Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines

STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SPMS)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TEAM (PMT)

MEMORANDUM

FOR : All Assistant Commissioners, Directors/Officers-in-Charge

and All Others Concerned
This Commission

SUBJECT : Instructions on the Preparation and Submission of the

Sector/Office/Division/Individual Performance Commitment and
Review (PCR)

DATE : December 19, 2019

The herein prescribed guidelines and instructions by the Commission on Audit,

through the PMT, pertaining to the SPMS cover Organizational Outcomes /
Performance Indicators (PIs) under the Program Expenditure Classification (PREXC)
of the Department of Budget and Management. These guidelines shall be observed
in the preparation and submission of the Sector/Office/Division/Individual.

A. Understanding the COA SPMS

To ensure that the COA SPMS is understood by all the personnel under each
COA Office classified as a Delivery Unit (DU), the Technical Working Group (TWG)
members/Sector representatives shall be responsible in properly disseminating the
COA SPMS, including all its Updated Instructions to their respective Sectors.
Subsequent dissemination to all personnel shall be done in Offices/Clusters by the
Head of Offices either through Orientation Seminar, Audit Planning Conference,
Gender Learning Session, or any such other appropriate official activities.

1
B. COA DUs

A total of 60 DUs has been identified for grouping and ranking purposes as
shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – DUs

Sector/Office No. of DUs DUs

Executive Offices 1 1. Office of the Chairperson
Office of the Commissioner I (Comm I)
Office of the Commissioner II (Comm II)
Offices of the Assistant Commissioners (OACs)
Office of the Commission Secretariat (ComSec)
Offices under the 6 2. Internal Affairs Office (IAfO)
Office of the 3. Internal Audit Office (IAO)
Chairperson 4. International Audit and Relations Office (IARO)
5. Public Information Office (PIO)
6. Project Management Office (PMO)
7. Intelligence/Confidential Fund Audit Office (ICFAO)
Commission 3 8. Claims and Adjudication Office (CAO) – Corporate
Proper Government (CG)
Adjudication and 9. CAO – National Government (NG)
Secretariat 10. CAO – Local Government (LG)
Support Services
Sector (CPASSSS)
Corporate 6 11. Cluster 1 – Banking and Credit
Government 12. Cluster 2 – Social Security Services and Housing
Sector (CGS) 13. Cluster 3 – Public Utilities
14. Cluster 4 – Industrial and Area Development
15. Cluster 5 – Agricultural and Natural Resources
16.Cluster 6 – Social, Cultural, Trading, Promotional and
Other Services
Local Government 1 17.National Capital Region (NCR)
Sector (LGS)
COA Regional 17 18. COA Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
Offices (ROs) 19.COA RO No. I
20.COA RO No. II
21.COA RO No. III
22.COA RO No. IV-A
23.COA RO No. IV-B
24.COA RO No. V
25.COA RO No. VI
26.COA RO No. VII
27.COA RO No. VIII
28.COA RO No. IX
29.COA RO No. X
30.COA RO No. XI
31.COA RO No. XII
32.COA RO No. XIII
33.COA Regional Satellite Auditing Office – Negros Island
and Siquijor (RSAO-NIS)
34. COA Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM)

2
 Sector/Office No. of DUs DUs
National 8 35.Cluster 1 – Executive Offices
Government 36.Cluster 2 – Oversight and Public Debt Management
Sector (NGS) Agencies
37.Cluster 3 – Legislative , Judiciary and Constitutional
Offices
38.Cluster 4 – Defense and Security
39.Cluster 5 – Education and Employment
40.Cluster 6 – Health and Science
41.Cluster 7 – Public Works, Transport and Energy
42.Cluster 8 – Agriculture and Environment
Administration 2 43.General Services Office (GSO)
Sector (AS) 44.Human Resource Management Office (HRMO)
Government 2 45.Government Accountancy Office (GAO)
Accountancy 46.Accounting Systems Development and Other Services
Sector (GAS) Office (ASDOSO)
Legal Services 2 47.Legal Affairs Office (LAO)
Sector (LSS) 48.Prosecution and Litigation Office (PLO)
Planning, Finance 2 49.Accounting Office (AO)
and Management 50.Risk Management and Budget Office (RMBO)
Sector (PFMS)
Professional and 3 51.Professional Development Office (PDO)
Institutional 52.Policy Research and Institutional Development Office
Development (PRIDO)
Sector (PIDS) 53.Quality Assurance Office (QAO)
Special Services 3 54.Fraud Audit Office (FAO)
Sector (SSS) 55.Special Audit Office (SAO)
56.Performance Audit Office (PAO)
Systems and 4 57.Information Technology Office (ITO)
Technical Services 58.Systems Consultancy Services Office (SCSO)
Sector (STSS) 59.Information Technology Audit Office (ITAO)
60.Technical Services Office (TSO)
Total DUs 60

