ORIENTATION ON THE ENHANCED GUIDELINES

ON THE EVALUATION OF OFFICE

PERFORMANCE
COMMITMENT AND REVIEW (OPCR)
ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORT
SPMS Background

• The CSC MC No. 6, s. 2012

through Resolution
No.1200481 dated March 16,
2012 promulgated the
“Guidelines in the
Establishment and
Implementation of Agency
Strategic Performance
Management System (SPMS)”
SPMS Background

SPMS OBJECTIVES
Concretize the linkages of organizational
performance with Philippine Development Plan

Ensure improvement of organizational

effectiveness and individual employee efficiency

Link performance management with other HR

systems and ensure adherence to the principle of
performance-based tenure and incentive system
SPMS Background
BASIC
ELEMENTS

Goal Aligned Information

Outputs/ Team-
to Agency User System that
Outcomes- approach to
Mandate Friendly supports Communicati
based performance
and Monitoring on Plan
managemen
Organization &
t
al Priorities Evaluation
SPMS Background
STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSYEM

Strategies
Methods
Tools

Individual
Performance
AGENCY
Daily operations Mission, Vision and Strategic Goals
Department Mandates
SPMS PROCESS
Stages of the Performance Management System Cycle

Results of the assessment shall be

discussed by the Head of Office Head of Office meet with
and supervisor with the individual supervisors and staff to agree
employee at the end of each rating on the outputs that should be
period;
Professional development plan
must be outlined for employees
4 1
Performance Performance
accomplished based on the
goals/ objectives of the
Rewarding & Planning and organization
with Unsatisfactory or Poor ratings Development Commitment
Planning

Performance Performance
Review and Monitoring &
Assesses both Office and individual Evaluation Coaching Performance of Offices and
employee’s performance level every individual shall be
based on performance targets and
measures as approved;
Results of assessment of Office
3 2 regularly monitored at various
levels on a regular basis; The
offices shall develop and adopt
and individual performance shall be their own monitoring and
impartial
evaluation mechanism
ENHANCED GUIDELINES
RATIONALE

Tedious “Quality” cannot Some MOVs Difficulty in Late submission

process in be measured provided cannot securing the of OPCR
accurately; be determined; concurrence of accomplishment
validating the standards,
accomplishme whether they are other offices with reports and/or
completeness of
final/updated/app the re-calibrated MOVs of some
nts as it entails the report/plan as
roved, hence it is ratings of PMED; offices despite
a thorough well as the
number of difficult to assess sometimes the constant follow-
review of whether the ratees lobby to up
revisions the
Means of plan/report has MOVs are improve their
Verification undergone cannot suitable as recalibrated
(MOVs); be determined references, ratings
RATIONALE

• While some SPMS Performance Indicators have been

enhanced, there are still some queries and clarifications from
the ratees that remain unresolved, such as for those demand-
driven targets and how to rate indicators.
ENHANCED GUIDELINES
OBJECTIVES
To institutionalize the rating system to the
different process owners of certain
indicators

