep
orts
•C
opy
of C
lerk
of
Wor
k’s
cons
olid
ated
site
rep
ort
g.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
hel
d m
onth
ly
site
mee
tings
by
proj
ect
site
co
mm
itte
e: c
hair
ed b
y th
e C
AO/
Tow
n C
lerk
and
com
pris
ed o
f th
e Su
b-c
ount
y C
hief
(SA
S),
the
desi
gnat
ed c
ontr
act
and
proj
ect
man
ager
s, c
hair
pers
on
of t
he H
UM
C,
in-c
harg
e fo
r be
nefic
iary
faci
lity
, the
Com
mun
ity
Dev
elop
men
t an
d En
viro
nmen
tal
office
rs: s
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0
If t
here
is n
o pr
ojec
t, p
rovi
de t
he
scor
e
From
the
LG
Eng
inee
r ob
tain
and
rev
iew
m
inut
es o
f si
te m
eetin
gs:
•C
heck
whe
ther
the
y ar
e he
ld
mon
thly
as
per
guid
elin
es;
atte
ndan
ce t
o es
tabl
ish
if th
e lis
ted
stak
ehol
ders
par
ticip
ated
Min
utes
of
site
mee
tings
for
heal
th in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s im
plem
ente
d in
the
last
FY
h.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
car
ried
out
te
chni
cal s
uper
visi
on o
f w
orks
at
all h
ealt
h in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s at
leas
t m
onth
ly, b
y th
e re
leva
nt
office
rs in
clud
ing
the
Engi
neer
s,
Envi
ronm
ent
office
rs, C
DO
s, a
t cr
itica
l sta
ges
of c
onst
ruct
ion:
sco
re
1, o
r el
se s
core
0
If t
here
is n
o pr
ojec
t, p
rovi
de t
he
scor
e
Sam
ple
and
visi
t 3
heal
th in
fras
truc
ture
si
tes.
Obt
ain
a si
te in
stru
ctio
n bo
ok a
nd
site
vis
itor’
s bo
ok fr
om t
he s
ite F
orem
an/
cons
truc
tion
team
.
•Re
view
site
inst
ruct
ion
and
visi
tor’
s bo
oks
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er
LG t
eam
(s)
supe
rvis
ed a
t le
ast
mon
thly
.•
Revi
ew m
onth
ly m
onito
ring
and
su
perv
isio
n re
port
s to
asc
erta
in
whe
ther
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r an
d C
DO
par
ticip
ated
in t
echn
ical
si
te v
isit
s
•Si
te in
stru
ctio
n bo
ok
•Si
te v
isito
r’s
book
•M
onth
ly s
uper
visi
on a
nd
mon
itori
ng r
epor
t (i
nclu
ding
E
& S
asp
ects
)
i.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
DH
O/M
MO
H
veri
fied
wor
ks a
nd in
itiat
ed
paym
ents
of
cont
ract
ors
wit
hin
spec
ified
tim
efra
mes
(w
ithi
n 2
wee
ks o
r 10
wor
king
day
s), s
core
1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
CFO
obt
ain:
A s
ampl
e of
3 c
ontr
acts
, rev
iew
and
de
term
ine
whe
ther
pay
men
t re
ques
ts
wer
e ce
rtifi
ed a
nd r
ecom
men
ded
on
time
•Sa
mpl
e co
ntra
cts
•Pa
ymen
t re
ques
ts fr
om
cont
ract
ors/
supp
liers
54LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
j.Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as a
co
mpl
ete
proc
urem
ent
file
for
each
he
alth
infr
astr
uctu
re c
ontr
act
wit
h al
l rec
ords
as
requ
ired
by
the
PPD
A
Law
14 s
core
1 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
PD
U o
btai
n an
d re
view
pr
ocur
emen
t fil
es fo
r he
alth
in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us
FY t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
the
y ar
e co
mpl
ete.
Proc
urem
ent
files
for
heal
th
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
F.
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Soci
al S
afeg
uard
s
Max
imum
sco
re 1
4 fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
14.
Gri
evan
ce r
edre
ss: T
he L
G h
as e
stab
lishe
d a
mec
hani
sm o
f ad
dres
sing
hea
lth
sect
or
grie
vanc
es in
line
wit
h th
e LG
gri
evan
ce
redr
ess
fram
ewor
k
Max
imum
2 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e Lo
cal
Gov
ernm
ent
has
reco
rded
, in
vest
igat
ed, r
espo
nded
and
re
port
ed in
line
wit
h th
e LG
gr
ieva
nce
redr
ess
fram
ewor
k sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
Des
igna
ted
Gri
evan
ce O
ffice
r ob
tain
the
log
of g
riev
ance
s an
d ch
eck
whe
ther
the
y w
ere
reco
rded
, in
vest
igat
ed, r
espo
nded
and
rep
orte
d
·Lo
g of
gri
evan
ces
15.
Safe
guar
ds
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery:
LG
Hea
lth
Dep
artm
ent
ensu
res
safe
guar
ds fo
r se
rvic
e de
liver
y
Max
imum
5 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
di
ssem
inat
ed g
uide
lines
on
heal
th
care
/ m
edic
al w
aste
man
agem
ent
to h
ealt
h fa
cilit
ies15
: sco
re 2
poi
nts
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
sam
pled
hea
lth
faci
litie
s, fi
nd
out
whe
ther
:
•LG
has
issu
ed g
uide
lines
on
med
ical
w
aste
man
agem
ent
incl
udin
g gu
idel
ines
on
cons
truc
tion
of
med
ical
was
te fa
cilit
ies,
whe
re
appl
icab
le.
•Ev
iden
ce t
hat
LGs
follo
w u
p on
the
im
plem
enta
tion
of t
he h
ealt
h ca
re
was
te m
anag
emen
t gu
idel
ines
by
HC
s
•G
uide
lines
on
med
ical
was
te
man
agem
ent
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
in
plac
e a
func
tiona
l sys
tem
for
Med
ical
was
te m
anag
emen
t or
cen
tral
infr
astr
uctu
res
for
man
agin
g m
edic
al w
aste
(ei
ther
an
inci
nera
tor
or R
egis
tere
d w
aste
m
anag
emen
t se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er):
sc
ore
2or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r:
•C
onfir
m w
heth
er t
here
is a
de
dica
ted/
oper
atio
nal b
udge
t fo
r he
alth
car
e w
aste
man
agem
ent
• C
heck
whe
ther
the
re is
a
regi
ster
ed s
ervi
ce p
rovi
der
enga
ged
for
colle
ctio
n, s
tora
ge,
tran
spor
tatio
n, d
ispo
sal/
trea
tmen
t of
hea
lth
care
was
te o
r w
heth
er t
he
LG h
as it
s ow
n fu
nctio
nal s
yste
m
for
Med
ical
was
te m
anag
emen
t
•LG
Ann
ual b
udge
t fo
r cu
rren
t ye
ar•
Cop
y of
con
trac
t w
ith
was
te m
anag
emen
t se
rvic
e pr
ovid
er
•LG
wit
h fu
nctio
nal/
equi
pped
sy
stem
for
heal
th c
are
was
te
man
agem
ent
c.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
con
duct
ed
trai
ning
(s)
and
cre
ated
aw
aren
ess
in h
ealt
hcar
e w
aste
man
agem
ent
scor
e 1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
DH
O/M
MO
H o
btai
n an
d re
view
tr
aini
ng r
epor
ts t
o es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
tr
aini
ng a
nd a
war
enes
s ra
isin
g on
was
te
man
agem
ent
was
don
e
•Tr
aini
ng r
ecor
ds o
n w
aste
m
anag
emen
t
14
A c
ompl
ete
proc
urem
ent
file
mus
t ha
ve t
he E
valu
atio
n Re
port
app
rove
d by
the
Con
trac
ts C
omm
itte
e, W
orks
Con
trac
t, a
nd m
inut
es o
f C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee
deci
sion
s15
M
edic
al w
aste
incl
udes
dom
estic
; non
-inf
ectio
us; i
nfec
tious
; hig
hly
infe
ctio
us; e
xpir
ed m
edic
ines
and
sup
plie
s
55LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
16.
Safe
guar
ds
in t
he D
eliv
ery
of In
vest
men
t M
anag
emen
t: L
G H
ealt
h in
fras
truc
ture
pr
ojec
ts in
corp
orat
e En
viro
nmen
t an
d So
cial
Saf
egua
rds
in t
he d
eliv
ery
of t
he
inve
stm
ents
Max
imum
8 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t a
cost
ed E
SMP
was
in
corp
orat
ed in
to d
esig
ns, B
oQs,
bi
ddin
g an
d co
ntra
ctua
l doc
umen
ts
for
heal
th in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s of
the
pre
viou
s FY
: sco
re 2
or
else
sc
ore
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r an
d C
DO
obt
ain
and
chec
k w
heth
er a
co
sted
ESM
P w
as in
corp
orat
ed in
to
desi
gns,
BoQ
s, b
iddi
ng a
nd c
ontr
actu
al
docu
men
ts fo
r he
alth
infr
astr
uctu
re,
inco
rpor
atin
g En
viro
nmen
t So
cial
Hea
lth
and
Safe
ty s
afeg
uard
s.
•C
ontr
act
docu
men
ts fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y•
Vari
atio
n or
ders
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t al
l hea
lth
sect
or
proj
ects
are
impl
emen
ted
on
land
whe
re t
he L
G h
as p
roof
of
owne
rshi
p, a
cces
s an
d av
aila
bilit
y (e
.g. a
land
titl
e, a
gree
men
t;
Form
al C
onse
nt, M
oUs,
etc
.),
wit
hout
any
enc
umbr
ance
s: s
core
2
or e
lse,
sco
re 0
From
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
the
re is
doc
umen
tatio
n on
land
ac
quis
ition
sta
tus.
Doc
umen
t on
land
ow
ners
hip/
acce
ss w
hich
cou
ld b
e:
•a
land
titl
e,
•La
nd a
gree
men
t.
•Fo
rmal
Con
sent
,•
MoU
56LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
c.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r an
d C
DO
con
duct
ed
supp
ort
supe
rvis
ion
and
mon
itori
ng
of h
ealt
h pr
ojec
ts t
o as
cert
ain
com
plia
nce
wit
h ES
MPs
; and
pr
ovid
e m
onth
ly r
epor
ts: s
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0.
From
the
CD
O a
nd E
nviro
nmen
t O
ffice
r:
·C
heck
the
mon
thly
mon
itori
ng r
epor
t fr
om t
he t
ime
of c
ontr
act
awar
d til
l th
e en
d.·
Che
ck fo
r co
nsis
tent
mon
itori
ng a
nd
enga
gem
ent
thro
ugho
ut t
he c
ontr
act
perio
d.
·Ev
iden
ce d
urin
g si
te in
spec
tion.
·Ev
iden
ce o
n fo
llow
up
by L
Gs
on
reco
mm
ende
d co
rrec
tive
mea
sure
s
Site
vis
it to
3 s
ampl
ed fa
cilit
ies
and
chec
k m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s
Exam
ples
incl
ude
(a)
over
all s
ite
mai
nten
ance
, e.g
. wel
l-m
anag
ed w
orki
ng
area
s, o
ily w
aste
and
sol
id w
aste
pro
perl
y st
ored
for
dis
posa
l; (b
) al
l PPE
s ar
e in
us
e; a
nd (
c) t
ree
plan
ting
/ la
ndsc
apin
g be
ing
done
or
done
or
surv
ival
rat
e.
(d)
traffi
c co
ntro
l sig
ns /
site
sig
nage
’s;
(e)
sens
itiz
atio
n of
wor
kers
on
labo
r in
flux
rela
ted
soci
al is
sues
suc
h as
HIV
/AI
DS,
Gen
der
Base
d Vi
olen
ce (
GBV
),
and
Viol
ence
Aga
inst
Chi
ldre
n (V
AC),
in
clud
ing
Chi
ld L
abor
(f)
gui
danc
e is
sued
to
HC
s an
d fo
llow
up
mad
e on
hea
lth
care
/med
ical
was
te in
clud
ing
guid
elin
es
for
the
cons
truc
tion
of
med
ical
was
te
dis
posa
l fac
iliti
es, w
here
app
licab
le.
Thes
e m
itig
atio
n m
easu
res
may
per
tain
to
the
impl
emen
tati
on o
r op
erat
ion
&
mai
nten
ance
pha
se.
•Pe
rfor
man
ce E
&S
mon
thly
M
onito
ring
rep
orts
from
the
tim
e of
con
trac
t aw
ard
to
date
d.
Evid
ence
tha
t Env
ironm
ent a
nd S
ocia
l C
ertifi
catio
n fo
rms
wer
e co
mpl
eted
an
d si
gned
by
the
LG E
nviro
nmen
t O
ffice
r an
d C
DO
, prio
r to
pay
men
ts
of c
ontr
acto
r in
voic
es/c
ertifi
cate
s at
in
terim
and
fina
l sta
ges
of a
ll he
alth
in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s sc
ore
2 or
els
e sc
ore
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r &
CD
O
obta
in a
nd c
heck
all
the
cont
ract
or
paym
ent
cert
ifica
tes
for
thei
r pr
ior
Envi
ronm
enta
l and
CD
O a
dvic
e.
Con
trac
tor
paym
ent
cert
ifica
tes
57LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
11 W
ater
and
Env
iron
men
t Pe
rfor
man
ce A
sses
smen
t
11.1
Wat
er a
nd E
nvir
onm
ent
Min
imum
Con
diti
ons
Perf
orm
ance
A
rea
No.