C. Organizational Outcomes

1. The previous assignment of weight allocation for each DU is mainly based

on the core functions of each DU, and revised herein in accordance with the
Programs/Organizational Outcomes/PIs identified under the PREXC.

2. In line with the PREXC, the three (3) programs defined under the General
Appropriations Act (GAA) of COA (i.e. Government Auditing Program,
Government Accountancy Program and Government Financial Adjudication
Program) are integrated in the COA SPMS, and assigned with
corresponding weight allocations.

3. Those functions which may not fall under the Programs identified in C.2 are
categorized as Support to Operations (STOs) and/or General Administration
and Support (GAaS).

4. All the DUs must have participation in the delivery of major functions of the
COA under any or all of the Programs, as well as in STO and/or GAaS,
taking note of the specific items for inclusion in the SPCR/OPCR, as shown

3
 in Annex A. Items/Activities which are planned to be accomplished within the
spread of one year should have separate Success Indicators (SIs) on
Quantity and Timelines assigned for each semester. The details of said
activities which are not included in the items listed in Annex A may be
included in the DPCR/IPCR.

D. Commitments for the year

1. Commitments for the year shall be prepared within the last quarter of the
previous year which shall include planned outputs and activities to be carried
out pertaining to the tasks of the Initiatives identified under the Revised
Strategic Plan 2016-2022, and the implementation of gender mainstreaming
Programs, Projects and Activities (PPAs) of the COA Gender and
Development (GAD).

2. The OACs shall review the OPCRs/Supplemental OPCRs of their respective

Offices/Clusters and shall be responsible as to the correctness of the same
prior to submission to RMBO while the Regional PMT shall review the OPCR
of its COA RO prior to submission to OAC, LGS.

3. In case there are changes or additional commitments or special

assignments, which are not included in the approved PCRs, the concerned
officials shall submit to the RMBO an approved supplemental PCR not later
than thirty (30) calendar days before the deadline set in item I.2.

4. Quantity and Timelines shall be clearly identified in the SI column for

activities which are spread out to be accomplished during the year, such as
the number or percentage of outputs, and timelines pertaining to both the 1 st
and 2nd semesters. In terms of items with undetermined exact quantity, the SI
shall be stated in terms of percentage.

5. In case an official/employee has more than one assigned Office/Audit

Group/Services/Audit Team/Unit, he/she shall prepare the required PCR
(OPCR/DPCR/IPCR), for each Office/Audit Group/Services/Audit Team /Unit.

6. In case an official/employee is reshuffled/reassigned to another Office/Audit

Group/Services/Audit Team/Unit within a semester and has rendered at least
one month either in his/her previous or current assignment, he/she shall have
two PCRs (OPCR/DPCR/IPCR), one for the previous assignment and one for
the current assignment. The Semestral Rating of the reshuffled/reassigned
official/employee shall be the sum total of two ratings computed on a pro-rata
basis, according to the number of months rendered between the previous
and current assignments. (See H.6.k for example.)

E. Weight Allocation to Output/Outcome Indicators / PPAs Per PCR

1. After consultation/discussion with Sector Heads and representatives of the

different Sectors/Offices, the weight allocations assigned to Output/Outcome
Indicators / PPAs for each DU are hereby prescribed in Table 2.