To facilitate the systems and procedures

relative to the evaluation and approval of
OPCR Accomplishment Reports.
 DEFINITION
Enhancement
2019 SPMS Guidelines Category Definition Elements Involved*
Quantity/ - Measures whether how much of the ∙ Number of
Category Definition Efficiency target outputs are accomplished/ requests/applications acted
Efficiency The extent to which time or produced. upon over number of requests/
resources is used for the intended - the extent to which targets are applications received
task or purpose. Measures whether
accomplished using the minimum ∙ Optimum use of resources
targets are accomplished with a
minimum amount or quantity of waste amount of time or resources. (e.g., money, logistics, office
expense or unnecessary effort. supplies)
Quality/ - means getting the right things done. ∙ Acceptability
Effectiveness It refers to the degree to which ∙ Meeting standards
Effectiveness/ The extent to which actual
Quality performance compares with targeted objectives are achieved as intended ∙ Client satisfaction with services
performance. and the extent to which issues are rendered
The degree to which objectives are addressed with a certain degree of ∙ Accuracy; Appearance
achieved and the extent to which excellence. ∙ Completeness or
targeted problems are solved. comprehensiveness of reports
In management, effectiveness relates
∙ Creativity or innovation
to getting the right things done. Timeliness - Measures whether the deliverable ∙ Meeting the deadlines as set in
well done on time based on the the work plan, policy and other
Timeliness Measures whether the deliverable requirements of the law, standards relevant guidelines.
was done on time based on the
or workplan. Time-related
requirements of the law and/or
clients/stakeholders. performance indicators evaluate
Time-related performance indicators such things as project completion
evaluate such things as project deadlines, time management skills
completion deadlines, time and other time-sensitive
management skills and other time- expectations.
sensitive expectations. *-not all need to be present
 GENERAL STANDARDS
Enhancement
Rating
Description
Numerical Adjectival
5.000 Outstanding Performance represents an extraordinary level of achievement
(O) and commitment in terms of quality and time, technical skills and
knowledge, ingenuity, creativity and initiative.
Office/Division/Employees at this performance level should have
demonstrated exceptional job mastery in all major areas of
responsibility. Office/Division/Employee achievements and
contributions to the organization are of marked excellence.
4.000 – 4.999 Very Satisfactory Performance exceeded expectations. All goals, objectives and
(VS) targets were achieved above the established standards.
3.000 – 3.999 Satisfactory Performance met expectations in terms of quality of work,
(S) efficiency and timeliness. The most critical annual goals were
met.
2.000 – 2.999 Unsatisfactory Performance failed to meet expectations, and/or one or more of
(US) the most critical goals were not met.
1.000 – 1.999 Poor Performance was consistently below expectations, and/or
(P) reasonable progress toward critical goals was not made;
significant improvement is needed in one or more important
areas.
 GENERAL STANDARDS
2019 SPMS Guidelines Enhancement
Quantity of Work Quantity of Work / Efficiency
Point Adjectival Adjectival
Description Point Score Rating Description
Score Rating
Target or quota exceeded by 30% or 5.000 Outstanding For exceedable target:
5.00 Outstanding
more; (O) ∙ Target or quota exceeded by 30% or more;
(O) ∙ Target in 6 months exceeded by 30% or more
Planned quantity in 6 months exceeded For fixed/non-exceedable target:
by 30% or more. ∙ target was accomplished 100%
4.00 – Very Target or quota exceeded by 15% to
4.99 Satisfactory 29%;
4.000 – 4.999 Very ∙ Target or quota exceeded by 15% to 29%;
(VS) Planned quantity exceeded by 15% to Satisfactory ∙ Planned quantity exceeded by 15% to 29%;
29%; (VS)
3.00 – Satisfactory Target or quota accomplished as 3.000 – 3.999 Satisfactory ∙ Target or quota accomplished as expected or
3.99 (S) expected or up to 14% in excess of the (S) up to 14% in excess of the target or quota;
target or quota; ∙ Planned quantity just met or exceeded but by
not more than 14%;
Planned quantity just met or exceeded
but by not more than 14%; 2.000 – 2.999 Unsatisfactory ∙ Only 51% to 99% of target or quota
2.00 – Unsatisfactor Only 51% to 94% of target or quota (US) accomplished;
2.99 y accomplished; ∙ Only 51% - 99% of planned quantity
accomplished;
(US) Only 51% - 94% of planned quantity
accomplished; 1.000 – Poor ∙ Less than 50% of quota or target
1.999 (P) accomplished;
1.00 – Poor Less than 50% of quota or target
accomplished; ∙ Only 50% or less of planned quantity
1.99 (P) accomplished;
Only 50% or less of planned quantity
accomplished;
 GENERAL STANDARDS
2019 SPMS Guidelines NO Enhancement
Timeliness
Adjectival
Points Description
Rating
5.00 Outstanding Task completed within the first 30% or more of the time before the deadline or scheduled
(0) time of completion;
Task completed ahead of the planned time by 30% for non-routine duty;

