ISSUES ENCOUNTERED IN THE

VALIDATION AND RATING OF 2023 OPCR

 MOST COMMON ISSUE:
o The accomplishment lacks clarity, making it challenging for PS validators to rate
certain indicators accurately. It is essential to include specific information, such
as Quantity (percentage), Quality (number of corrections), and Timeliness (dates
of submission, deadlines), as outlined in the Rating Guide.

 TIMELINESS:
o Some agencies have the Timeliness already embedded in the indicator itself, yet
the Rating Guide specifies a different target date, which is typically earlier than
the indicator's stated timeframe, to achieve a rating of 5. It results in appeals
that prolong the validation and rating process.
o Some agencies set deadlines they cannot meet, leading to subsequent appeals
citing various factors for the delay. While some of these issues could be resolved
during the reformulation of the OPCRs, agencies often choose not to make any
changes.

 GENERAL ISSUES:
o Some indicators are grouped together in a single cell, causing confusion about
whether to rate them as a whole or separately. We recommend that if an
indicator is intended to be rated separately, it should occupy its own cell and not
grouped with any other indicators.
o Submitted the wrong version of the Rating Guide leading to a prolonged process
(appeal/request for reconsideration) in the validation and rating of the OPCR.
o During the appeal process, some agencies only include the “Organizational
Outcome/PAP” in the ARR form, leaving behind the “Success Indicator,” which is
the primary focus of the appeal.
o Most of the OPCRs are not updated in terms of the standard letterhead used by
the DOLE.
o Soft copies (word/excel) of the OPCRs and ARR forms are sometimes not
included in the submission even if it is already mentioned in the OPCR guidelines.