4
 Sector/Office Programs /
DU Weight (%)
Activities
Executive Offices Office of the Chairperson Program 3 40
GAaS 60
Total 100
Comm I and Comm II Program 3 60
GAaS 40
Total 100
OAC of CPASSSS Program 3 80
GAaS 20
Total 100
OAC of CGS and NGS Program 1 40
Program 2 20
Program 3 10
GAaS 30
Total 100
OAC of LGS Program 1 40
Program 2 20
Program 3 10
GAaS 30
Total 100
OAC of AS STO 10
GAaS 90
Total 100
OAC of GAS Program 2 85
GAaS 15
Total 100
OAC of LSS Program 3 40
GAaS 60
Total 100
OAC of PFMS STO 20
GAaS 80
Total 100
OAC of PIDS STO 85
GAaS 15
Total 100
OAC of SSS Program 1 50
Program 3 10
GAaS 40
Total 100
OAC of STSS Program 1 25
GAaS 75
Total 100
ComSec Program 3 80
GAaS 20
Total 100

Programs /
Sector/Office DU Weight (%)
Activities
Offices under the IAfO STO 90
Office of the GAaS 10
Chairperson Total 100
IAO STO 90
GAaS 10
Total 100
IARO Program 1 90
5 GAaS 10
Total 100
ICFAO Program 1 90
2. For the DPCRs, the weight allocation shall be determined by the Heads of
the Offices/DUs. For the IPCRs of staff belonging to a Service, the weight
allocation shall be determined by the Service Chief or the designated key
personnel performing the functions of the Service Chief. For IPCRs of staff
under a Service but without a designated Service Chief, weight allocation
shall be determined by the Heads of Offices/DUs. Otherwise, it is
understood that if no weight allocation is assigned to the DPCR/IPCR, the
Office weight allocation shall prevail.

3. The weight allocation for IPCRs of Audit Team Members under

NGS/CGS/LGS/COA ROs shall be determined by the Supervising Auditor
(SA)/Regional Supervising Auditor (RSA) subject to review by the Assistant
Director, and in cases where there are Units/Groups directly under the
Office of the Director, the weight allocation for IPCRs of staff of these
Units/Groups shall be determined by the Service Chief concerned.

4. In case an actual accomplishment under an Output/Outcome Indicator has

no applicable (N/A) rating, the assigned weight for the said Output/Outcome
Indicator shall be reallocated to the Output/Outcome Indicator which covers
primary/core functions of the DU, which is the Output/Outcome Indicator
having the highest prescribed weight allocation, with illustration in Table 3.

Table 3 – Illustration of Actual Accomplishment under an Output/Outcome

Indicator with no applicable rating

a. Office A has the following prescribed weight allocation per Guidelines:

Program 1 - 60
Program 2 - 15
Program 3 - 20
GAaS - 5
Total 100

b. Under Program 3, the Office has not received any report which it is
supposed to review and submit to the OAC per SI. Hence, the rating
for this specific output is N/A in Quality, Quantity and Timeliness.

c. The weight allocation intended for Program 3 shall be allocated to

Program 1, hence, the revised weight allocation shall be as follows:

Program 1 - 80
Program 2 - 15
Program 3 - 0
GAaS - 5
Total 100

5. In case of additional commitments and/or special assignments not included

in the approved commitments which will have an effect on the weight
allocation under Table 3, the Head of DU concerned shall recommend the
change in the weight allocation for approval by the designated official
signatory in Table 5 not later than thirty (30) calendar days before the
deadline set in Item I.2.

6
7
F. Signatories of the PCRs

Table 4 shows a complete listing of PCRs and the signatories.

Table 4 – Signatories of the PCRs

PCR Forms Particulars Signatories

SPCR Commitment Part
Recommending Approval None
Approved by COA Chairperson

Rating
Assessed by/Rated by/
Recommending Approval Chair, Steering Committee
Approved by COA Chairperson

OPCRs of the Office of Commitment Part

the Chairperson, and Recommending Approval None
Offices under the Approved by COA Chairperson
Office of the
Chairperson Rating
Assessed by/Rated by/
Recommending Approval Chair, Steering Committee
Approved by COA Chairperson

Comm I and Comm II Commitment Part

Recommending Approval None
Approved by Commissioner

Rating
Assessed by/Rated by/
Recommending Approval Chair, Steering Committee
Approved by Commissioner

OPCR of Offices under Commitment Part

a Sector Recommending Approval None
Approved by Assistant Commissioner

Rating
Assessed by/ Rated by/
Recommending Approval Assistant Commissioner
Approved by Chair, Steering Committee

DPCR of the Chief of Commitment Part

Staff under the OAC Recommending Approval None
who holds a position Approved by Assistant Commissioner
of Director IV/Director
III/State Auditor V or Rating
equivalent Assessed by/ Rated by/
Recommending Approval None
Approved by Assistant Commissioner

DPCR of Services/ Commitment Part

Divisions/Audit Recommending Approval Assistant Head of Office
Groups/Offices of the Approved by Head of Office
Regional Supervising
Auditors (ORSA)