Min
imum
Con
diti
onSc
orin
g G
uide
Ass
essm
ent
Proc
edur
eM
eans
of
Veri
ficat
ion
A)
Hum
an
Reso
urce
M
anag
emen
t an
d D
evel
opm
ent
Max
imum
sco
re
is 7
0
1Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as r
ecru
ited
or
form
ally
req
uest
ed fo
r se
cond
men
t of
st
aff fo
r al
l cri
tical
pos
ition
s.
If t
he L
G h
as r
ecru
ited:
a.1
Civ
il En
gine
er (
Wat
er),
sco
re 1
5 or
els
e 0
.b.1
Ass
ista
nt W
ater
Offi
cer
for
mob
iliza
tion,
sco
re 1
0 o
r el
se 0
.c.1
Bor
ehol
e M
aint
enan
ce
Tech
nici
an/A
ssis
tant
Eng
inee
ring
O
ffice
r, sc
ore
10 o
r el
se 0
.d.1
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es O
ffice
r, sc
ore
15 o
r el
se 0
.e.1
Env
ironm
ent
Offi
cer,
scor
e 10
or
else
0.
f.Fo
rest
ry O
ffice
r, sc
ore
10 o
r el
se 0
.
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion,
obt
ain
the
appo
intm
ent
lett
ers
of t
he D
istr
ict
Wat
er O
ffice
st
aff a
s lis
ted
to e
stab
lish
that
the
y ar
e su
bsta
ntiv
ely
recr
uite
d.
In c
ase
the
posi
tions
are
not
fille
d, g
et
evid
ence
from
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion,
tha
t th
e LG
req
uest
ed fo
r se
cond
men
t fr
om t
he
Min
istr
y of
Wat
er a
nd E
nvir
onm
ent
(MW
E)
• A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
• C
opy
of le
tter
fr
om L
G t
o M
WE
requ
estin
g fo
r se
cond
men
t of
sta
ff
to D
istr
ict
Wat
er
Offi
ce
B)
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Soci
al
Requ
irem
ents
Max
imum
sco
re
is 3
0
2Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as c
arri
ed o
ut
Envi
ronm
enta
l. So
cial
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
scre
enin
g/En
viro
nmen
t an
d So
cial
Impa
ct A
sses
smen
t (E
SIA
s)
(inc
ludi
ng c
hild
pro
tect
ion
plan
s)
whe
re a
pplic
able
, and
abs
trac
tion
perm
its
have
bee
n is
sued
to
cont
ract
ors
by t
he D
irec
tora
te o
f W
ater
Re
sour
ces
Man
agem
ent
(DW
RM)
prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent
of a
ll ci
vil w
orks
on
all w
ater
sec
tor
proj
ects
If t
he L
G:
a.
Car
ried
out
Env
iron
men
tal,
Soci
al a
nd C
limat
e C
hang
e sc
reen
ing/
Envi
ronm
ent,
sco
re
10 o
r el
se 0
.b.
Car
ried
out
Soc
ial I
mpa
ct
Ass
essm
ents
(ES
IAs)
, sc
ore
10
or e
lse
0.
c.
Ensu
red
that
con
trac
tors
got
ab
stra
ctio
n pe
rmit
s is
sued
by
DW
RM, s
core
10
or
else
0.
From
the
LG
Env
ironm
ent O
ffice
r, ob
tain
the
En
viro
nmen
tal a
nd S
ocia
l Scr
eeni
ng F
orm
(or
w
here
app
licab
le E
SIAs
repo
rts)
for
all w
ater
in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y, to
ve
rify
whe
ther
:
·E&
S sc
reen
ing
was
com
plet
ed a
nd, w
here
m
itiga
tions
mea
sure
s w
ere
asse
ssed
, the
ris
k m
itiga
tion
plan
s w
ere
deve
lope
d an
d im
plem
ente
d/fo
llow
ed u
p.
From
the
DW
O c
heck
for
copi
es o
f abs
trac
tion
perm
its
• Fi
lled
Envi
ronm
enta
l an
d So
cial
Sc
reen
ing
Form
• ES
IAs
repo
rts
• A
bstr
actio
n pe
rmit
s
58LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
11.2
W
ater
and
Env
iron
men
t Pe
rfor
man
ce M
easu
res
N.B
: For
all
indi
cato
rs w
here
sam
plin
g of
faci
litie
s an
d re
cord
s is
to
be d
one,
ass
essm
ent
team
s sh
ould
use
a s
ampl
e of
3 u
nits
in d
iffer
ent
sub
-co
untie
s Pe
rfor
man
ce
area
No
Perf
orm
ance
M
easu
reSc
orin
g G
uide
Asse
ssm
ent p
roce
dure
sM
eans
of
veri
ficat
ion
A)
Loca
l G
over
nmen
t Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Resu
lts
Max
imum
sco
re:
20 p
oint
s fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
1W
ater
& E
nvir
onm
ent
Out
com
es: T
he L
G
has
regi
ster
ed h
igh
func
tiona
lity
of w
ater
so
urce
s an
d m
anag
emen
t co
mm
itte
es
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a.
% o
f ru
ral w
ater
sou
rces
tha
t ar
e fu
nctio
nal.
If t
he d
istr
ict
rura
l wat
er s
ourc
e fu
nctio
nalit
y as
pe
r th
e se
ctor
MIS
is:
o
90 -
10
0%
: sco
re 2
o
80-8
9%: s
core
1o
Belo
w 8
0%
: 0
From
the
Min
istr
y M
IS fo
r cu
rren
t FY
:
• C
heck
dat
a on
func
tiona
lity
of t
he
dist
rict
rur
al w
ater
sou
rces
• M
inis
try
MIS
b.
% o
f fa
cilit
ies
wit
h fu
nctio
nal w
ater
& s
anita
tion
com
mit
tees
(do
cum
ente
d w
ater
use
r fe
e co
llect
ion
reco
rds
and
utili
zatio
n w
ith
the
appr
oval
of
the
WSC
s).
If t
he d
istr
ict
WSS
faci
litie
s th
at h
ave
func
tiona
l WSC
s is
:o
90 -
10
0%
: sco
re 2
o
80-8
9%: s
core
1o
Belo
w 8
0%
: 0
From
the
Min
istr
y M
IS fo
r cu
rren
t FY
:
• C
heck
dat
a on
faci
litie
s w
ith
func
tiona
l wat
er a
nd s
anita
tion
com
mit
tees
• M
inis
try
MIS
2Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Perf
orm
ance
:
Aver
age
scor
e in
the
w
ater
and
env
iron
men
t LL
Gs
perf
orm
ance
as
sess
men
t
Max
imum
8 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a.
The
LG a
vera
ge s
core
in t
he w
ater
and
en
viro
nmen
t LL
Gs
perf
orm
ance
ass
essm
ent
for
the
curr
ent.
FY.
If L
G a
vera
ge s
core
s is
a.
Abo
ve 8
0%
sco
re 2
b.
60
-80
%: 1
c.
Belo
w 6
0: 0
(Onl
y ap
plic
able
whe
n LL
G a
sses
smen
t st
arts
)
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pl
anne
r:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
the
ver
ified
sub
-co
untie
s w
ater
and
env
iron
men
t pe
rfor
man
ce a
sses
smen
t re
sult
s ch
ange
• Ve
rifie
d su
b-
coun
ties
Perf
orm
ance
as
sess
men
t re
sult
s
b.
% o
f bud
gete
d w
ater
pro
ject
s im
plem
ente
d in
the
su
b-co
untie
s w
ith s
afe
wat
er c
over
age
belo
w t
he
dist
rict a
vera
ge in
the
pre
viou
s FY
.
o If
100
% o
f wat
er p
roje
cts
are
impl
emen
ted
in
the
targ
eted
S/C
s: S
core
2
o If
80-9
9%: S
core
1
o If
belo
w 8
0 %
: Sco
re 0
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
the
ann
ual p
rogr
ess
repo
rts
and
chec
k w
heth
er t
he d
istr
ict
wat
er d
epar
tmen
t im
plem
ente
d bu
dget
ed w
ater
pro
ject
s in
the
ta
rget
ed s
ub-c
ount
ies
with
saf
e w
ater
co
vera
ge b
elow
the
dis
tric
t ave
rage
in
the
prev
ious
FY
• B
udge
t fo
r pr
evio
us
FY
• M
OU
wit
h ot
her
DPs
/CSO
s•
Ann
ual p
rogr
ess
repo
rts
for
prev
ious
FY
59LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
ar
eaN
oPe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deAs
sess
men
t pro
cedu
res
Mea
ns o
f ve
rific
atio
n
c.
If v
aria
tions
in t
he c
ontr
act
pric
e of
sam
pled
WSS
in
fras
truc
ture
inve
stm
ents
for
the
prev
ious
FY
are
wit
hin
+/-
20
% o
f en
gine
er’s
est
imat
eso
If w
ithi
n +
/-20
% s
core
2o
If n
ot s
core
zer
o
From
the
Pro
cure
men
t U
nit:
• Re
view
the
ann
ual b
udge
t an
d a
sam
ple
of 3
WSS
con
trac
ts (
or a
ll if
less
tha
n 3)
for
prev
ious
FY
and
chec
k w
heth
er v
aria
tions
are
wit
hin
+/-
20%
of
eng
inee
r’s
estim
ates
• Sa
mpl
e co
ntra
cts
• AW
P/B
udge
t
d.
% o
f WSS
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
com
plet
ed a
s pe
r an
nual
wor
k pl
an b
y en
d of
FY.
o
If 10
0%
pro
ject
s co
mpl
eted
: sco
re 2
o
If 80
-99%
pro
ject
s co
mpl
eted
: sco
re 1
o
If pr
ojec
ts c
ompl
eted
are
bel
ow 8
0%
: 0
From
DW
O/M
WE:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
th
e an
nual
bu
dget
pe
rfor
man
ce
repo
rt
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er
WSS
in
fras
truc
ture
pr
ojec
ts
wer
e co
mpl
eted
wit
hin
the
plan
ned
FY
• AW
P•
Ann
ual b
udge
t pe
rfor
man
ce
repo
rt
3Ac
hiev
emen
t of
St
anda
rds:
The
LG h
as m
et W
SS
infr
astr
uctu
re fa
cilit
y st
anda
rds
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a.
If t
here
is a
n in
crea
se in
the
% o
f w
ater
sup
ply
faci
litie
s th
at a
re fu
nctio
ning
o
If t
here
is a
n in
crea
se :
scor
e 2
o
If n
o in
crea
se: s
core
0.
From
the
Min
istr
y M
IS:
• O
btai
n da
ta o
n fu
nctio
nalit
y of
wat
er
faci
litie
s fo
r pr
evio
us F
Y bu
t one
and
•
Com
pare
func
tiona
lity
of w
ater
faci
litie
s fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y•
Com
pute
the
per
cent
age
incr
ease
in
func
tiona
lity
of w
ater
sup
ply
faci
litie
s
• M
inis
try
MIS
b.
If t
here
is a
n In
crea
se in
% o
f fa
cilit
ies
wit
h fu
nctio
nal w
ater
& s
anita
tion
com
mit
tees
(w
ith
docu
men
ted
wat
er u
ser
fee
colle
ctio
n re
cord
s an
d ut
iliza
tion
wit
h th
e ap
prov
al o
f th
e W
SCs)
.o
If in
crea
se is
mor
e th
an 5
% s
core
2o
If in
crea
se is
bet
wee
n 0
-5%
, sco
re 1
o
If t
here
is n
o in
crea
se :
scor
e 0
.
From
the
Min
istr
y M
IS:
• O
btai
n da
ta o
n fu
nctio
nalit
y W
SCs
for
prev
ious
FY
but
one
and
com
pare
fu
nctio
nalit
y of
WSC
for
the
prev
ious
FY
• C
alcu
late
the
per
cent
age
incr
ease
on
func
tiona
lity
of W
SCs
• M
inis
try
MIS
B)
Perf
orm
ance
Re
port
ing
and
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t
Max
imum
sco
re:
10 p
oint
s fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
4Ac
cura
cy o
f Re
port
ed
Info
rmat
ion:
The
LG
ha
s ac
cura
tely
rep
orte
d on
con
stru
cted
WSS
in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s an
d se
rvic
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Max
imum
3 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
The
DW
O h
as a
ccur
atel
y re
port
ed o
n W
SS fa
cilit
ies
cons
truc
ted
in t
he p
revi
ous
FY a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce o
f th
e fa
cilit
ies
is a
s re
port
ed: S
core
: 3
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n th
e an
nual
per
form
ance
re
port
for
prev
ious
FY
and
chec
k lis
t of
con
stru
cted
WSS
faci
litie
s.
• Sa
mpl
e 3
WSS
faci
litie
s to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
WSS
faci
litie
s w
ere
cons
truc
ted
and
are
func
tiona
l as
repo
rted
• A
nnua
l Pe
rfor
man
ce
repo
rt•
Sam
ple
WSS
fa
cilit
ies
60LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
ar
eaN
oPe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deAs
sess
men
t pro
cedu
res
Mea
ns o
f ve
rific
atio
n
5Re
port
ing
and
perf
orm
ance
im
prov
emen
t: T
he L
G
com
pile
s, u
pdat
es W
SS
info
rmat
ion
and
supp
orts
LL
Gs
to im
prov
e th
eir
perf
orm
ance
Max
imum
7 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
Wat
er O
ffice
col
lect
s an
d co
mpi
les
quar
terl
y in
form
atio
n on
sub
-cou
nty
wat
er s
uppl
y an
d sa
nita
tion,
func
tiona
lity
of
faci
litie
s an
d W
SCs,
saf
e w
ater
col
lect
ion
and
stor
age
and
com
mun
ity in
volv
emen
t): S
core
2
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n qu
arte
rly
WSS
rep
orts
and
ch
eck
that
the
DW
O c
olle
cts
and
com
plie
s qu
arte
rly
info
rmat
ion
on s
ub-c
ount
y w
ater
sup
ply
and
sani
tatio
n, fu
nctio
nalit
y of
faci
litie
s an
d W
SCs,
saf
e w
ater
col
lect
ion
and
stor
age
hygi
ene,
and
com
mun
ity
invo
lvem
ent
• Q
uart
erly
re
port
s
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
Wat
er O
ffice
upd
ates
the
M
IS (
WSS
dat
a) q
uart
erly
wit
h w
ater
sup
ply
and
sani
tatio
n in
form
atio
n (n
ew fa
cilit
ies,
pop
ulat
ion
serv
ed, f
unct
iona
lity
of W
SCs
and
WSS
faci
litie
s,
etc.