4.00 – 4.99 Very Task completed in 15-29% of the time before the deadline or scheduled time of completion;
Satisfactory Task completed ahead of the planned time by 15% to 29% for non-routine duty;
(VS)
3.00 – 3.99 Satisfactory Task completed on the deadline or up to 14% of the time before the deadline or scheduled
(S) time of completion;
Task completed on deadline planed time or earlier but not more than 14% of the planned
time for non-routine duty;
3 reminders issued by rater for repetitive/routine duty.
2.00 – 2.99 Unsatisfactory Task completed 51-99% of the time after the deadline or scheduled date of completion;
(US) Task completed after the deadline or planned time by 51% to 99%;
4 or 5 reminders issued by rater for repetitive/routine duty.
1.00 – 1.99 Poor Task not accomplished at all or completed 50% or more of the time after the deadline or
(P) scheduled date of completion;
Task not completed after the deadline or planned time by 50% or more for non-routine duty;
6 or more reminders by rater for repetitive/routine duty.
 GENERAL STANDARDS
2019 SPMS Guidelines Enhancement
Quality of Written and Non-Written Work Quality of Written and Non-Written Work

QUALITY QUALITY

WRITTEN NON-WRITTEN NON-

COMPUTABLE
WORK WORK COMPUTABLE

NON-WRITTEN NON-WRITTEN
WORK WORK

WRITTEN
WORK
 GENERAL STANDARDS
2019 SPMS Guidelines Enhancement
Quality of Written and Non-Written Work Quality of Written and Non-Written Work
QUALITY

QUALITY COMPUTABLE NON-

COMPUTABLE
NON-WRITTEN
NON-WRITTEN
WORK
WORK

WRITTEN
WRITTEN NON-WRITTEN WORK

WORK WORK Non-computable is a rating system that does not need computation but can be
rated directly to 1-5-point scale depending on its numerical description.
Non-computable written work is a rating system used in measuring the
quality performed through paper works (e.g. Reports, Plans, etc.).
In Memorandum Order no. 2015-01, s. October 27, 2015:
Non-computable non-written work is a rating system used in measuring
4.3.6 the rating on “Quality of Written and Non-Written Work” shall use whole the quality of performance that can be observed through actual
numerical rating from 1-5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). observations/performance. This is best applicable in rating the performance
of an individual.