8
 PCR Forms Particulars Signatories
Rating
Assessed by/ Rated by/ Assistant Head of Office
Recommending Approval Head of Office
Approved by

DPCR of Audit Teams Commitment Part

under SA/RSA Recommending Approval SA/RSA or Equivalent
Approved by Assistant Head of Office

Rating
Assessed by/ Rated by/
Recommending Approval SA/RSA or Equivalent
Approved by Assistant Head of Office

IPCR of Staff of OAC Commitment Part

(with no Chief of Staff) Recommending Approval None
Approved by Assistant Commissioner

Rating
Assessed by/ Rated by/
Recommending Approval None
Approved by Assistant Commissioner

IPCR of Staff of Commitment Part

Units/Groups directly Recommending Approval Assistant Head of Office
under the Office of the Approved by Head of Office
Director
Rating
Assessed by/ Rated by/
Recommending Approval Assistant Head of Office
Approved by Head of Office

IPCR of Audit Team Commitment Part

Members Recommending Approval Audit Team Leader
(ATL)/OIC-ATL
Approved by SA/RSA or Equivalent

Rating
Assessed by/ Rated by/
Recommending Approval ATL/OIC-ATL
Approved by SA/RSA or Equivalent

IPCR of Staff of Offices Commitment Part

of the Supervising Recommending Approval None
Auditors (OSA) and Approved by SA/RSA or Equivalent
ORSA
Rating
Assessed by/ Rated by/
Recommending Approval None
Approved by SA/RSA or Equivalent

IPCR of Staff of Commitment Part

Services/ Recommending Approval Service Chief/Division Chief
Divisions/ Equivalent or Equivalent
Approved by Assistant Head of Office

9
 PCR Forms Particulars Signatories
Rating
Assessed by/ Rated by Service Chief/Division Chief
or Equivalent
Recommending Approval Assistant Head of Office
Approved by Head of Office

IPCR of Staff of Commitment Part

Services/Divisions/ Recommending Approval Designated Section Chief
Equivalent without Approved by Assistant Head of Office
Service Chiefs Rating
Assessed by/Rated by Designated Section Chief
Recommending Approval Assistant Head of Office
Approved by Head of Office

G. Monitoring

During the monitoring period which is done at the end of each quarter or as
often as necessary, the supervisors shall monitor the performance of the individual
employees based on the targets and commitments indicated in the OPCR, DPCR
and IPCR. Appropriate interventions, such as coaching, mentoring and training shall
be determined and applied. For task-related performance gaps where coaching is
required, a coaching session shall be held with the concerned employee. The
Performance Monitoring Form (Annex B) and Coaching Report Form (Annex C) shall
be accomplished for the purpose, herein attached for reference.

H. Performance Evaluation/Ratings

1. PCRs with Actual Accomplishments and Ratings shall be prepared every

semester as in the previous years. In filling out the Actual Accomplishments
Column of the PCR for each expected Output, the action taken, the actual
quantity and the dates the document was submitted / issued shall be indicated to
facilitate evaluation against the SI.

2. The OAC shall review/validate its Offices’/Clusters’ OPCRs prior to submission to

RMBO, and ensure the correctness / completeness of the supporting matrices.
The Regional PMTs shall review/validate the OPCRs of the COA ROs prior to
submission to OAC, LGS.

3. A certified matrix/schedule (Annex D), in lieu of the supporting documents as

attachments to the PCRs, together with the SPCR / OPCR shall be submitted to
the RMBO. Only outputs/accomplishments included in the certified matrix shall be
considered / rated. The correctness of the certified matrix/schedule shall be
certified by the Head of Office concerned. In the case of the SPCR, the Chief of
Staff or the authorized staff of the Sector Head shall certify as to the
completeness and correctness of the certified matrix/schedule.

4. The SPCR / OPCR and the certified matrix/schedule shall be considered final
once submitted to RMBO, such that any succeeding revision shall only be made

10
 upon the recommendation of the RMBO as a result of its evaluation. Considering
the finality of the submitted SPCR / OPCR and the certified matrix/schedule,
request for reconsiderations for changes/revisions/additional inputs may be
received by the RMBO within five working days from the date of the receipt of the
RMBO Memorandum by the Sector/Office/Cluster formally communicating the
same in the interest of due process subject to evaluation of the
justification/reasons submitted. The decision of the RMBO shall be considered
final thereafter.