) an
d us
es c
ompi
led
info
rmat
ion
for
plan
ning
pu
rpos
es: S
core
3 o
r el
se 0
From
the
DW
O M
IS C
heck
tha
t:
• D
ata
on n
ew fa
cilit
ies,
pop
ulat
ion
serv
ed, f
unct
iona
lity
of W
SCs
and
WSS
faci
litie
s, e
tc.)
is u
pdat
ed o
n qu
arte
rly
basi
s an
d us
ed fo
r pl
anni
ng
• D
WO
MIS
•
c.
Evid
ence
tha
t D
WO
has
sup
port
ed t
he 2
5%
low
est
perf
orm
ing
LLG
s in
the
pre
viou
s FY
LL
G a
sses
smen
t to
dev
elop
and
impl
emen
t pe
rfor
man
ce im
prov
emen
t pl
ans:
Sco
re 2
or
else
0
Not
e: O
nly
appl
icab
le f
rom
the
ass
essm
ent
whe
re
ther
e ha
s be
en a
pre
viou
s a
sses
smen
t of
the
LLG
s’
perf
orm
ance
. In
case
the
re is
no
prev
ious
ass
essm
ent
scor
e 0
.
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n th
e LL
G w
ater
and
env
ironm
ent
perf
orm
ance
ass
essm
ent
repo
rt a
nd
esta
blis
h th
e 25
% lo
wes
t pe
rfor
min
g LL
Gs
• O
btai
n co
pies
of P
IPs
and
repo
rts
for
the
25%
low
est
perf
orm
ing
LLG
s in
the
pr
evio
us F
Y PA
and
est
ablis
h w
heth
er
perf
orm
ance
impr
ovem
ent
plan
s w
ere
deve
lope
d an
d PI
act
ions
hav
e be
en
impl
emen
ted
in t
he c
urre
nt F
Y
• LL
G
Perf
orm
ance
as
sess
men
t re
port
• C
opie
s of
LLG
PI
Ps•
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t re
port
s
C)
Hum
an
Reso
urce
s M
anag
emen
t an
d D
evel
opm
ent
Max
imum
sco
re:
10 p
oint
s fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
6B
udge
ting
for
Wat
er
& S
anita
tion
and
En
viro
nmen
t &
Nat
ura
l Re
sour
ces:
The
Loc
al
Gov
ernm
ent
has
budg
eted
for
staff
Max
imum
4 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
WO
has
bud
gete
d fo
r th
e fo
llow
ing
Wat
er &
San
itatio
n st
aff: 1
Civ
il En
gine
er(W
ater
);
2 A
ssis
tant
Wat
er O
ffice
rs (
1 fo
r m
obili
zatio
n an
d 1
for
sani
tatio
n &
hyg
iene
);
1 En
gine
erin
g A
ssis
tant
(W
ater
) &
1 B
oreh
ole
Mai
nten
ance
Tec
hnic
ian:
Sco
re 2
From
the
LG
Per
form
ance
Con
trac
t:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
the
sta
ff li
sts
and
valid
ate
that
the
DW
O h
as b
udge
ted
for
the
criti
cal s
taff
in t
he D
istr
ict
Wat
er O
ffice
• Pe
rfor
man
ce
Con
trac
t•
Staff
list
s
61LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
ar
eaN
oPe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deAs
sess
men
t pro
cedu
res
Mea
ns o
f ve
rific
atio
n
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e En
viro
nmen
t an
d N
atur
al
Reso
urce
s O
ffice
r ha
s bu
dget
ed fo
r th
e fo
llow
ing
Envi
ronm
ent
& N
atur
al R
esou
rces
sta
ff: 1
Nat
ural
Re
sour
ces
Offi
cer;
1 E
nvir
onm
ent
Offi
cer;
1 F
ores
try
Offi
cer:
Sco
re 2
From
the
LG
Per
form
ance
Con
trac
t:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
the
sta
ff li
sts
and
valid
ate
that
the
Env
iron
men
t &
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es O
ffice
r ha
s bu
dget
ed fo
r cr
itica
l sta
ff in
the
N
atur
al R
esou
rces
dep
artm
ent
• Pe
rfor
man
ce
Con
trac
t•
Staff
list
s
7Pe
rfor
man
ce
Man
agem
ent:
The
LG
ap
prai
sed
staff
and
co
nduc
ted
trai
ning
s in
line
wit
h th
e di
stri
ct
trai
ning
pla
ns.
Max
imum
6 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
The
DW
O h
as a
ppra
ised
Dis
tric
t W
ater
Offi
ce s
taff
ag
ains
t th
e ag
reed
per
form
ance
pla
ns d
urin
g th
e pr
evio
us F
Y: S
core
3
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
per
sonn
el fi
les
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er D
istr
ict
Wat
er
Offi
ce s
taff
wer
e ap
prai
sed
duri
ng t
he
prev
ious
FY.
• St
aff
perf
orm
ance
pl
ans
• Pe
rson
nel fi
les
b.
The
Dis
tric
t W
ater
Offi
ce h
as id
entifi
ed c
apac
ity
need
s of
sta
ff fr
om t
he p
erfo
rman
ce a
ppra
isal
pr
oces
s an
d en
sure
d th
at t
rain
ing
activ
ities
hav
e be
en c
ondu
cted
in a
dher
ence
to
the
trai
ning
pla
ns
at d
istr
ict
leve
l and
doc
umen
ted
in t
he t
rain
ing
data
base
: Sc
ore
3
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion:
• O
btai
n C
NA
rep
orts
and
tra
inin
g re
port
s an
d ch
eck
that
the
DW
O
subm
itte
d st
aff c
apac
ity n
eeds
to
the
PHRO
and
DW
O s
taff
wer
e tr
aine
d as
pe
r di
stri
ct t
rain
ing
plan
s
• C
apac
ity N
eeds
A
sses
smen
t re
port
s•
Trai
ning
pla
ns•
Trai
ning
rep
orts
• D
istr
ict
trai
ning
da
taba
se
D)
Man
agem
ent,
M
onit
orin
g,
supe
rvis
ion
of
Serv
ices
Max
imum
sco
re:
20 p
oint
s fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
8Pl
anni
ng, B
udge
ting
an
d Tr
ansf
er o
f Fu
nds
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery:
The
Lo
cal G
over
nmen
t ha
s al
loca
ted
and
spen
t fu
nds
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery
as
pres
crib
ed in
the
sec
tor
guid
elin
es.
Max
imum
6 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
WO
has
pri
oriti
zed
budg
et
allo
catio
ns t
o su
b-c
ount
ies
that
hav
e sa
fe w
ater
co
vera
ge b
elow
tha
t of
the
dis
tric
t:
•If
10
0 %
of
the
budg
et a
lloca
tion
for
the
curr
ent
FY is
allo
cate
d to
S/C
s be
low
the
di
stri
ct a
vera
ge c
over
age:
Sco
re 3
•If
80
-99%
: Sco
re 2
•
If 6
0-7
9: S
core
1•
If b
elow
60
%: S
core
0
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n th
e di
stri
ct a
vera
ge s
afe
wat
er c
over
age
figur
es, A
WP
and
budg
et a
nd d
eter
min
e w
heth
er s
ub-
coun
ties
wit
h sa
fe w
ater
cov
erag
e be
low
the
dis
tric
t av
erag
e ha
ve b
een
prio
riti
zed
in t
he a
lloca
tion
of fu
nds
• Sa
fe w
ater
co
vera
ge d
ata
• AW
P fo
r cu
rren
t FY
• B
udge
t fo
r cu
rren
t FY
62LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
ar
eaN
oPe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deAs
sess
men
t pro
cedu
res
Mea
ns o
f ve
rific
atio
n
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
WO
com
mun
icat
ed t
o th
e LL
Gs
thei
r re
spec
tive
allo
catio
ns p
er s
ourc
e to
be
cons
truc
ted
in t
he c
urre
nt F
Y: S
core
3
From
the
Dis
tric
t W
ater
Offi
ce:
• O
btai
n th
e di
stri
ct Q
uart
erly
sof
twar
e re
port
and
che
ck t
hat
the
DW
O
cond
ucte
d su
b-c
ount
y ad
voca
cy
mee
tings
and
am
ong
othe
r as
pect
s in
form
ed L
LGs
abou
t th
eir
allo
catio
ns
per
sour
ce
•D
istr
ict
and
sub
-co
unty
not
ice
boar
ds•
Dis
tric
t qu
arte
rly
soft
war
e re
port
9Ro
utin
e O
vers
ight
and
M
onito
ring
: The
LG
has
m
onito
red
WSS
faci
litie
s an
d pr
ovid
ed fo
llow
up
supp
ort.
Max
imum
8 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e di
stri
ct W
ater
Offi
ce h
as
mon
itore
d ea
ch o
f W
SS fa
cilit
ies
at le
ast
quar
terl
y (k
ey a
reas
to
incl
ude
func
tiona
lity
of W
ater
sup
ply
and
publ
ic s
anita
tion
faci
litie
s, e
nvir
onm
ent,
and
so
cial
saf
egua
rds,
etc
.)•
If m
ore
than
95%
of
the
WSS
faci
litie
s m
onito
red
quar
terl
y: s
core
4•
If 8
0-9
9% o
f th
e W
SS fa
cilit
ies
mon
itore
d qu
arte
rly:
sco
re 2
• If
less
tha
n 80
% o
f th
e W
SS fa
cilit
ies
mon
itore
d qu
arte
rly
scor
e 0
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n th
e nu
mbe
r an
d lis
t of
wat
er
and
sani
tatio
n pr
ojec
ts in
a L
G
• Re
view
mon
itori
ng p
lans
• C
heck
the
mon
itori
ng r
epor
ts o
f ea
ch
proj
ect
and
esta
blis
h w
heth
er t
he
LG m
onito
red
the
proj
ects
(in
clud
ing
E&S
aspe
cts)
• N
ote
whe
ther
the
y fo
llow
ed u
p on
re
com
men
ded
corr
ecti
ve a
ctio
ns.
• Li
st o
f w
ater
an
d sa
nita
tion
proj
ects
• M
onito
ring
pla
ns
and
repo
rts
for
prev
ious
FY
as
per
stan
dard
fo
rmat
s.
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
WO
con
duct
ed q
uart
erly
D
WSC
C m
eetin
gs a
nd a
mon
g ot
her
agen
da it
ems,
ke
y is
sues
iden
tified
from
qua
rter
ly m
onito
ring
of
WSS
faci
litie
s w
ere
disc
usse
d an
d re
med
ial a
ctio
ns
inco
rpor
ated
in t
he c
urre
nt F
Y AW
P. S
core
2
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n th
e D
WSC
C m
inut
es, D
WO
pr
ogre
ss r
epor
ts a
nd c
heck
whe
ther
ke
y is
sues
from
qua
rter
ly m
onito
ring
of
WSS
faci
litie
s w
ere
disc
usse
d.
• D
WSC
C m
inut
es•
DW
O p
rogr
ess
repo
rts
• AW
P
c.
The
Dis
tric
t W
ater
Offi
cer
publ
iciz
es b
udge
t al
loca
tions
for
the
curr
ent
FY t
o LL
Gs
wit
h sa
fe
wat
er c
over
age
belo
w t
he L
G a
vera
ge t
o al
l sub
-co
untie
s: S
core
2
From
the
Dis
tric
t an
d su
b-c
ount
y no
tice
boar
ds:
• C
heck
tha
t al
loca
tions
for
the
curr
ent
FY t
o LL
Gs
wit
h sa
fe w
ater
co
vera
ge b
elow
the
LG
ave
rage
hav
e be
en d
ispl
ayed
at
notic
e bo
ards
or
web
site
s
• N
otic
e bo
ards
• W
ebsi
tes
63LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
ar
eaN
oPe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deAs
sess
men
t pro
cedu
res
Mea
ns o
f ve
rific
atio
n
10M
obili
zatio
n fo
r W
SS is
co
nduc
ted
Max
imum
6 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce
mea
sure
a.
For
prev
ious
FY,
the
DW
O a
lloca
ted
a m
inim
um o
f 40
% o
f th
e N
WR
rura
l wat
er a
nd s
anita
tion
budg
et
as p
er s
ecto
r gu
idel
ines
tow
ards
mob
iliza
tion
activ
ities
: •
If fu
nds
wer
e al
loca
ted
scor
e 3
•If
not
sco
re 0
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n th
e AW
P fo
r pr
evio
us F
Y an
d ch
eck
that
fund
s w
ere
allo
cate
d as
pe
r se
ctor
gui
delin
es t
o fa
cilit
ate
com
mun
ity m
obili
zatio
n ac
tiviti
es
• AW
P
b.
For
the
prev
ious
FY,
the
Dis
tric
t W
ater
Offi
cer
in
liais
on w
ith
the
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent
Offi
cer
trai
ned
WSC
s on
the
ir r
oles
on
O&
M o
f W
SS
faci
litie
s: S
core
3.