Computable non-written work - is a rating system used in measuring the

quality of performance as a result of series of activities (e.g. Survival rate,
Network Uptime, Building Infrastructure, etc.). This also pertains to quality of
spending money and its accuracy (e.g. budget utilization rate).
 GENERAL STANDARDS
2019 SPMS Guidelines
Quality of Non-Written Work
Point
Adjectival
Scor Rating Numerical Description
e
5.0 Outstanding Performance exceeding targets by 130% and
(O) above; COMPUTABLE
Those who met targets for accomplishments
requiring 100% of the targets such those PERFORMANCE
pertaining to money and accuracy.
Excellent results; all aspects of work assignment
thoroughly covered;
No mistake in performing the duty.
4.0 Very Performance exceeding by 115% to 129%;
Satisfactory 1 or two 2 errors in the execution of work
(VS) assignment; results still very good.
1 or 2 mistakes in performing the duty.
3.0 Satisfactory Performance of 100% to 114% of the planned
(S) targets; NON-
More than 2 minor errors or deficiencies in the COMPUTABLE
execution of work assignment; results are
acceptable.
PERFORMANCE
3 mistakes in performing the duty.
2.0 Unsatisfacto Performance of 51% to 99% of the planned
ry targets;
1 major error or deficiency that can be overcome
(US)
with help from supervisor.
4 or 5 mistakes in performing the duty.
Those who fell short of the targets for
 GENERAL STANDARDS
2019 SPMS Guidelines Enhancement
Quality of Non-Written Work Quality/Effectiveness of Computable Non-Written Work
Point Adjectival
Adjectival Point Score Rating Numerical Description
Scor Rating Numerical Description
e 5.000 Outstanding ∙ Performance exceeding targets by 30%
5.0 Outstanding Performance exceeding targets by 130% and (O) and above;
(O) above; ∙ Those who met targets for
Those who met targets for accomplishments accomplishments requiring 100% of the
targets such those pertaining to money
requiring 100% of the targets such those
and accuracy.
pertaining to money and accuracy. 4.000 – 4.999 Very ∙ Performance exceeding by 15% to 29%;
Excellent results; all aspects of work assignment Satisfactory
thoroughly covered; (VS)
No mistake in performing the duty. 3.000 – 3.999 Satisfactory ∙ Performance of 100% to 114% of the
4.0 Very Performance exceeding by 115% to 129%; (S) planned targets;
Satisfactory 1 or two 2 errors in the execution of work 2.000 – 2.999 Unsatisfactory ∙ Performance of 51% to 99% of the
(VS) assignment; results still very good. (US) planned targets;
1 or 2 mistakes in performing the duty. ∙ Those who fell short of the targets for
accomplishments requiring 100% of the
3.0 Satisfactory Performance of 100% to 114% of the planned targets such as those pertaining to
(S) targets; money and accuracy.
More than 2 minor errors or deficiencies in the 1.000 – Poor ∙ Performance meets the planned
execution of work assignment; results are 1.999 (P) targets by 50% or below;
acceptable.
3 mistakes in performing the duty.
2.0 Unsatisfacto Performance of 51% to 99% of the planned
ry targets;
1 major error or deficiency that can be overcome
(US)
with help from supervisor.
 GENERAL STANDARDS
2019 SPMS Guidelines Enhancement
Effectiveness/Quality of Written Work Quality/Effectiveness of Non-Computable Written or Non-written Work
Point Adjectival Adjectival Rating Numerical Description
Rating Numerical Description Point
Score
5.0 Score Written Work Non-written Work
Outstanding No mistakes or deficiency; every aspect
(O) of work assignment well covered; clearly 5.000 Outstanding ∙ No mistakes or deficiency; every aspect ∙ Excellent results; all aspects of work
presented; well organized: (O) of work assignment well covered; assignment thoroughly covered;
No lapse in grammar or error in content. clearly presented; well organized; ∙ No mistake in performing the duty.
∙ No lapse in grammar or error in
content.
4.0 Very One or two minor errors deficiencies;
Satisfactory work in accordance with instructions; 4.000 Very Satisfactory ∙ One or two minor errors/ deficiencies; ∙ 1 or two 2 errors in the execution of
(VS) clearly presented; well organized; (VS) work in accordance with instructions; work assignment; results still very
1 or 2 errors in grammar or errors in clearly presented; well organized; good.
content ∙ 1 or 2 errors in grammar or errors in ∙ 1 or 2 mistakes in performing the
3.0 content duty.
Satisfactory 1 or 2 minor errors of deficiencies; partial
(S) minor revision needed; 3.000 Satisfactory ∙ 1 or 2 minor errors or deficiencies; ∙ More than 2 minor errors or
3 lapses in errors or grammar in content. (S) partial minor revision needed; deficiencies in the execution of work
∙ 3 lapses in errors or grammar in assignment; results are acceptable.
2.0 content. ∙ 3 mistakes in performing the duty.
Unsatisfact 1 or 2 major errors to or deficiencies
ory major revision needed;
(US) 4 to 5 lapses in grammar or errors in 2.000 Unsatisfactory ∙ 1 or 2 major errors or deficiencies, ∙ 1 major error or deficiency that can be
content. (US) major revision needed; overcome with help from supervisor.
∙ 4 to 5 lapses in grammar or errors in ∙ 4 or 5 mistakes in performing the
content. duty.
1.0 Poor Work not acceptable; needs total
(P) revision; 1.000 Poor ∙ Work not acceptable; needs total ∙ Haphazard or careless execution
6 or more lapses in grammar or errors in (P) revision; of work assignment; unacceptable
content. ∙ 6 or more lapses in grammar or errors results.
in content.
∙ 6 or more mistakes in performing
the duty
GENERAL STANDARDS
 GENERAL STANDARDS
2019 SPMS Guidelines Enhancement
No provided formulas
 ENHANCED GUIDELINES