Likewise, the instructions stated In Items H.1 and H.3 shall apply to the DPCR
and IPCR except that said forms together with the certified matrix/schedule shall
be submitted to the Director/Service Chief, for evaluation. The correctness of the
certified matrix/schedule shall be certified by the Director/Service Chief.

5. The Rating Scale is shown in Table 5.

Table 5 – Rating Scale

Adjectival Rating Numerical Rating

Outstanding 5.00
Very Satisfactory 4.00 – 4.999
Satisfactory 3.00 – 3.999
Unsatisfactory 2.00 – 2.999
Poor 1.00 – 1.999

6. For each output in the PCR, the following shall be observed in the rating of
Quality, Quantity and Timeliness of each output:

a. The ratee shall adequately document the reported accomplishments in

the PCR. The designated assessor/rater shall identify the documentation
needed in rating each output accomplished.

b. In order to have uniformity in rating, the Table for Point Deductions for
Delays (Annex E) shall be used for rating the Timeliness for delays
incurred.

c. To facilitate the rating for Quantity and Timeliness, the certified

matrix/schedule shall indicate the quantity, date received and date
submitted/transmitted / issued / released / signed / complied with.

d. In assessing/rating Quality, the Sector Head, who is responsible for the

initial assessments of the office performance using the approved OPCR
forms, shall assess/validate the self-ratings on Quality provided by the
offices concerned, basis of which shall be as follows:
- The number of times a document was revised and the degree of revision
on the output should be considered.
- Quality should be based more on substance and compliance on
standards/criteria. As noted in the SPMS Guidelines per COA
Memorandum dated August 7, 2015, the elements of Quality are:
acceptability, meeting standards, clients’ satisfaction with services

11
 rendered, accuracy, completeness or comprehensiveness of reports,
creativity or innovation, and personal initiative

The RMBO, as one of the key players of the SPMS, is responsible for the
assessment/review/evaluation of the initial performance (quantity and
timeliness) of the delivery units based on the reported Offices’
accomplishments against the SIs enumerated in the OPCRs.

The result of the assessment shall be submitted to the PMT to serve as

basis for its recommendation to the Chairperson.

e. Validation may be done at the offices concerned, when necessary.

f. Examples of the computation of ratings on Quantity and Timeliness in

case of delays or failure to meet deadlines stated in the concerned SI are
shown in Table 6. It is noted that the rating on Quantity is not affected
with the number of delays incurred as long as the targeted quantity is
accomplished.

Table 6 - Illustration of the computation of the rating for Quantity and Timeliness

12
 SI Actual Accomplishments Rating of Quantity Rating for Timeliness
1. 100% of reviewed Reviewed 100% of summary Rating is computed as Rating is computed as
semestral summary of final and executory follows: follows:
of final and executory decisions submitted to 1/1 x 5.00 = 5.00
decisions submitted to concerned offices per COA a. Highest rating that
concerned offices per Memorandum No. 2018-003 may be given =5.00
COA Memorandum dated March 5, 2018 on July b. Delay* 0.28
No. 2018-003 dated 30, 2020 4.72
March 5, 2018 within
15 WDs from EO 1st * 7 WDs delay
semester 2020
2. 100% of the AOMs Received 15 AOMs as of 3.33 4.76
received as of May 29, May 29, 2020:
2020 reviewed and Rating is computed as Rating is computed as
issued to Reviewed and issued follows: follows:
Management by June 10/15 x 5.00 = 3.33 a. Highest rating that
30, 2020 a. 8 before 5/29/20 may be given = 5.00
b. 2 on 6/29/20 Note: Rating on Quantity b. Delay* = 0.24
c. 5 on 7/3/20 shall be deducted in Rating 4.76
cases, such as:
 where certain * Computation of
outputs were points of delay:
accomplished a. 10 WDs delay
beyond the rating 2/15 x 0.40 = 0.05
period (semester), b. 14 WDs delay
thus, output 5/15 x 0.56 = 0.19
accomplished 0.24
beyond the rating
period shall no
longer be rated in
Quantity
 where certain
outputs were not
accomplished at all
(as shown below in
Illustration 4)
SI Actual Accomplishments Rating of Quantity Rating for Timeliness
3. 90% of 50 Targeted Conducted 45 of the 5.00 5.00
number of Classes targeted 45 number of
conducted by classes by December 29,
December 29, 2020 2020