From
the
DW
O a
nd C
DO
:
Obt
ain
the
annu
al s
oftw
are
repo
rt fo
r pr
evio
us F
Y an
d ch
eck
that
:
• W
SCs
wer
e es
tabl
ishe
d an
d tr
aine
d on
the
ir r
oles
and
on
O&
M o
f W
SS
faci
litie
s•
Sam
ple
3 W
SCs
to c
heck
on
reca
ll of
tr
aini
ng c
onte
nt
• D
istr
ict
Soft
war
e re
port
s•
Sam
ple
WSC
s
E) In
vest
men
t M
anag
emen
t
Max
imum
sco
re:
28 p
oint
s fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
11Pl
anni
ng a
nd B
udge
ting
for
Inve
stm
ents
is
cond
ucte
d eff
ectiv
ely
Max
imum
14
poin
ts
on t
his
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
a.
Exis
tenc
e of
an
up-t
o-da
te L
G a
sset
reg
iste
r w
hich
se
ts o
ut w
ater
sup
ply
and
sani
tatio
n fa
cilit
ies
by
loca
tion
and
LLG
:
Scor
e 4
or e
lse
0
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
the
ass
ets
regi
ster
fo
r W
SS fa
cilit
ies
and
chec
k th
at t
he
WSS
ass
ets
regi
ster
is d
etai
led
and
up t
o da
te.
• A
sset
s re
gist
er
• M
IS
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
DW
O h
as c
ondu
cted
a d
esk
appr
aisa
l for
all
WSS
pro
ject
s in
the
bud
get
to
esta
blis
h w
heth
er t
he p
rior
itize
d in
vest
men
ts w
ere
deri
ved
from
the
app
rove
d di
stri
ct d
evel
opm
ent
plan
s an
d ar
e el
igib
le fo
r ex
pend
iture
und
er s
ecto
r gu
idel
ines
(pr
iori
tize
inve
stm
ents
for
sub
-cou
ntie
s w
ith
safe
wat
er c
over
age
belo
w t
he d
istr
ict
aver
age
and
reha
bilit
atio
n of
non
-fun
ctio
nal
faci
litie
s) a
nd fu
ndin
g so
urce
(e.
g. s
ecto
r de
velo
pmen
t gr
ant,
DD
EG).
If d
esk
appr
aisa
l was
co
nduc
ted
and
if al
l pro
ject
s ar
e de
rive
d fr
om t
he
LGD
P an
d ar
e el
igib
le: S
core
4 o
r el
se s
core
0.
From
the
Pla
nner
:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
the
LG
DP,
AW
P/bu
dget
for
the
curr
ent
FY, W
SS s
ecto
r gr
ant
guid
elin
es a
nd a
ppro
ved
sub
-co
unty
pla
ns a
nd c
heck
tha
t D
WO
co
nduc
ted
a de
sk a
ppra
isal
for
all
WSS
pro
ject
s in
the
bud
get
for
the
curr
ent
FY w
as d
one
and
whe
ther
in
vest
men
ts a
re d
eriv
ed fr
om t
he
LGD
P an
d ar
e el
igib
le fo
r ex
pend
iture
un
der
the
sect
or g
uide
lines
.
• AW
P•
Loca
l G
over
nmen
t D
evel
opm
ent
Plan
Dis
tric
t•
WSS
gra
nt/
budg
et
guid
elin
es•
App
rove
d su
b-
coun
ty p
lans
64LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
ar
eaN
oPe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deAs
sess
men
t pro
cedu
res
Mea
ns o
f ve
rific
atio
n
c.
All
budg
eted
inve
stm
ents
for
curr
ent
FY h
ave
com
plet
ed a
pplic
atio
ns fr
om b
enefi
ciar
y co
mm
uniti
es: S
core
2
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n th
e co
mm
unity
app
licat
ion
files
and
che
ck t
hat
bene
ficia
ry
com
mun
ities
app
lied
for
WSS
in
vest
men
ts fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
• C
omm
unity
ap
plic
atio
n fil
es
d.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
con
duct
ed fi
eld
appr
aisa
l to
chec
k fo
r: (
i) t
echn
ical
feas
ibili
ty;
(ii)
env
iron
men
tal s
ocia
l acc
epta
bilit
y; a
nd (
iii)
cust
omiz
ed d
esig
ns fo
r W
SS p
roje
cts
for
curr
ent
FY. S
core
2
From
the
Pla
nner
:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
feas
ibili
ty s
tudy
re
port
; wat
er r
esou
rces
rep
ort
and
field
app
rais
al r
epor
t an
d es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
fiel
d-ba
sed
appr
aisa
ls w
ere
cond
ucte
d.
• Fe
asib
ility
stu
dy•
Repo
rt•
Wat
er r
esou
rces
re
port
•
Fiel
d ap
prai
sal
repo
rt
e.
Evid
ence
tha
t al
l wat
er in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
wer
e sc
reen
ed fo
r en
viro
nmen
tal
and
soci
al r
isks
/ im
pact
s an
d ES
IA/E
SMPs
pr
epar
ed b
efor
e be
ing
appr
oved
for
cons
truc
tion
- co
sted
ESM
Ps in
corp
orat
ed in
to d
esig
ns, B
oQs,
bi
ddin
g an
d co
ntra
ct d
ocum
ents
. Sco
re 2
From
the
EN
R offi
ce:
• ch
eck
that
scr
eeni
ng w
as c
ondu
cted
fo
r al
l WSS
pro
ject
s fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
, and
ESI
A/c
oste
d ES
MPs
pre
pare
d (w
here
req
uire
d) a
nd w
heth
er t
he
prop
osed
miti
gatio
ns m
easu
res
wer
e pu
t in
pla
ce
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
3 s
ampl
e co
ntra
cts
of o
ngoi
ng W
SS p
roje
cts
and
esta
blis
h w
heth
er t
hey
cont
ain
a cl
ause
on
envi
ronm
enta
l and
soc
ial
prot
ectio
n re
quir
emen
ts
• Fi
lled
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Soci
al S
cree
ning
fo
rms
• ES
IA/c
oste
d ES
MPs
• Sa
mpl
e w
ater
pr
ojec
ts
12Pr
ocur
emen
t an
d C
ontr
act
Man
agem
ent/
exec
utio
n: T
he L
G h
as
effec
tivel
y m
anag
ed t
he
WSS
pro
cure
men
ts
Max
imum
14
poin
ts
on t
his
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e w
ater
infr
astr
uctu
re
inve
stm
ents
wer
e in
corp
orat
ed in
the
LG
app
rove
d pr
ocur
emen
t pl
an: S
core
2 o
r el
se 0
From
the
PD
U o
btai
n an
d re
view
the
pr
ocur
emen
t pl
an a
nd c
heck
tha
t w
ater
an
d sa
nita
tion
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
wer
e in
corp
orat
ed in
the
pro
cure
men
t pl
an
• Pr
ocur
emen
t pl
an
65LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
ar
eaN
oPe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deAs
sess
men
t pro
cedu
res
Mea
ns o
f ve
rific
atio
n
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e w
ater
sup
ply
and
publ
ic
sani
tatio
n in
fras
truc
ture
for
the
prev
ious
FY
was
ap
prov
ed b
y th
e C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee
befo
re
com
men
cem
ent
of c
onst
ruct
ion
Scor
e 2:
From
the
PD
U:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
min
utes
of
the
cont
ract
s co
mm
itte
e to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
wat
er s
uppl
y an
d pu
blic
sa
nita
tion
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts
for
the
prev
ious
FY
wer
e ap
prov
ed
by t
he C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee
befo
re
com
men
cem
ent
of c
onst
ruct
ion
• M
inut
es o
f C
ontr
acts
C
omm
itte
e
c.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
istr
ict
Wat
er O
ffice
r pr
oper
ly
esta
blis
hed
the
Proj
ect
Impl
emen
tatio
n te
am a
s sp
ecifi
ed in
the
Wat
er s
ecto
r gu
idel
ines
Sco
re 2
:
From
the
PD
U:
• O
btai
n th
e pr
ocur
emen
t fil
e an
d ch
eck
that
the
LG
est
ablis
hed
the
Proj
ect
Impl
emen
tatio
n te
am a
s sp
ecifi
ed in
the
sec
tor
guid
elin
es
• Li
st o
f pr
ojec
t Im
plem
enta
tion
team
mem
bers
d.
Evid
ence
tha
t w
ater
and
pub
lic s
anita
tion
infr
astr
uctu
re s
ampl
ed w
ere
cons
truc
ted
as p
er
the
stan
dard
tec
hnic
al d
esig
ns p
rovi
ded
by t
he
DW
O: S
core
2
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n th
e st
anda
rd t
echn
ical
des
igns
• Sa
mpl
e 3
WSS
con
trac
ts
and
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er W
SS
infr
astr
uctu
re w
ere
cons
truc
ted
as p
er t
he t
echn
ical
des
ign
spec
ifica
tions
• St
anda
rd
tech
nica
l des
igns
• Sa
mpl
e co
ntra
cts
• Sa
mpl
e W
SS
proj
ects
e.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e re
leva
nt t
echn
ical
offi
cers
ca
rry
out
mon
thly
tec
hnic
al s
uper
visi
on o
f W
SS
infr
astr
uctu
re p
roje
cts:
Sco
re 2
From
the
DW
O:
• O
btai
n co
ntra
ct m
anag
emen
t pl
an,
mon
thly
sup
ervi
sion
rep
orts
and
de
term
ine
whe
ther
The
Dis
tric
t En
gine
er, D
WO
, Env
iron
men
t an
d C
omm
unity
Dev
elop
men
t O
ffice
r pa
rtic
ipat
ed in
sup
ervi
sing
WSS
pr
ojec
ts•
Obt
ain
min
utes
of
site
mee
tings
and
de
term
ine
whe
ther
act
ions
bet
wee
n th
e D
WO
and
the
con
trac
tor/
cons
ulta
nt w
ere
impl
emen
ted
by t
he
cont
ract
or
• C
ontr
act
Man
agem
ent
Plan
• Su
perv
isio
n Re
port
s•
Min
utes
of
Site
M
eetin
gs
66LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
ar
eaN
oPe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deAs
sess
men
t pro
cedu
res
Mea
ns o
f ve
rific
atio
n
f.Fo
r th
e sa
mpl
ed c
ontr
acts
, the
re is
evi
denc
e th
at
the
DW
O h
as v
erifi
ed w
orks
and
initi
ated
pay
men
ts
of c
ontr
acto
rs w
ithi
n sp
ecifi
ed t
imef
ram
es in
the
co
ntra
cts
o
If 1
00
% c
ontr
acts
pai
d on
tim
e:
Scor
e 2
o
If n
ot s
core
0
From
the
CFO
:•
Obt
ain
and
revi
ew a
sam
ple
of
cont
ract
s an
d de
term
ine
whe
ther
pa
ymen
t re
ques
ts w
ere
cert
ified
and
re
com
men
ded
for
paym
ent
as p
er
cont
ract
and
pay
men
t re
ques
ts
• Pa
ymen
t re
ques
ts•
Sam
ple
cont
ract
s
g.
Evid
ence
tha
t a
com
plet
e pr
ocur
emen
t fil
e fo
r w
ater
infr
astr
uctu
re in
vest
men
ts is
in p
lace
for
each
con
trac
t w
ith
all r
ecor
ds a
s re
quir
ed b
y th
e PP
DA
Law
: Sco
re 2
, If
not
scor
e 0
From
the
PD
U:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
pro
cure
men
t fil
e to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
eac
h co
ntra
ct
has
all r
elev
ant
reco
rds
as p
er t
he
PPD
A la
w
• Pr
ocur
emen
t fil
e
F) E
nvir
onm
enta
l an
d So
cial
Re
quir
emen
ts
Max
imum
sco
re:
16 p
oint
s fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
13G
riev
ance
Red
ress
: The
LG
has
est
ablis
hed
a m
echa
nism
of
addr
essi
ng
WSS
rel
ated
gri
evan
ces
in
line
wit
h th
e LG
gri
evan
ce
redr
ess
fram
ewor
k
Max
imum
3 p
oint
s th
is
perf
orm
ance
mea
sure
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
WO
in li
aiso
n w
ith
the
Dis
tric
t G
riev
ance
s Re
dres
s C
omm
itte
e re
cord
ed, i
nves
tigat
ed,
resp
onde
d to
and
rep
orte
d on
wat
er a
nd e
nvir
onm
ent
grie
vanc
es a
s pe
r th
e LG
gri
evan
ce r
edre
ss fr
amew
ork:
Sc
ore
3, If
not
sco
re 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t de
sign
ated
Gri
evan
ce
Coo
rdin
ator
:
• O
btai
n th
e LG
gri
evan
ce r
edre
ss
fram
ewor
k an
d gr
ieva
nces
log
and
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er t
he G
riev
ance
s Re
dres
s C
omm
itte
e ap
prop
riat
ely
reco
rded
, inv
estig
ated
, res
pond
ed
to a
nd r
epor
ted
on a
ll w
ater
and
en
viro
nmen
t re
late
d gr
ieva
nces
• LG
gri
evan
ces
redr
ess
fram
ewor
k•
Gri
evan
ces
log
14Sa
fegu
ards
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery
Max
imum
3 p
oint
s on
thi
s pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
re
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
WO
and
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r ha
ve d
isse
min
ated
gui
delin
es o
n w
ater
sou
rce
& c
atch
men
t pr
otec
tion
and
natu
ral r
esou
rce
man
agem
ent
to C
DO
s: S
core
3, I
f no
t sc
ore
0
From
the
DW
O &
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r:
• O
btai
n m
inut
es o
f m
eetin
gs w
ith
CD
Os
and
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er w
ater
so
urce
and
cat
chm
ent
prot
ectio
n an
d; n
atur
al r
esou
rce
man
agem
ent
guid
elin
es w
ere
diss
emin
ated
• G
uide
lines
for
wate
r so
urce
and
ca
tchm
ent p
rote
ctio
n an
d na
tura
l res
ourc
e m
anag
emen
t•
Fille
d E&
S sc
reen
ing
form
s•
EIA
repo
rts/
ESM
Ps•
Sam
ple
cont
ract
s•
Land
agr
eem
ents
/tit
les
and
MO
Us
• Si
gned
E&
S Co
mpl
ianc
e Ce
rtifi
catio
n fo
rms
• M
onth
ly m
onito
ring
repo
rts
67LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
ar
eaN
oPe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deAs
sess
men
t pro
cedu
res
Mea
ns o
f ve
rific
atio
n
15Sa
fegu
ards
in t
he
Del
iver
y of
Inve
stm
ents
Max
imum
10
poi
nts
on t
his
perf
orm
ance
m
easu
re
a.