Rating Period and Submission of OPCR Accomplishment

• The rating period shall be done semi-annually covering January to June
(1st Semester) and July to December (2nd Semester).
• However, if there is a need for a shorter or longer period, the minimum
appraisal period is at least ninety (90) calendar days or three (3) months.
• The submission of accomplishments shall follow the schedule as follows:

Document Period Date

OPCR 1st Sem July 31
Accomplishment 2nd Sem January 31

• Late submission of OPCR Accomplishment Report including its complete

MOVs shall have a total of 0.100 deduction points to the final rating.
Other Conditions
1. Attainment of 100% on the fixed or non-exceedable targets shall
be automatically rated 5.000 points in the following dimensions:

On quality of computable non-written work (item II.C.2b)

Examples:

100% Budget Utilization Rate (Max)

100% survival rate of all plantation established (Max av.:
100%)
100% uptime of network infrastructure (Max av.: 100%)
1 Management plan implemented (Max)
Other Conditions
1. Attainment of 100% on the fixed or non-exceedable targets shall
be automatically rated 5.000 points in the following dimensions:

On quality of written work (item II.C.2a)

Examples:
- Work and Financial Plan submitted based on the prescribed format
- Annual Procurement Plan submitted based on the prescribed format
- 100% monthly/quarterly Accomplishment Reports submitted
- 100% Budget and Financial Accountability Reports (BFARs) submitted
on
the prescribed period
- 100% of Documents received acted
- 100% of SALNs submitted (Max: 100%)
Other Conditions
1. Attainment of 100% on the fixed or non-exceedable targets shall
be automatically rated 5.000 points in the following dimensions:

On quantity
Examples:

- 100% e-NGP areas maintained and protected (Max: 100%)

- 100% (of target) Buildings/facilities constructed (Max: 100%)
- 1 Management plan implemented (Max.)
- 100% wildlife permits acted upon (Max: 125%)
Other Conditions
• However, non-attainment of 100% for the fixed or non-exceedable targets
shall be rated based on the percent accomplishment rate in quality.
• Examples: 95/100 hectares area maintained and protected (2021-2023
plantation establishment) with an average of 95% survival rate inspected
within 30 working days after the issuance of request for inspection