4. Reviewed 100% of the Received 15 AOMs as of 3.33 4.09

AOMs received as of May 29, 2020:
May 29, 2020 and Rating is computed as Rating is computed as
issued to Reviewed and issued follows: follows:
Management by June 10/15 x 5.00 = 3.33
30, 2020 a. 8 before 5/29/20 a. Rating for
b. 2 on 6/29/20 accomplishments
c. 3 on 7/3/20 submitted
d. 2 were not accomplished within/beyond the
at all deadline:
[(8 + 2 + 3) / 15] * 5 =
4.33
b. Delay* = 0.24
Rating 4.09

* Computation of
points of delay:
a. 10 WDs delay
2/15 x 0.40 = 0.05
13 b. 14 WDs delay
5/15 x 0.56 = 0.19
0.24
 For rating the Quality of accomplished/actual outputs identified in the
PCR, the assessor/rater may assign points of 1 to 5. Points other than the
absolute values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as prescribed in COA Memorandum
No. 2015-008 can be assigned to the rating of Quality, Quantity and
Timeliness up to two decimal points. e.g. 4.11, 3.10. The average rating
per Output / SI and the PCR’s final average rating shall be up to three
decimal points, of which rounding off of the third digit is no longer
necessary, e.g. Reviewed AARs; 4.99 (Quality) + 4.70 (Quantity) + 4.88
(Timeliness) = 14.57 / 3 = 4.8566 or 4.856 (average rating per Output /
SI).

g. In cases where delay is supported by justification, the Sector Head may

determine appropriate rating for the specific actual output using the Table
for Point Deductions for Delays Incurred (Annex E).

h. Delays in the initial submission of PCRs beyond four (4) months from the
deadline of submission of same shall be automatically given a zero (0)
final rating.

i. Also, the Sector Head may determine appropriate rating for the output
which cannot be accomplished for reasons that are justifiable and beyond
the control of the Office/Cluster. A justification/statement, if warranted,
shall be indicated under the Remark column in case of failure to meet the
specific targeted number of outputs.

j. In case an official/employee is required to have more than one PCR,

his/her rating shall be computed by getting the average of the ratings in
all the PCRs.

k. In case an official/employee has two PCRs due to

reshuffling/reassignment, and has rendered at least one month either in
his/her previous or current assignment, his / her rating shall be computed
proportionately based on the number of months rendered, as shown in
Table 7.

Table 7 - Illustration of an official/employee with two PCRs

Rating for previous assignment (two months) - 4.50

Rating for present assignment (4 months) - 3.50

Computation:

Rating for the previous assignment 4.5 x 2/6= 1.50

Rating for the present assignment 3.5 x 4/6= 2.33
Final Rating 3.83

7. Prior to the signing of the PCR forms, a mandatory discussion between the ratee
and rater of the performance ratings shall be made at all levels to ensure an
equitable and agreed assessment.

The Individual Development Plan (IDP) shall be prepared by the Supervisor

concerned and be discussed with the employee concerned. A copy of the IDP

14
 together with the Summary List of Individual Performance Ratings (SLIPR) shall
be submitted to the HRMO.
The names of the employees and the required training, as indicated in the IDP,
shall be submitted to the PDO.

8. The SLIPR shall be submitted to the Human Resource Database Maintenance

Services (HRDMS), HRMO, to ensure that the average collective performance
ratings of employees are not higher than the approved Office Performance
Rating. This shall be submitted within thirty (30) calendar days from the receipt
of the approved SPCR/OPCR with ratings.

9. Pursuant to Item IV.2.c of COA Memorandum No. 2015-008, the Head of

Office/DU shall ensure that the following conditions are complied with:

a. The average collective rating of all staff under a Service/Division shall not
exceed the rating of the DPCR of the Service Chief.

b. The average collective rating of all ATMs under each Audit Team shall not
exceed the rating of the DPCR of ATL/OIC-ATL. On the other hand, the
average collective rating of the staff of OSA/ORSA shall not exceed the
rating of the DPCR of SA/RSA.

c. The average collective rating of all the DPCR of ATLs/OIC-ATLs under

each Audit Group or under SA/RSA shall not exceed the rating of the
DPCR of SA/RSA.
d. The average collective rating of all DPCRs of Service
Chiefs/SAs/RSAs/and Other Staff directly under each Office/Cluster/COA
Regional Office shall not exceed the rating of the OPCR of the Head of
Office/Cluster/COA Regional Office.

10. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 80 s. 2012 and Executive Order 201 s. 2016,
the ranking of DUs shall be based on the groupings as shown in Table 8.

Table 8 – Groupings of DUs

Best Better Good

No. Group Total
10% 25% 65%
1 SSS (3) and All Clusters under CGS (6), NGS (8),
20 2 5 13
LGS NCR, IARO and ICFAO
2 COA Regional Offices (17) 17 1 4 12
3 ITAO, TSO, SCSO of STSS, CPASSSS (3), LSS (2)
10 1 3 6
and GAS (2)
4 IAO, IAfO, PIO, PMO under the Office of the 12 1 3 8
Chairperson, PIDS (3), PFMS (2), AS (2) and ITO
of STSS
5 Executive Offices (Office of the Chairperson, 1 1 - -
Comm I, Comm II, OACs and ComSec)
Total 60 6 15 39

Grouping is made as follows:

15
 1. All Audit Clusters and Offices based in the Central Office performing
constitutional audit mandates and financial adjudication programs,
STOs, and GAaS

2. All COA regional Offices under the Local Government Sector

performing audit and financial adjudication programs, STOs, and
GAaS

3. Offices performing accountancy and financial adjudication programs,

STOs, and GAaS support functions directly catering to government
agencies

4. Offices and Unit under the Office of the Chairperson, STOs, and
GAaS

5. Executive Offices ( Office of the Chairperson, Comm I, Comm II,

OACs, and ComSec)

11. In case of a tie that will result in exceeding the prescribed allocation for each
category (Best, Better, Good), the PMT will recommend to the COA
Chairperson for approval which DU(s) will fall under each category.

12. In breaking the tie, all the following criteria shall to Groups 1 and 2; and only
criteria g. to i. shall apply to Groups 3 and 4.

a. Significant Audit Findings included in the latest transmitted audit

reports (material in amount with significant impact):
 The audit findings became the main basis or cited as such,
of new instructions, legislations, pronouncements, etc.
 Audit Findings’ Impact on external stakeholders’ interest, i.e.
Public or citizenry, Executive and Legislative
 Audit Findings has high political sensitivity where these are
mentioned in tri media or social media;

b. Transmittal to auditees of audit reports before the prescribed

deadline;

c. Percentage of compliance of auditees on the Status of Prior Year’s

Recommendation;

d. Number of Notices of Disallowance/Charge (ND/NC) issued by the

SA and the ATL;

e. Number of decisions issued by the Office/Cluster/Regional

Directors on appealed ND/NC;

f. Number of decisions approved/sustained by the Commission

Proper

g. Number of completed major work/initiative which is not part of the

regular function of the office and significantly contributes to the

16
 efficient and effective delivery of audit services for the benefit of the
Filipino people (i.e. initiative under the Revised COA Strategic Plan
2016-2022, ad-hoc committee assignments based on office orders
with specific deliverables, etc.). The completion of the said major
work/project/initiative is within/nearest the prescribed deadline,
subject to extension for justifiable reasons;

h. Timely submission of OPCR commitment and accomplishments

with ratings, subject to the provisions of item H.4; and

i. Other factors that may be identified by the Heads of the Sectors

and by Heads of Offices/Clusters, i.e. designated Officer-in-Charge
of an office; Chair of regular committees (i.e. Bids and Awards
Committee, Gender and Development, Selection and Promotions
Board, Scholarship Board, etc.).

17
I. Deadline of Submission of Performance Commitment and Ratings for CY
2020

1. The submission of PCRs for CY 2020 shall be as follows:

PCR Date of Submission (on Where to Submit

or before)
SPCR January 17, 2020 PMT
OPCR January 24, 2020 RMBO Director
DPCR of Services/Audit Group/ ORSA January 31, 2020 Cluster/Regional/Office
Director
DPCR of ATLs or Equivalent January 31, 2020 Assistant Cluster/Office
Director/
Assistant Regional
Director
IPCR February 7, 2020 SA/ Service Chief/ ATL

2. On the other hand, the submission of the signed PCRs with Actual
Accomplishments and Ratings for CY 2020 shall be as follows:
PCR 1st Sem 2nd Sem Where to Submit
SPCR August 7, 2020 February 5, 2021 RMBO
OPCR August 14, 2020 February 12, 2021 RMBO
DPCR of Chief of Staff/Services/Audit August 20, 2020 February 19, 2021 Office/Cluster
Group/ORSA or Equivalent concerned
DPCR of ATLs or Equivalent August 20, 2020 February 19, 2021 -do-
IPCRs August 28, 2020 February 26, 2021 -do-
SLIPR within 30 calendar days from the receipt of HRDMS, HRMO
the approved SPCRs/OPCRs with ratings

Note: RMBO’s transmittal of the approved SPCR/OPCR commitment and ratings to

the concerned Sector/Office is within five working days upon receipt of the same
from the Chair, Steering Committee.