Evid
ence
tha
t w
ater
sou
rce
prot
ectio
n pl
ans
&
natu
ral
reso
urce
m
anag
emen
t pl
ans
for
WSS
fa
cilit
ies
cons
truc
ted
in
the
prev
ious
FY
w
ere
prep
ared
and
impl
emen
ted:
Sco
re 3
, If
not
sco
re
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r an
d C
DO
ch
eck
that
:
• W
ater
sou
rce
prot
ectio
n pl
ans
and
natu
ral r
esou
rce
man
agem
ent
plan
s fo
r W
SS in
fras
truc
ture
pro
ject
s co
nstr
ucte
d du
ring
the
pre
viou
s FY
w
ere
prep
ared
and
impl
emen
ted
b.
Evid
ence
tha
t al
l W
SS p
roje
cts
are
impl
emen
ted
on l
and
whe
re t
he L
G h
as p
roof
of
cons
ent
(e.g
. a
land
titl
e, a
gree
men
t; F
orm
al C
onse
nt,
MoU
s,
etc.
), w
itho
ut a
ny e
ncum
bran
ces:
Sco
re 3
, If
not
sc
ore
0
From
the
Env
iron
men
t O
ffice
r:
• O
btai
n th
e AW
P, c
opie
s of
land
tit
les,
agr
eem
ents
and
MO
Us
to
dete
rmin
e th
at a
ll W
SS p
roje
cts
wer
e im
plem
ente
d on
land
whe
re t
he L
G
has
proo
f of
ow
ners
hip
c.
Evid
ence
th
at
E&S
Cer
tifica
tion
form
s ar
e co
mpl
eted
and
sig
ned
by E
nvir
onm
enta
l O
ffice
r an
d C
DO
pri
or to
pay
men
ts o
f con
trac
tor
invo
ices
/ce
rtifi
cate
s at
inte
rim
and
fina
l sta
ges
of p
roje
cts:
Sc
ore
2, If
not
sco
re 0
From
the
CFO
:
• O
btai
n an
d re
view
a s
ampl
e of
3
inte
rim
and
fina
l pay
men
t ce
rtifi
cate
s an
d ch
eck
that
The
Env
iron
men
tal
Offi
cer
and
CD
O c
ompl
eted
and
si
gned
E&
S C
ertifi
catio
n fo
rms
d.
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e C
DO
and
env
iron
men
t O
ffice
rs
unde
rtak
es m
onito
ring
to
asce
rtai
n co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith
ESM
Ps; a
nd p
rovi
de m
onth
ly r
epor
ts: S
core
2,
If n
ot s
core
0
Fro
m t
he E
NR
office
and
CD
O:
• O
btai
n ES
MPs
and
mon
itori
ng r
epor
ts
and
chec
k th
at m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s w
ere
impl
emen
ted
and
mon
thly
re
port
s w
ere
com
pile
d.
68 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
12 Micro-scale Irrigation Performance Assessment
1. Micro-scale irrigation performance assessment will only be conducted in districts selected to receive the micro-scale irrigation grant.
2. All indicators will be assessed starting in FY 2020/21. The indicators which are not applicable during the year of assessment will be scored 0. This is because:
a) It will provide a baseline and a basis for trend analysis. b) It will not disadvantage any LG as all will score 0 – level ground.
c) The districts are supposed to be performing the functions even without the micro-scale irrigation grant
3. The results for the assessment to be conducted in FY 2020/21 and FY 2021/22 will be used for monitoring and evaluation purposes and to develop performance improvement plans but not to impact on the allocation of the grants. This is because the districts will not have received and used the grants in FY 2019/20 (assessed in 2020/21); and the grants received in 2020/21 (assessed in 2021/22) are only for complementary services. Therefore, the results of the performance assessment to be conducted in FY 2022/23 will be the first to be used to impact on the allocation of grants for FY 2023/24. This is because the LGs would have received and used the capital development grant for FY 2021/22. The table below provides an overview of how the performance assessment and use of the results will be phased in relation to the flow of funds and implementation of activities in the 40 phase 1 districts. The same principles will apply when micro-scale irrigation grant is replicated countrywide.
No 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23
Activity Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1. Flow of funds and implementation of activities
100% of grant for awareness raising
75% capital development (equipment procurement, installation and payments) ; and 25% complementary services
75% capital development (equipment procurement, installation and payments) ; and 25% complementary services)
2. LG Performance Assessment Exercise
XX XX XX
3. Use of results in development and implementation of PIPs
XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
4. Use of results to allocate part of the grants16
N/A17
NA18 XX19
16 Note: Assessment in Y1 – mainly assesses performance in Y1-1; and impacts on allocation for Y1+117 No grant during Y1-1 (2019/20)18 Grant in Y1-1 (2020/21) only focuses on awareness raising/complementary services19 Assess use of grant in Y1-1 (2021/22) to impact on allocations in 2022/23
69LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
12.1
Mic
ro-s
cale
Irri
gati
on M
inim
um C
ondi
tion
s
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.M
inim
um C
ondi
tion
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
A)
Hum
an
Reso
urce
M
anag
emen
t an
d D
evel
opm
ent
Max
imum
sco
re
is 7
0
1Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as r
ecru
ited
or r
eque
sted
for
seco
ndm
ent
of s
taff
fo
r al
l cri
tical
pos
ition
s in
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce r
espo
nsib
le fo
r m
icro
-sca
le ir
riga
tion
If t
he L
G h
as r
ecru
ited
the
Seni
or A
gric
ultu
re E
ngin
eer
scor
e 70
or
else
0.
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion,
obt
ain
the
appo
intm
ent
lett
ers
of t
he S
enio
r A
gric
ultu
ral E
ngin
eer
to e
stab
lish
that
the
y ar
e su
bsta
ntiv
ely
recr
uite
d.
In c
ase
the
posi
tions
are
not
fille
d, g
et e
vide
nce
from
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
(HRM
) D
ivis
ion
that
the
LG
req
uest
ed fo
r se
cond
men
t fr
om M
AAI
F.
₋A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
₋C
opy
of le
tter
from
LG
to
MA
AIF
requ
estin
g fo
r se
cond
men
t of
sta
ff t
o D
istr
ict
Prod
uctio
n O
ffice
.
B)
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Soci
al
Requ
irem
ents
Max
imum
sco
re
is 3
0
2Ev
iden
ce t
hat
the
LG h
as c
arri
ed o
ut
Envi
ronm
enta
l, So
cial
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
scre
enin
g ha
ve b
een
carr
ied
out
for
pote
ntia
l inv
estm
ents
and
w
here
req
uire
d co
sted
ESM
Ps
deve
lope
d.
If t
he L
G:
a.
Car
ried
out
Env
iron
men
tal,
Soci
al a
nd C
limat
e C
hang
e sc
reen
ing
scor
e 15
or
else
0
.b.
Car
ried
out
Soc
ial I
mpa
ct
Ass
essm
ents
(ES
IAs)
whe
re
requ
ired
, sco
re 1
5 or
els
e 0
.
From
the
LG
Env
iron
men
t offi
cer,
obta
in t
he
Envi
ronm
enta
l and
Soc
ial S
cree
ning
For
m,
ESM
Ps p
repa
red
(whe
re a
pplic
able
), fo
r al
l mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n pr
ojec
ts t
o ve
rify
w
heth
er:
·E
& S
scr
eeni
ng w
as c
arri
ed o
ut
·ES
MP
prep
ared
and
cos
ted
(whe
re
requ
ired
).
·Fi
lled
Envi
ronm
enta
l and
So
cial
scr
eeni
ng F
orm
s·
ESIA
Rep
orts
·C
oste
d ES
MPs
70LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
12.2
Mic
ro-s
cale
Irri
gati
on P
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
res
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
A.
Loca
l Gov
ernm
ent
Serv
ice
Del
iver
y Re
sult
s
Max
imum
20
po
ints
for
this
pe
rfor
man
ce a
rea
1O
utco
me:
The
LG
has
incr
ease
d ac
reag
e of
new
ly
irri
gate
d la
nd
Max
imum
sco
re 4
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
up
to-d
ate
data
on
irri
gate
d la
nd fo
r th
e la
st
two
FYs
disa
ggre
gate
d be
twee
n m
icro
-sca
le ir
riga
tion
gran
t be
nefic
iari
es a
nd n
on-b
enefi
ciar
ies
– s
core
2 o
r el
se 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
·D
ata
on ir
riga
ted
land
for
the
last
tw
o FY
s to
de
term
ine
whe
ther
the
LG
has
up
to-d
ate
data
on
irri
gate
d la
nd d
isag
greg
ated
bet
wee
n m
icro
-sc
ale
irri
gatio
n gr
ant
bene
ficia
ries
and
non
-be
nefic
iari
es
•D
ata
on ir
riga
ted
land
fo
r th
e la
st t
wo
FYs
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
incr
ease
d ac
reag
e of
new
ly ir
riga
ted
land
in
the
prev
ious
FY
as c
ompa
red
to
prev
ious
FY
but
one:
•By
mor
e th
an 5
% s
core
2•
Betw
een
1% a
nd 4
% s
core
1•
If n
o in
crea
se s
core
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
·D
ata
on ir
riga
ted
land
for
the
last
tw
o FY
s to
ca
lcul
ate
the
incr
ease
in a
crea
ge o
f ne
wly
ir
riga
ted
land
in t
he p
revi
ous
FY a
s co
mpa
red
to
prev
ious
FY
but
one
•D
ata
on ir
riga
ted
land
fo
r th
e la
st t
wo
FYs
2Se
rvic
e D
eliv
ery
Perf
orm
ance
: Av
erag
e sc
ore
in
the
mic
ro-s
cale
ir
riga
tion
for
the
LLG
per
form
ance
as
sess
men
t.
Max
imum
sco
re 4
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e av
erag
e sc
ore
in
the
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n fo
r LL
G
perf
orm
ance
ass
essm
ent
is:
•A
bove
70
%; s
core
4•
60 –
69%
; sco
re 2
•Be
low
60
%; s
core
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pl
anne
r ob
tain
:
·th
e LL
G p
erfo
rman
ce r
epor
t an
d ca
lcul
ate
the
aver
age
scor
e of
the
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n fo
r LL
G p
erfo
rman
ce a
sses
smen
t
•Re
port
on
LLG
pe
rfor
man
ce
asse
ssm
ent
3In
vest
men
t Pe
rfor
man
ce: T
he
LG h
as m
anag
ed
the
supp
ly a
nd
inst
alla
tion
of m
icro
-sc
ale
irri
gatio
ns
equi
pmen
t as
per
gu
idel
ines
Max
imum
sco
re 6
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
mpo
nent
of
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n gr
ant
has
been
use
d on
elig
ible
ac
tiviti
es (
proc
urem
ent
and
inst
alla
tion
of ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t,
incl
udin
g ac
com
pany
ing
supp
lier
man
uals
and
tra
inin
g):
Scor
e 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce, o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
·Th
e bu
dget
per
form
ance
rep
ort
to e
stab
lish
whe
ther
the
dev
elop
men
t co
mpo
nent
of
mic
ro-
scal
e ir
riga
tion
gran
t w
as u
sed
on e
ligib
le
activ
ities
•B
udge
t Pe
rfor
man
ce
Repo
rts
71LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e ap
prov
ed
farm
er s
igne
d an
Acc
epta
nce
Form
con
firm
ing
that
equ
ipm
ent
is
wor
king
wel
l, be
fore
the
LG
mad
e pa
ymen
ts t
o th
e su
pplie
rs:
Scor
e 1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
Chi
ef F
inan
ce O
ffice
r ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
·Pa
ymen
t vo
uche
rs fo
r al
l equ
ipm
ent
supp
liers
to
esta
blis
h w
heth
er t
he fa
rmer
Acc
epta
nce
Form
co
nfirm
ing
that
equ
ipm
ent
is w
orki
ng w
ell w
ere
atta
ched
bef
ore
the
LG m
ade
paym
ents
to
the
supp
liers
•Pa
ymen
t vo
uche
rs
for
all e
quip
men
t su
pplie
rs
c)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e va
riat
ions
in t
he
cont
ract
pri
ce a
re w
ithi
n +
/-20
% o
f th
e A
gric
ultu
re E
ngin
eers
est
imat
es:
Scor
e 1
or e
lse
scor
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce, o
btai
n:
·(i
) fa
rm v
isit
repo
rt; (
ii) s
elec
ted
supp
lier
quot
e;
and
(iii)
the
sup
plie
r co
ntra
cts
and
calc
ulat
e th
e va
riat
ions
in t
he c
ontr
act
pric
e (c
ontr
act
vari
atio
n or
ders
) to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
y ar
e w
ithi
n +
/-20
% o
f th
e A
gric
ultu
re E
ngin
eers
es
timat
es
•Fa
rm v
isit
repo
rt.