Dimension Target Accomp % Rating

Quantity 100 95 95% 2.908
Quality of computable 85% 95% 111% 3.778
non-written work (average)
Timeliness 30 days 30 days 100% 3.000
(average)
Average 3.228
Other Conditions
2. The accomplishments “based on set work guidelines” and/or “compliant to
specific standards, guidebook, order and bulletin” shall be rated “5” in terms
of Quality IF determined “compliant” by the focal office.
3. For demand-driven targets and other indicators with zero or low
accomplishment due to uncontrollable factors, justifications/explanations with
supporting documents signed by the Head of Office shall be submitted to
PMT.
• The PMT Secretariat, thru the PPS-PMED, shall refer the said justifications
to concerned office for review.
• Should the focal office found the justification merits the exclusion of the
same in rating, the focal office to submit within five (5) working days from
receipt their findings or results of their review.
• A valid justification as determined by the concerned office shall be a basis
for exemption or not to rate the office in the said performance indicator.
Other Conditions
4. For indicators that were targeted on the 2nd semester per
workplan but were accomplished in the 1st semester, it may be
rated on the 1st semester provided that the outputs shall no
longer be included on the 2nd semester rating. Milestone
indicators that indicated in the workplan “1” in all quarters shall
be rated in 2nd sem.
5. For indicators exceeded the 130% accomplishment rate in the
First Semester, the excess shall be automatically included and
assessed in the Second Semester.
Other Conditions
Examples: 195 patents for residential lands processed within 120 calendar
days and approved and transmitted within 10 working days to ROD; based on
RA 10023 and IRR
1st Sem 2nd Sem
Dimension Target Accomp % Rating Target Accomp % Rating
Quantity 95 130* 136% 5.000 100 100+6 106% 3.424
Quality of based on 100% 100% 5.000 based on RA 100% 100% 5.000
written work RA 10023 (no findings in 10023 and (no findings in
MOVs) MOVs)
and IRR IRR
Timeliness 1 120 4.707 120 calendar 3.000
calendar (average rating of 95 days (average rating of
patents issued) 95 patents issued)
days
Timeliness 2 10 working 5.000 10 working 5.000
days (average rating of 95 days (average rating of
patents issued) 95 patents issued)
Average 4.853 4.000
Timeliness
Average 4.951 4.141

* - an excess of 6 will be added for the 2 nd sem evaluation

Other Conditions
6. All “Reports submission” indicators that were performed and
accomplished in the 1st semester and its deadline of
submission on the following month shall be rated in 1st
semester. The same is for 2nd semester (e.g. June
accomplishment report submitted on July 10; Budget Utilization
Report as of December 30 submitted on January 10).
Other Conditions
7. In the computation of ratings,
• Average rating: per output, horizontally add the performance
dimension rating/s, then divide it by the number of
dimension/s applicable;
• Total rating: vertically add all the average rating;
• Overall average rating: divide total rating by the number of
indicators.

• All percent accomplishment shall round off to the nearest whole

number. (e.g. If the percent accomplishment is 79.5%, the
nearest shall be 79% with a rating of 2.578 while 79.6%, the
nearest shall be 80% with equivalent rating of 2.598)
Other Conditions
9. Only the quality of non-computable written or non-written work
(item II.C.2a) shall be rated in whole number per output but with 3
decimal places (e.g. 5.000; 4.000; 3.000).
• For the quality of computable non-written work (item II.C.2b),
quantity and timeliness, the performance rate shall be computed
and the corresponding ratings per item II.C.4 (Performance
Rating Table) shall be exactly reflected.

10. In rating indicators with multiple outputs, each output shall be rated
and then the average will be the final score (e.g. Submission of
Budget and Financial Accountability Reports; Patents issued, etc.).
Other Conditions
11. The responsible office may come up with separate guidelines/standards in
rating the “quality of written work” and/or timeliness only upon the approval
of the PPS-PMED.
12. The ratings of the assigned performance indicators from the focal offices
shall be submitted to PPS-PMED 15 working days after the end of each
semester.
13. All ratings assigned to the focal offices shall be submitted following the
prescribed format signed by the Head of Office (Annex 1).
14. The submission of OPCR Accomplishment Report shall follow the
prescribed format (Annex 2)
15. All offices shall be rated using the approved 2023 SPMS indicators (Annex
3) and/or approved commitment.
Done during the approval
of OPCR Commitment

Done during the approval

of OPCR Commitment
2019 SPMS Guidelines Enhancement (for Accomplishment)
Enhanced Process Flow

Pre-rating

Review, Evaluation and

Re-Calibration

Approval
SPMS OPCR Evaluation Process (Actual)

Pre-rating Review, Evaluation and Re-Calibration Approval

PMED refer to the

ratee on the
initial calibrated
ratings based on
MOVs Performance Management
3- 6 months or more Team Max 1 month

PPSO-PMED shall
• Upon endorsement, the PMT
Regions, Bureaus, consolidate, chairperson shall endorse the
Services, Attached review, evaluate calibrated rating to Supervising
Agencies and & endorse Usec / Secretary. Secretary/
Asec/Usec submit • Upon approval, the PPS shall
OPCRs Supervising
OPCR Accomplishment provide each office with the
endorsed final ratings to serve as Undersecretary
with complete MOVs
the basis of offices in the DPCR’s
rating.

1 month after
each semester

1-3 days upon receipt

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

SPMS OPCR Evaluation Process (Enhancement)

Pre-rating Review, Evaluation and Re-Calibration Approval

1 month after receipt
of all ratings
Regions, Bureaus,
Services, Attached
Agencies and Performance Management 7 working
Asec/Usec submit Team days

OPCR
Accomplishment PPSO-PMED shall
• PPS-PMED shall organized the PRC
with complete consolidate, and present all the initial results
MOVs review, evaluate and ratings to PMT and heads of Secretary/
& endorse offices. Supervising
• Upon approval, the PPS shall Undersecretary
1 month after
OPCRs
provide each office with the
each semester
endorsed final ratings to serve as
the basis of offices in the DPCR’s
Up to 1 month after
each semester rating.

Focal Offices shall review

and rate offices based on
the assigned indicators
1-3 days upon receipt

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

SPMS OPCR Evaluation Process (Enhancement)

Regions submit outputs (ex. BFARs, SALN, WFP, E-FIS,

OPCR Commitment, PAMP, CHMP, SRPAO, etc.) per
deadline / target set by the focal office

Bureau Focal Office

Information
System

PPS-PMED shall consolidate,

Bureau review, evaluate the ratings
Concerned and provide feedback/
Divisions conso, Bureau Planning
concurrence
evaluate and Consolidate the
submit ratings to ratings every sem
Bureau Planning

Central Office (Focal)