•Su
pplie
r qu
ote
•Su
pplie
r co
ntra
cts
d)
Evid
ence
tha
t m
icro
-sca
le ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t w
here
con
trac
ts w
ere
sign
ed d
urin
g th
e pr
evio
us F
Y w
ere
inst
alle
d/co
mpl
eted
wit
hin
the
prev
ious
FY
•If
10
0%
sco
re 2
•Be
twee
n 80
– 9
9% s
core
1•
Belo
w 8
0%
sco
re 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce, o
btai
n:
·(i
) th
e su
pplie
r co
ntra
cts;
and
(ii)
bud
get
perf
orm
ance
rep
ort
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
whe
re
cont
ract
s w
ere
sign
ed w
ere
inst
alle
d du
ring
last
FY
•Su
pplie
r co
ntra
cts.
•
Com
plet
ion
cert
ifica
tes;
and
•B
udge
t pe
rfor
man
ce
repo
rt
72LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
4Ac
hiev
emen
t of
st
anda
rds:
The
LG
ha
s m
et s
taffi
ng
and
mic
ro-s
cale
ir
riga
tion
stan
dard
s
Max
imum
sco
re 6
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
rec
ruite
d LL
G e
xten
sion
wor
kers
as
per
staffi
ng
stru
ctur
e
•If
10
0%
sco
re 2
•If
75
– 9
9% s
core
1•
If b
elow
75%
sco
re 0
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋Th
e st
affing
str
uctu
re fo
r LL
G e
xten
sion
wor
kers
(A
gric
ultu
re, V
eter
inar
y, F
ishe
ries
, Ent
omol
ogy)
₋Th
e st
aff li
st₋
Cal
cula
te t
he %
age
of L
LG e
xten
sion
wor
kers
th
at a
re fi
lled
•St
aff s
truc
ture
LLG
ex
tens
ion
wor
kers
•St
aff L
ist
LLG
ex
tens
ion
wor
kers
•A
ppoi
ntm
ent
lett
ers
LLG
ext
ensi
on w
orke
rs
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e m
icro
-sca
le
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
mee
ts
stan
dard
s as
defi
ned
by M
AAI
F•
If 1
00
% s
core
2 o
r el
se s
core
0
From
the
Agr
icul
tura
l Eng
inee
r:
•O
btai
n in
vent
ory
of m
icro
-sca
le ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t su
pplie
d•
Sam
ple
3 co
mpl
eted
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n in
stal
latio
ns in
diff
eren
t LL
Gs
to a
scer
tain
w
heth
er t
hey
mee
t st
anda
rds
•In
vent
ory
of in
stal
led
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e in
stal
led
mic
ro-
scal
e ir
riga
tion
syst
ems
duri
ng la
st
FY a
re fu
nctio
nal
•If
10
0%
are
func
tiona
l sco
re 2
or
else
sco
re 0
From
the
Agr
icul
tura
l Eng
inee
r:
•O
btai
n th
e lis
t of
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
inst
alle
d du
ring
the
pre
viou
s FY
•Sa
mpl
e 3
inst
alle
d ir
riga
tion
faci
litie
s in
diff
eren
t LL
Gs
to c
heck
func
tiona
lity
•In
vent
ory
of in
stal
led
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
B.
Perf
orm
ance
Re
port
ing
and
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t
Max
imum
10
po
ints
for
this
pe
rfor
man
ce a
rea
5Ac
cura
cy
of r
epor
ted
info
rmat
ion:
Th
e LG
has
re
port
ed a
ccur
ate
info
rmat
ion
Max
imum
sco
re 4
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t in
form
atio
n on
po
sitio
n of
ext
ensi
on w
orke
rs fi
lled
is
accu
rate
: Sco
re 2
or
else
0
From
the
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Offi
ce o
btai
n:
₋Th
e st
aff li
st.
₋Sa
mpl
e 3
LLG
s to
est
ablis
h th
at t
he e
xten
sion
w
orke
rs a
re in
pla
ce a
s in
dica
ted
in t
he s
taff
list
•St
aff li
sts
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t in
form
atio
n on
mic
ro-
scal
e ir
riga
tion
syst
em in
stal
led
and
func
tioni
ng is
acc
urat
e: S
core
2 o
r el
se 0
From
Agr
icul
tura
l Eng
inee
r ob
tain
:
•Th
e in
vent
ory
of in
stal
led
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent.
•
Sam
ple
3 an
d es
tabl
ish
whe
ther
info
rmat
ion
subm
itte
d on
inst
alla
tion
and
func
tiona
lity
is
accu
rate
•In
vent
ory
of m
icro
-sc
ale
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
inst
alle
d
73LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
6Re
port
ing
and
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t: T
he
LG h
as c
olle
cted
an
d en
tere
d in
form
atio
n in
to
MIS
, and
dev
elop
ed
and
impl
emen
ted
perf
orm
ance
im
prov
emen
t pl
ans
Max
imum
sco
re 6
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t in
form
atio
n is
co
llect
ed q
uart
erly
on
new
ly
irri
gate
d la
nd, f
unct
iona
lity
of
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
inst
alle
d;
prov
isio
n of
com
plem
enta
ry s
ervi
ces
and
farm
er E
xpre
ssio
n of
Inte
rest
: Sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce, o
btai
n an
d re
view
.
₋Q
uart
erly
sup
ervi
sion
and
mon
itori
ng r
epor
ts
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er t
hey
are
com
pile
d an
d co
ver
sub
-cou
nty
irri
gate
d la
nd, f
unct
iona
lity
of
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent;
com
plem
enta
ry s
ervi
ces
and
farm
er a
pplic
atio
ns
•Q
uart
erly
sup
ervi
sion
an
d m
onito
ring
re
port
s
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
ent
ered
up
to-d
ate
LLG
info
rmat
ion
into
MIS
: Sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
•M
IS r
epor
ts t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
up
to-d
ate
LLG
per
form
ance
info
rmat
ion
is s
ubm
itte
d
•M
IS r
epor
ts
c)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
pre
pare
d a
quar
terl
y re
port
usi
ng in
form
atio
n co
mpi
led
from
LLG
s in
the
MIS
: Sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋Q
uart
erly
rep
orts
wit
h in
form
atio
n fr
om t
he L
LGs
in t
he M
IS
•Q
uart
erly
rep
orts
d)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
:i.
Dev
elop
ed a
n ap
prov
ed
Perf
orm
ance
Impr
ovem
ent
Plan
for
the
low
est
perf
orm
ing
LLG
s sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
ii.
Impl
emen
ted
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t Pl
an fo
r lo
wes
t pe
rfor
min
g LL
Gs:
Sco
re 1
or
else
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋(i
) th
e A
ppro
ved
Perf
orm
ance
Impr
ovem
ent
Plan
; an
d (i
i) P
IP im
plem
enta
tion
repo
rts
to e
stab
lish
whe
ther
the
LG
dev
elop
ed a
nd im
plem
ente
d Pe
rfor
man
ce Im
prov
emen
t Pl
an fo
r th
e lo
wes
t pe
rfor
min
g LL
Gs
•A
ppro
ved
Perf
orm
ance
Im
prov
emen
t Pl
an.
•PI
P im
plem
enta
tion
repo
rts
74LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
C.
Hum
an R
esou
rce
Man
agem
ent
and
Dev
elop
men
t
Max
imum
10
po
ints
for
this
pe
rfor
man
ce a
rea
7B
udge
ting
for,
actu
al r
ecru
itmen
t an
d de
ploy
men
t of
sta
ff: T
he L
ocal
G
over
nmen
t ha
s bu
dget
ed, a
ctua
lly
recr
uite
d an
d de
ploy
ed s
taff
as
per
guid
elin
es
Max
imum
sco
re 6
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
:i.
Bud
gete
d fo
r ex
tens
ion
wor
kers
as
per
gui
delin
es/i
n ac
cord
ance
wit
h th
e st
affing
nor
ms
scor
e 1
or e
lse
0ii.
Dep
loye
d ex
tens
ion
wor
kers
as
per
guid
elin
es s
core
1 o
r el
se 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋(i
) th
e LG
per
form
ance
con
trac
t; a
nd (
ii) s
taff
lis
t to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
LG
Bud
gete
d fo
r ex
tens
ion
wor
kers
as
per
guid
elin
es a
nd d
eplo
yed
exte
nsio
n w
orke
rs a
s pe
r gu
idel
ines
•Pe
rfor
man
ce
Con
trac
t of
cur
rent
FY
•St
aff r
egis
ters
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t ex
tens
ion
wor
kers
ar
e w
orki
ng in
LLG
s w
here
the
y ar
e de
ploy
ed:
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
0
From
the
SA
S in
a s
ampl
e of
at
leas
t 3
LLG
s, o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋(i
) th
e st
aff li
sts;
(ii)
att
enda
nce
book
; (iii
) SA
S su
perv
isio
n/ m
onito
ring
rep
orts
to
dete
rmin
e th
at e
xten
sion
wor
kers
are
wor
king
in L
LGs
whe
re
they
are
dep
loye
d
•C
urre
nt s
taff
list
•At
tend
ance
boo
ks•
Supe
rvis
ion/
m
onito
ring
rep
orts
c)
Evid
ence
tha
t ex
tens
ion
wor
kers
de
ploy
men
t ha
s be
en p
ublic
ized
an
d di
ssem
inat
ed t
o LL
Gs
by a
mon
g ot
hers
dis
play
ing
staff
list
on
the
LLG
not
ice
boar
d. S
core
2 o
r el
se 0
From
the
CAO
’s o
ffice
obt
ain
and:
₋C
heck
cir
cula
r fr
om C
AO t
o SA
S sh
owin
g de
tails
of
Ext
ensi
on w
orke
rs d
eplo
yed
in L
LG₋
In a
sam
ple
of a
t le
ast
3 LL
Gs
chec
k LL
G n
otic
e bo
ard
to e
stab
lish
whe
ther
the
SA
S po
sted
the
lis
t of
Ext
ensi
on w
orke
rs.
•N
otic
e bo
ards
of
LLG
s•
Cir
cula
r fr
om C
AO t
o LL
Gs
8Pe
rfor
man
ce
man
agem
ent:
The
LG
has
app
rais
ed,
take
n co
rrec
tive
actio
n an
d tr
aine
d Ex
tens
ion
Wor
kers
Max
imum
sco
re 4
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
istr
ict
Prod
uctio
n C
oord
inat
or h
as:
i.C
ondu
cted
ann
ual
perf
orm
ance
app
rais
al o
f al
l Ext
ensi
on
Wor
kers
aga
inst
the
agr
eed
perf
orm
ance
pl
ans
and
has
subm
itte
d a
copy
to
HRO
du
ring
the
pre
viou
s FY
: Sc
ore
1 el
se 0
ii.
Take
n co
rrec
tive
actio
ns: S
core
1
or e
lse
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t H
R de
part
men
t ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
₋Pe
rson
al fi
les
for
exte
nsio
n w
orke
rs a
nd s
ampl
e at
leas
t 10
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er t
hey
wer
e ap
prai
sed
duri
ng t
he p
revi
ous
FY
•Pe
rson
al fi
les
•A
ppra
isal
rep
orts
75LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t:i.
Trai
ning
act
iviti
es w
ere
cond
ucte
d in
acc
orda
nce
to t
he t
rain
ing
plan
s at
Dis
tric
t le
vel:
Sco
re 1
or
else
0ii.
Evid
ence
tha
t tr
aini
ng a
ctiv
ities
w
ere
docu
men
ted
in t
he t
rain
ing
data
base
: Sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋(i
) tr
aini
ng r
epor
ts; (
ii) t
rain
ing
data
base
to
esta
blis
h th
at t
rain
ing
activ
ities
wer
e co
nduc
ted
and
docu
men
ted
in t
he t
rain
ing
data
base
•Tr
aini
ng r
epor
ts•
Trai
ning
dat
abas
e
D.
Man
agem
ent,
M
onito
ring
and
Su
perv
isio
n of
Se
rvic
es
Max
imum
22
poin
ts fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
9Pl
anni
ng, b
udge
ting
an
d tr
ansf
er o
f fu
nds
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery:
The
Loc
al
Gov
ernm
ent
has
budg
eted
, use
d an
d di
ssem
inat
ed fu
nds
for
serv
ice
deliv
ery
as p
er g
uide
lines
.
Max
imum
sco
re 1
0
a) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG h
as a
ppro
pria
tely
al
loca
ted
the
mic
ro s
cale
irrig
atio
n gr
ant
betw
een
(i) c
apita
l dev
elop
men
t (m
icro
sc
ale
irrig
atio
n eq
uipm
ent)
; and
(ii)
com
plem
enta
ry s
ervi
ces (
in F
Y 20
20/2
1 10
0%
to c
ompl
emen
tary
ser
vice
s;
star
ting
from
FY
2021
/22
– 75
% c
apita
l de
velo
pmen
t; an
d 25
% c
ompl
emen
tary
se
rvic
es):
Sco
re 2
or e
lse 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pl
anne
r, ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
₋Th
e Pe
rfor
man
ce C
ontr
act
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er t
he L
G h
as a
ppro
pria
tely
allo
cate
d th
e m
icro
sca
le ir
riga
tion
gran
t be
twee
n (i
) ca
pita
l de
velo
pmen
t (m
icro
sca
le ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t);
and
(ii)
com
plem
enta
ry s
ervi
ces
•Pe
rfor
man
ce
Con
trac
t
b) E
vide
nce
that
bud
get a
lloca
tions
hav
e be
en m
ade
tow
ards
com
plem
enta
ry
serv
ices
in li
ne w
ith th
e se
ctor
gui
delin
es
i.e. (
i) m
axim
um 2
5% fo
r en
hanc
ing
LG
capa
city
to s
uppo
rt ir
rigat
ed a
gric
ultu
re
(of w
hich
max
imum
15%
aw
aren
ess
rais
ing
of lo
cal l
eade
rs a
nd m
axim
um
10%
pro
cure
men
t, M
onito
ring
and
Supe
rvis
ion)
; and
(ii)
min
imum
75%
for
enha
ncin
g fa
rmer
cap
acity
for
upta
ke o
f m
icro
sca
le ir
rigat
ion
(Aw
aren
ess
rais
ing
of fa
rmer
s, F
arm
vis
it, D
emon
stra
tions
, Fa
rmer
Fie
ld S
choo
ls):
Sco
re 2
or
else
sc
ore
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pl
anne
r, ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
•Th
e Pe
rfor
man
ce C
ontr
act
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er
the
LG b
udge
t al
loca
tions
mad
e to
war
ds
com
plem
enta
ry s
ervi
ces
in li
ne w
ith
the
sect
or
guid
elin
es
•Pe
rfor
man
ce
Con
trac
t of
cur
rent
FY
c)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e co
-fun
ding
is
refle
cted
in t
he L
G B
udge
t an
d al
loca
ted
as p
er g
uide
lines
: Sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pl
anne
r, ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:₋
The
Perf
orm
ance
Con
trac
t to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
th
e LG
refl
ecte
d co
-fun
ding
in t
he L
G B
udge
t an
d al
loca
ted
as p
er g
uide
lines
•Pe
rfor
man
ce
Con
trac
t
76LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
d)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
use
d th
e fa
rmer
co-
fund
ing
follo
win
g th
e sa
me
rule
s ap
plic
able
to
the
mic
ro
scal
e ir
riga
tion
gran
t: S
core
2 o
r el
se 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pl
anne
r, ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:•
The
Bud
get
Perf
orm
ance
Rep
ort
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er t
he L
G u
sed
the
farm
er c
o-fu
ndin
g fo
llow
ing
the
sam
e ru
les
appl
icab
le t
o th
e m
icro
sc
ale
irri
gatio
n gr
ant
•B
udge
t Pe
rfor
man
ce
Repo
rt
e)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
di
ssem
inat
ed in
form
atio
n on
use
of
the
farm
er c
o-fu
ndin
g: S
core
2 o
r el
se 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n ev
iden
ce
on:
₋D
isse
min
atio
n of
info
rmat
ion
on u
se o
f th
e fa
rmer
co-
fund
ing
in D
TPC
, LLG
s an
d to
the
fa
rmer
s
•M
inut
es fr
om
mee
tings
bet
wee
n D
PO a
nd D
TPC
and
LL
Gs
•C
opy
of in
form
atio
n sh
ared
10Ro
utin
e ov
ersi
ght
and
mon
itori
ng:
The
LG m
onito
red,
pr
ovid
ed h
ands
-on
supp
ort
and
ran
farm
er fi
eld
scho
ols
as p
er g
uide
lines
Max
imum
sco
re 8
a) E
vide
nce
that
the
DPO
has
mon
itore
d on
a m
onth
ly b
asis
inst
alle
d m
icro
-sc
ale
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
(key
ar
eas
to in
clud
e fu
nctio
nalit
y of
eq
uipm
ent,
env
iron
men
t an
d so
cial
sa
fegu
ards
incl
udin
g ad
equa
cy o
f w
ater
sou
rce,
effi
cien
cy o
f m
icro
ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t in
ter
ms
of w
ater
co
nser
vatio
n, e
tc.)
₋If
mor
e th
an 9
0%
of
the
mic
ro-
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
mon
itore
d: S
core
2
₋70
-89%
mon
itore
d sc
ore
1₋
Less
tha
n 70
% s
core
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋Th
e m
onth
ly r
epor
ts fo
r th
e pr
evio
us F
Y to
es
tabl
ish
the
num
ber
of m
icro
-irr
igat
ion
equi
pmen
t th
at w
ere
mon
itore
d₋
Cal
cula
te t
he p
erce
ntag
e m
onito
red
•M
onito
ring
rep
orts
fo
r pr
evio
us F
Y as
per
st
anda
rd fo
rmat
s
b) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG h
as o
vers
een
tech
nica
l tra
inin
g &
supp
ort t
o th
e Ap
prov
ed F
arm
er to
ach
ieve
ser
vici
ng a
nd
mai
nten
ance
dur
ing
the
warr
anty
per
iod:
Sc
ore
2 or
else
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
•Re
port
s on
spe
cific
ran
dom
ly s
ampl
ed fa
rmer
s to
est
ablis
h if
LG o
vers
aw t
he A
ppro
ved
Farm
er
trai
ning
; als
o in
terv
iew
the
farm
ers
•Fi
eld
Mon
itori
ng a
nd
Supe
rvis
ion
repo
rts
c)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
pro
vide
d ha
nds-
on s
uppo
rt to
the
LLG
ex
tens
ion
wor
kers
dur
ing
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
com
plem
enta
ry
serv
ices
with
in t
he p
revi
ous
FY a
s pe
r gu
idel
ines
sco
re 2
or
else
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:₋
The
LG h
ands
-on
supp
ort
repo
rts
to L
LG
exte
nsio
n w
orke
rs (
quar
terl
y)₋
Revi
ew a
nd c
heck
a s
ampl
e of
3 L
LG a
nd
inte
rvie
w e
xten
sion
wor
kers
to
veri
fy t
he h
ands
-on
sup
port
giv
en.
•Su
perv
isio
n re
port
s•
Min
utes
of
field
m
eetin
gs
77LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
d)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
est
ablis
hed
and
run
farm
er fi
eld
scho
ols
as p
er
guid
elin
es:
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:₋
Repo
rts
on fa
rmer
fiel
d sc
hool
s to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
y ar
e es
tabl
ishe
d an
d ru
n as
per
gu
idel
ines
•Re
port
s on
farm
er
field
sch
ools
11M
obili
zati
on o
f fa
rmer
s: T
he L
G h
as
cond
ucte
d ac
tiviti
es
to m
obili
ze fa
rmer
s to
par
ticip
ate
in ir
riga
tion
and
irri
gate
d ag
ricu
lture
.
Max
imum
sco
re 4
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
con
duct
ed
activ
ities
to
mob
ilize
far
mer
s as
per
gu
idel
ines
: Sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
•Re
cord
s sh
owin
g fa
rmer
s m
obili
zed
by g
ende
r an
d pa
rtic
ipat
ed in
irri
gatio
n ac
tiviti
es
•At
tend
ance
she
ets
•Fi
eld
base
d ph
otos
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e D
istr
ict
has
trai
ned
staff
and
pol
itica
l lea
ders
at
Dis
tric
t an
d LL
G le
vels
: Sc
ore
2 or
el
se 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋Re
port
s to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
Dis
tric
t ha
s co
nduc
ted
a tr
aini
ng fo
r St
aff a
nd p
oliti
cal
lead
ers
at D
istr
ict
and
LLG
:
•Tr
aini
ng r
epor
t
E.
Inve
stm
ent
Man
agem
ent
Max
imum
26
poin
ts fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
12Pl
anni
ng a
nd
budg
etin
g fo
r in
vest
men
ts: T
he L
G
has
sele
cted
farm
ers
and
budg
eted
fo
r m
icro
-sca
le
irri
gatio
n as
per
gu
idel
ines
Max
imum
sco
re 8
a)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
an
upda
ted
regi
ster
of
mic
ro-s
cale
ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t su
pplie
d to
fa
rmer
s in
the
pre
viou
s FY
as
per
the
form
at: S
core
2 o
r el
se 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
•Th
e re
gist
er o
f ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t su
pplie
d
•Re
gist
er/I
nven
tory
of
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
kee
ps a
n up
-to
-dat
e da
taba
se o
f ap
plic
atio
ns a
t th
e tim
e of
the
ass
essm
ent:
Sco
re 2
or
els
e 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pro
duct
ion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
:₋
The
data
base
of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r th
e cu
rren
t and
pr
evio
us F
Y an
d ch
eck
the
last
dat
e of
upd
ate.
₋Sa
mpl
e ap
plic
atio
ns to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
y ar
e pa
rt o
f the
dat
abas
e
•D
atab
ase
of
appl
icat
ions
•C
opie
s of
app
licat
ions
fr
om L
LGs
•Su
bmis
sion
lett
ers
c)
Evid
ence
that
the
Dist
rict h
as c
arrie
d ou
t far
m v
isits
to fa
rmer
s tha
t sub
mitt
ed
com
plet
e Ex
pres
sions
of I
nter
est (
EOI)
: Sc
ore
2 or
else
0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce o
btai
n an
d re
view
₋Fa
rm v
isit
repo
rts
and
sign
ed c
omm
itm
ent
form
s
•Fa
rm v
isit
Repo
rts
•A
gree
men
t to
Pr
ocee
d fo
r Q
uota
tion
Form
s
78LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
d)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
Dis
tric
t Ag
ricu
ltura
l Eng
inee
r (a
s Se
cret
aria
t) p
ublic
ized
the
elig
ible
fa
rmer
s th
at t
hey
have
bee
n ap
prov
ed b
y po
stin
g on
the
Dis
tric
t an
d LL
G n
otic
eboa
rds:
Sco
re 2
or
else
0
Che
ck t
he D
istr
ict
and
at le
ast
5 LL
G n
otic
e bo
ards
to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
LG
pub
liciz
ed t
he e
ligib
le
farm
ers
that
the
y ha
ve b
een
appr
oved
•D
istr
ict
and
LLG
no
tice
boar
ds
13Pr
ocur
emen
t,
cont
ract
m
anag
emen
t/ex
ecut
ion:
The
LG
pro
cure
d an
d m
anag
ed m
icro
-sc
ale
irri
gatio
n co
ntra
cts
as p
er
guid
elin
esM
axim
um s
core
18
a) E
vide
nce
that
the
mic
ro-s
cale
ir
riga
tion
syst
ems
wer
e in
corp
orat
ed
in t
he L
G a
ppro
ved
proc
urem
ent
plan
fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
: Sc
ore
1 or
els
e sc
ore
0.
From
the
Pro
cure
men
t an
d D
ispo
sal U
nit
obta
in a
nd
revi
ew:
•Th
e Pr
ocur
emen
t Pl
an fo
r th
e cu
rren
t FY
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er m
icro
-sca
le ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t w
as in
corp
orat
ed
•A
ppro
ved
Proc
urem
ent
Plan
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
req
uest
ed fo
r qu
otat
ion
from
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
supp
liers
pre
-qua
lified
by
the
Min
istr
y of
Agr
icul
ture
, Ani
mal
In
dust
ry a
nd F
ishe
ries
(M
AAI
F):
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
0
From
MA
AIF
obta
in:
₋A
cop
y of
the
pre
-qua
lified
sup
plie
rs.
From
Pro
cure
men
t an
d D
ispo
sal U
nit
obta
in:
₋Re
ques
ts fo
r qu
otat
ion
for
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
supp
liers
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er t
hey
wer
e pr
e-qu
alifi
ed b
y M
AAI
F
•Pr
e-qu
alifi
ed
supp
liers
•Re
ques
ted
for
quot
atio
n
c) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
con
clud
ed t
he
sele
ctio
n of
the
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
supp
lier
base
d on
the
set
cri
teri
a:
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
0
From
the
Pro
cure
men
t U
nit
obta
in a
nd r
evie
w:
₋M
inut
es o
f th
e co
ntra
cts
com
mit
tee
to c
heck
w
heth
er s
elec
tion
of t
he ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t su
pplie
r ba
sed
on t
he s
et c
rite
ria
•M
inut
es o
f th
e C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee
(CC
)
d) E
vide
nce
that
the
mic
ro-s
cale
ir
riga
tion
syst
ems
was
app
rove
d by
th
e C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee:
Sco
re 1
or
else
0
From
the
Pro
cure
men
t U
nit
obta
in a
nd r
evie
w:
•M
inut
es o
f th
e co
ntra
cts
com
mit
tee
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er m
icro
-irr
igat
ion
syst
ems
wer
e ap
prov
ed
by C
C b
efor
e co
mm
ence
men
t of
inst
alla
tion.
•M
inut
es o
f th
e C
ontr
acts
Com
mit
tee
(CC
)
79LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
e) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
sig
ned
the
cont
ract
wit
h th
e lo
wes
t pr
iced
te
chni
cally
res
pons
ive
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent
supp
lier
for
the
farm
er
wit
h a
farm
er a
s a
wit
ness
bef
ore
com
men
cem
ent
of in
stal
latio
n sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
Pro
cure
men
t U
nit
obta
in a
nd r
evie
w:
₋Li
st o
f bi
dder
s -
Sam
ple
3 si
tes
and
revi
ew s
elec
ted
bidd
ers’
pri
ce
to d
eter
min
e if
it w
as t
he lo
wes
t an
d te
chni
cally
re
spon
sive
•Li
st o
f se
lect
ed
bidd
ers
•C
ompa
re w
ith
othe
r bi
dder
s’ p
rice
s
f) E
vide
nce
that
the
mic
ro-s
cale
ir
riga
tion
equi
pmen
t in
stal
led
is in
lin
e w
ith
the
desi
gn o
utpu
t sh
eet
(gen
erat
ed b
y Ir
riTr
ack
App
): S
core
2
or e
lse
0
From
MA
AIF
obta
in t
he s
tand
ard
tech
nica
l des
igns
is
sued
to
LGs:
•Sa
mpl
e 3
site
s, c
heck
and
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
: th
e va
riou
s as
pect
s of
the
sys
tem
s ar
e as
per
de
sign
s (a
ccor
ding
to
the
appl
icab
le le
vel o
f th
e co
nstr
uctio
n at
the
tim
e of
the
ass
essm
ent)
•st
anda
rd t
echn
ical
de
sign
s•
Site
vis
it
g) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
hav
e co
nduc
ted
regu
lar
tech
nica
l sup
ervi
sion
of
mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n pr
ojec
ts b
y th
e re
leva
nt t
echn
ical
offi
cers
(D
istr
ict
Agr
icul
tura
l Eng
inee
r or
Con
trac
ted
staff
): S
core
2 o
r el
se 0
From
the
Dis
tric
t Pr
oduc
tion
Offi
ce, o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋LG
sup
ervi
sion
rep
orts
to
esta
blis
h th
at t
he L
G
have
con
duct
ed r
egul
ar t
echn
ical
sup
ervi
sion
₋Sa
mpl
e 3
site
s an
d re
view
site
boo
ks t
o ve
rify
•Su
perv
isio
n re
port
s•
Site
boo
ks
h) E
vide
nce
that
the
LG
has
ove
rsee
n th
e ir
rigat
ion
equi
pmen
t sup
plie
r du
ring:
i.