Concerned Services consolidate, evaluate, rate and
submit every sem
Process Flow
A. Submission of OPCR Accomp w/ self-rating (1 month after
each semester)
1. All Offices/Services are required to prepare and submit to PPS-PMED
their OPCR Accomplishment Report (Annex 2) with their self-rating and
corresponding MOVs within 30 calendar days after each semester except
for the OPCR of Regional Line Bureaus; PENROs and CENROs which
shall be submitted to concerned Central Line Bureau / Regional sub-PMT
for review and approval.
• The submission shall include all justifications as specified in item II.D.2 of
this guideline. All indicators without corresponding MOVs shall be rated
in default to “1” in all dimensions except those indicators to be rated by
the focal offices. OPCR-AR and MOVs submitted late shall have a total
of 0.100 deduction points to the final OPCR rating.
2. Ratee may appeal on the OPCR Accomplishment final rating once it is
approved by the supervising official (see appeal process).
Process Flow
B. Recalibration
a) Rating by Focal Offices (up to 1 month after each semester)
• Focal office assigned to evaluate specific indicator shall rate the
submission/accomplishment of the ratee.
• Focal offices shall ensure that the SPMS rating guidelines are observed.
• The responsible office come up with separate guidelines/standards in rating
in terms of the “quality of written work” upon the approval of the PPS-
PMED.
• The ratings of the assigned performance indicators shall be submitted to
PPS-PMED 15 working days after the end of each semester using the
prescribed format (Annex 1).
Process Flow
B. Recalibration
b) Recalibration by PMED-PPS (30 calendar days after receipt of all ratings)
• The PMED shall recalibrate the self-rating of the ratee incorporating the
ratings submitted by the focal offices, and based on PMED review of
MOVs of some indicators.
• The recalibrated ratings shall no longer be coordinated with the ratees
and their concurrence shall no longer be needed. Appeals due to
incomplete submission of MOVs will not be entertained.
• The incumbent PPS Director shall endorse the recalibrated rating to the
PMT Chairperson.
• PPS-PMED shall inform the ratees on the endorsement of their OPCR
to their respective supervising official.
Process Flow
C. Approval (7 working days)
• The OPCR shall be approved by the Supervisor.
• In case the Supervisor who approved the Commitment was moved/re-
assigned to other office, the incumbent supervising official shall approve
the OPCR.
• The OPCR Accomplishments submitted by the different offices shall be
reviewed and approved by the following authorities:
OFFICE REVIEW APPROVAL
Central Office
Office of the Secretary DENR PMT Secretary/ Official Delegated by Secretary
Office of the Undersecretary DENR PMT Secretary/ Official Delegated by Secretary
Office of the Assistant Secretary DENR PMT Supervising Undersecretary
Office of the Service Director DENR PMT Supervising Undersecretary
Office of the Director of Coordinating DENR PMT Supervising Undersecretary
Offices (MBCO, RBCO, CARP, LLO)
and other offices
Process Flow
C. Approval (7 working days)
• The OPCR Accomplishments submitted by the different offices shall be
reviewed and approved by the following authorities:
OFFICE REVIEW APPROVAL
Staff Bureaus (BMB, ERDB, FMB, LMB)
Office of the Director DENR PMT Supervising Undersecretary
Attached Agencies (NAMRIA, NWRB, PCSD)
Administrator (NAMRIA) DENR PMT Secretary/ Official Delegated
by Secretary
Executive Director (PCSD, DENR PMT Secretary/ Official Delegated
NWRB) by Secretary
DENR Regional Offices
Regional Executive Director DENR PMT Undersecretary for Field
Operations concerned
Process Flow
C. Approval (7 working days)
• The OPCR Accomplishments submitted by the different offices shall be
reviewed and approved by the following authorities:
OFFICE REVIEW APPROVAL
DENR Regional Offices
Assistant Regional Director Regional Sub-PMT (to be chaired by Regional Executive
(Management and Technical the ARD of the Service that is not Director
Services) subject of the review)
PENRO Regional Sub-PMT Regional Executive
Director
CENRO PENRO Sub-PMT Regional Executive
Director
Line Bureaus (EMB and MGB Central Office)
Line Bureau Director DENR PMT Secretary / Supervising
Undersecretary
EMB and MGB Regional Offices
Regional Director EMB/MGB Central Office Sub-PMT Line Bureau Director
Process Flow
D. Appeal (10 days upon receipt of the approved rating)
1. Ratee who feel aggrieved or dissatisfied with their final performance ratings
can file an appeal with the PMT within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of
notice of their final performance evaluation rating from the supervising official.
All other appeals received beyond ten (10) days shall not be given due
course.
2. The PMT shall decide on the appeals within one (1) month from receipt.
3. Appeals lodged at any PMT shall follow the hierarchical jurisdiction of various
PMTs in the Department. For example, the decision of the Sub-PMT is
appealable to the PMT.
4. The decision of the PMT may be appealed to the Secretary within 5 calendar
days upon the released of decision from PMT.
5. Officials or employees who are separated from the service on the basis of
Unsatisfactory or Poor performance rating can appeal their separation to the
CSC or its regional office within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order or
notice of separation.
Process Flow
E. Sanctions
Unless justified and accepted by the PMT, non-submission of the OPCR Forms to the
Program Monitoring and Evaluation Division and Planning and Programming Division,
and the IPCR forms to the Personnel Division/Section/Unit within the specified dates
shall be a ground for:
a) Employee’s disqualification from performance-based personnel actions which
would require the rating for the given period such as promotion, training or
scholarship grants and performance enhancement bonus, if the failure of the
submission of the report form is the fault of the employees.
b) An administrative sanction for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations
and simple neglect of duty for the supervisors or employees responsible for the
delay or non-submission of the office and individual performance commitment and
review report.
• Failure on the part of the Division Chief/Head of Office to comply with the required
notices to their subordinates for their unsatisfactory or poor performance during a
rating period shall be a ground for an administrative offense for neglect of duty
(Section 50 under CSC Resolution No. 1701077).
End of Presentation