Test
ing
the
func
tiona
lity
of t
he in
stal
led
equi
pmen
t: S
core
1 o
r el
se 0
ii.H
and-
over
of t
he e
quip
men
t to
the
Appr
oved
Far
mer
(de
liver
y no
te b
y th
e su
pplie
s an
d go
ods
rece
ived
not
e by
the
ap
prov
ed fa
rmer
): S
core
1 o
r 0
₋Sa
mpl
e 3
site
s an
d re
view
site
boo
ks t
o ve
rify
if
the
LG p
rodu
ctio
n de
part
men
t ov
ersa
w t
he li
sted
pr
oces
ses
•Su
perv
isio
n re
port
s•
Site
boo
ks
i)
Evid
ence
tha
t the
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t ha
s m
ade
paym
ent o
f the
sup
plie
r w
ithin
spe
cifie
d tim
efra
mes
sub
ject
to
the
pres
ence
of t
he A
ppro
ved
farm
er’s
sign
ed a
ccep
tanc
e fo
rm:
Scor
e 2
or
else
0
From
the
CFO
, obt
ain:
₋C
opie
s of
pay
men
t re
ques
ts fr
om s
uppl
ier/
files
, co
ntra
cts
and
dete
rmin
e if
paym
ent
was
don
e w
ithi
n sp
ecifi
ed t
ime
fram
e
•Sa
mpl
e co
ntra
cts
•Pa
ymen
t re
ques
ts
j)
Evid
ence
tha
t th
e LG
has
a c
ompl
ete
proc
urem
ent
file
for
each
con
trac
t an
d w
ith
all r
ecor
ds r
equi
red
by t
he
PPD
A L
aw:
Scor
e 2
or e
lse
0
From
the
PD
U o
btai
n an
d re
view
:
₋Pr
ocur
emen
t fil
es fo
r m
icro
-sca
le ir
riga
tion
proj
ects
for
the
prev
ious
FY
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er t
hey
are
com
plet
e.
•Pr
ocur
emen
t fil
es fo
r m
icro
-sca
le ir
riga
tion
proj
ects
80LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
F.
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Soci
al S
afeg
uard
s
Max
imum
12
poin
ts fo
r th
is
perf
orm
ance
are
a
14G
riev
ance
re
dre
ss: T
he L
G
has
esta
blis
hed
a m
echa
nism
of
addr
essi
ng m
icro
-sc
ale
irri
gatio
n gr
ieva
nces
in
line
wit
h th
e LG
gr
ieva
nce
redr
ess
fram
ewor
k
Max
imum
sco
re 6
a) E
vide
nce
that
the
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t ha
s di
spla
yed
deta
ils o
f th
e na
ture
an
d av
enue
s to
add
ress
gri
evan
ce
prom
inen
tly in
mul
tiple
pub
lic a
reas
: Sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
Des
igna
ted
Gri
evan
ce R
edre
ss O
ffice
r ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
₋C
heck
if G
RM is
dis
play
ed o
n th
e Pr
oduc
tion
depa
rtm
ent
notic
eboa
rd
•LG
Pro
duct
ion
Dep
artm
ent
notic
eboa
rd•
LLG
not
iceb
oard
s
b)
Mic
ro-s
cale
irri
gatio
n gr
ieva
nces
ha
ve b
een:
i.Re
cord
ed s
core
1 o
r el
se 0
ii.
Inve
stig
ated
sco
re 1
or
else
0
iii.
Resp
onde
d to
sco
re 1
or
else
0
iv.
Repo
rted
on
in li
ne w
ith
LG
grie
vanc
e re
dres
s fr
amew
ork
scor
e 1
or e
lse
0
From
the
Des
igna
ted
Gri
evan
ce R
edre
ss O
ffice
r ob
tain
and
rev
iew
:
•Lo
g of
gri
evan
ces
and
chec
k w
heth
er t
hey
wer
e in
vest
igat
ed, r
ecor
ded
and
resp
onde
d to
;
•Re
cord
s of
gri
evan
ces
15Sa
fegu
ards
in
the
deliv
ery
of
inve
stm
ents
Max
imum
sco
re 6
a) E
vide
nce
that
LG
s ha
ve d
isse
min
ated
M
icro
- ir
riga
tion
guid
elin
es t
o pr
ovid
e fo
r pr
oper
siti
ng, l
and
acce
ss
(wit
hout
enc
umbr
ance
), p
rope
r us
e of
agr
oche
mic
als
and
safe
dis
posa
l of
chem
ical
was
te c
onta
iner
s et
c.sc
ore
2 or
els
e 0
From
the
LG
Pro
duct
ion
office
find
out
whe
ther
:
-Mic
ro-
scal
e ir
riga
tion
guid
elin
es (
incl
udin
g E
& S
re
quir
emen
ts)
have
bee
n is
sued
to
the
bene
ficia
ry
smal
l-ho
lder
farm
ers.
-M
oUs
betw
een
LGs
and
bene
ficia
ry fa
rmer
s in
clud
e cl
ause
s to
adh
ere
wit
h re
quir
emen
ts fo
r pr
oper
st
orag
e, u
se, t
rans
port
atio
n, a
nd d
ispo
sal o
f ag
ro-
chem
ical
s an
d if
LGs
mon
itor
com
plia
nce
wit
h th
e E
&
S sa
fegu
ard
requ
irem
ents
·Se
ctor
Gui
delin
es
on m
icro
- sc
ale
irri
gatio
n ·
MoU
s be
twee
n LG
s an
d fa
rmer
s·
Repo
rts
on fa
rm v
isit
s
81LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
Perf
orm
ance
Are
aN
o.Pe
rfor
man
ce
Mea
sure
Scor
ing
Gui
deA
sses
smen
t Pr
oced
ure
Mea
ns o
f Ve
rific
atio
n
b)
Evid
ence
tha
t En
viro
nmen
tal,
Soci
al
and
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
scre
enin
g ha
ve b
een
carr
ied
out
and
whe
re
requ
ired
, ESM
Ps d
evel
oped
, pri
or t
o in
stal
latio
n of
irri
gatio
n eq
uipm
ent.
i.C
oste
d ES
MP
wer
e in
corp
orat
ed in
to d
esig
ns, B
oQs,
bid
ding
an
d co
ntra
ctua
l doc
umen
ts s
core
1 o
r el
se 0
ii.
Mon
itori
ng o
f ir
riga
tion
impa
cts
e.g.
ade
quac
y of
wat
er s
ourc
e (q
ualit
y &
qua
ntity
), e
ffici
ency
of
syst
em
in t
erm
s of
wat
er c
onse
rvat
ion,
use
of
agr
o-ch
emic
als
& m
anag
emen
t of
re
sulta
nt c
hem
ical
was
te c
onta
iner
s sc
ore
1 or
els
e 0
iii.
E&S
Cer
tifica
tion
form
s ar
e co
mpl
eted
and
sig
ned
by E
nvir
onm
enta
l O
ffice
r pr
ior
to p
aym
ents
of
cont
ract
or
invo
ices
/cer
tifica
tes
at in
teri
m a
nd fi
nal
stag
es o
f pr
ojec
ts s
core
1 o
r el
se 0
iv.
E&S
Cer
tifica
tion
form
s ar
e co
mpl
eted
and
sig
ned
by C
DO
pri
or
to p
aym
ents
of
cont
ract
or in
voic
es/
cert
ifica
tes
at in
teri
m a
nd fi
nal s
tage
s of
pr
ojec
ts s
core
1 o
r el
se 0
From
the
LG
Env
iron
men
t offi
cer,
obta
in t
he
Envi
ronm
enta
l and
Soc
ial S
cree
ning
For
m/E
SMP
(whe
re a
pplic
able
), fo
r al
l mic
ro ir
riga
tion
proj
ects
to
veri
fy w
heth
er:
₋E
& S
scr
eeni
ng w
as c
arri
ed o
ut fo
r, ES
MP
prep
ared
and
cos
ted
(whe
re r
equi
red)
.
·En
viro
nmen
tal a
nd
Soci
al s
cree
ning
Fo
rms
·ES
MPs
(w
here
re
quir
ed)
·M
onth
ly m
onito
ring
re
port
s (i
ncud
es E
&S
aspe
cts)
·Si
gned
E &
S
com
plia
nce
cert
ifica
te
82 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
ANNEXES
Annex 1 Code of Ethics for the Assessment Teams
The assessment process and quality assurance under LG PA will be contracted to independent private firm(s). The contracted private firm(s) will have to adhere to the following standards/terms which should be part of the contract documents.
1. Fielding of competent team members:o Staff conducting the assessment should be those submitted for evaluation during
the bidding process. o The staff should demonstrate that they have proven capacity and experience in
the respective areas of expertise as presented in their respective CVs;o The staff should be neutral and without conflict of interest in terms of LG to be
reviewed.
2. Team objectivity, neutrality, and integrity during the assessment process:o The team members should adhere to the assessment process, procedures and
scoring as prescribed in the LG PA Manual.o The team members should not get involved in any sort of corrupt tendencies/
practices.o The team member cannot receive any payments from the assessed LGs/or related
bodies/stakeholders.o The team members should not have (or should declare) any sort of conflict of
interest in the LGs being assessed, e.g. the team member should not have been involved in work or related support to the LG in case over the past 5 years;
o Team members are obliged to report about any irregularities related to the assessments to the client.
3. Timely and quality production of the reportso The team members should produce the report as per the provided formats.o The team members should provide the report within the provided time.o The team members should provide comprehensive and accurate information
In case of failure to comply with the provisions of this code of conduct, the assessment team or any member thereon shall be subject to all/or some of the following disciplinary measures:
1. Additional work and reassessments: Teams may be required to conduct follow-up work on issues which are not sufficiently clear, or where there are cases of contradiction between the assessments and the quality assurance.
2. Deduction in the contract value for the assessments: In severe cases, where there are clear instances of wrong/flawed results, this may lead to deductions in the payments for the work conducted.
3. Blacklisting from future assessments: This will happen if there are strong reasons to believe that assessments lack quality, are flawed, or manipulated.
83LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
Annex 2 Exit Declaration Form
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
EXIT DECLARATION FORM
This form is designed to capture key issues emerging during the Assessment of Local Governments. The key issues should be agreed upon by both the Assessment Team members and the Local Government Technical Planning Committee and fully endorsed by the Assessment Team Leader and the CAO/Town Clerk (or their representatives).
To be: (i) filled by the Assessment Team Leader; and (ii) signed by the CAO/Town Clerk or Representative of the District/Municipal Local Government on the one hand, and the Assessment Team Leader on the other hand.
Name of the Local Government …………………………..............................................................…………………………
Dates of the LG Performance Assessment………………................................................……………………………………
1. Level of preparedness by the Local Government for the Performance Assessment.
(a) Availability of key LG officials or their assigned representatives-(Tick if met):
i. Chief Administrative Officer
ii. Education Officer
iii. Health Officer
iv. Water Officer
v. District Production Officer
vi. Human Resource Officer
vii. Chief Finance Officer
viii. Planner
ix. Physical Planner
x. Gender Focal Person
xi. Environment Officer
xii. Secretary District Service Commission
xiii. Clerk to Council
xiv. Procurement Officer
xv. Internal Auditor
84 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
(b) Access to key documents (list)………….........................……………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..........................................…………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..........................................…………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….........................................……………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………........................................………………..
2. Main strengths identified by the Assessment Team:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….......….
3. Key gaps/challenges identified by the Assessment Team:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………….......................…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Specific areas of concern arising from the entire Annual Performance Assessment findings, whereby the D/MTPC is not in agreement (if any) ……………………………………………......................................………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….......................................………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….......................................
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………..………………………………………………
5. General comments and observations by the CAO/Town Clerk about the LGPA process or team:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………..............................…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Endorsement by CAO/Town Clerk or their authorized representatives:
Signed …………………………………........................……... Name…………………………………..................……………………………
Date……………………………………......................…………… (Insert official stamp of the LG).
Endorsement by the LG Performance Assessment Team Leader:
Signed …………………………………………....................….. Name……………..................…………………………………………………
Date……………………...................……………………………
85LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
85LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
86 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MANUAL
86LO
CAL
GO
VER
NM
ENT
MAN
AGEM
ENT
OF
SERV
ICE
DEL
IVER
Y PE
RFO
RMAN
CE
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MAN
UAL
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTERPlot 9-11 Apollo Kagwa Road
P.O.Box 341, Kampala, Ugandawww.opm.go.ug
Top Related