J. Application of Merit/Demerit Points, and Deduction to the Overall PCR

Rating Due to Delayed Submission of Revised SPCR/OPCR

1. For purposes of giving incentives to concerned officials and employees who

have multiple assignments aside from performing the regular functions (i.e.
acting as Officer-in-Charge, etc.) of their office, merit points shall be given to
them for their accomplishments related to Other Services and Special
Assignments, taking into consideration the following:

a. The Chair or Co-Chair of permanent committees (i.e. Gender and

Development, Merit and Promotions Board, etc.) and ad-hoc committees
shall be given merit points and the respective members thereof;

b. These Other Services and Special Assignments, which are previously

reported under GAaS, shall be a separate item of the PCR, with no
assigned weight allocation but shall be rated in the usual manner and shall
not be included in the computation of the overall rating;

18
c. The SIs for items under Other Services and Special Assignments shall be
supported by minutes of meeting, accomplishment reports or some other
documents that could be used as evidence of the activities of these
permanent or ad-hoc committees during the rating period.

d. The merit points shall be applied, as follows:

d.1 The multiplier, as shown in the Table for Merit/Demerit Points shall
be applied to the average rating of the Other Services and Special
Assignments, product of which shall be added to the overall final
rating;

d.2 The merit point/s shall be applicable up to the level of the IPCR, but
will not apply to regular committee assignments with honorarium
(e.g. BAC committee, acted as Resource Person/Speaker, etc.);

d.3 The accomplishments shall be substantial tangible outputs (e.g.

Guidelines, Manual. The Sector/Office/Division/Individual shall
indicate said output(s) on the committee by showing the deadline(s)
and specific date(s) accomplished.

e. Likewise, demerit points shall be applied when there are at least five
counts of delays in any of the items listed under the concerned
Program/Activity with the highest weight allocation.

f. The Table for Merit and Demerit points shall be as follows:

Number of Other Services Merit/Demerit Points

and Special Assignments (+/-)
Accomplished Multiplier
3-5 .01
6-8 .02
9-11 .03
12-14 .04

g. Shown below is the computation of the overall rating resulting from the
application of the merit point:

1. Office A has four special assignments and per result of

evaluation, it was given an average rating of 4.982, while the overall
final rating was 4.971.

19
 Computation:

a. Average rating for the 4 special assignments 4.982

Multiply with corresponding multiplier x .01
Merit Points .049
b. Add: Overall final rating of Office A
(per result of RMBO’s evaluation) 4.971
Overall final rating with merited point 5.020

5.000

Note: The overall final rating with merited points shall not exceed the rating of
5.000. Hence, the 5.020 shall be reduced to 5.000.

2. Office B has reported delays in five items under Sub-Program 2,

Program 1. The average rating on its five special assignments was
4.991, while the overall final rating was 4.896.

Computation:

a. Average rating for the five special assignments 4.991

Multiply with corresponding multiplier x .01
Demerit Points .049

b. Overall Final Rating of Office B 4.896

(per result of RMBO’s evaluation)
Less: Demerit Points (.049)
Overall final rating with merited point 4.847

2. Deduction shall be applied immediately to the overall rating for late

submission of the revised SPCR / OPCR with Accomplishments and Ratings
resulting from RMBO’s initial evaluation. Said deduction shall be apart and
different from the deduction incurred due to delays on the initial submission of
the PCRs taken as one of the items under GAaS. Deduction shall be based
on the following:

a. Number of working days delayed from the deadline mentioned in the

RMBO’s memorandum transmitting the result of initial evaluation; and

b. The equivalent point deductions as shown in Annex E of the SPMS

Instructions dated December 19, 2019.

For the guidance of all concerned.

CARMELA S. PEREZ
Assistant Commissioner
Planning, Finance and Management Sector
Chair, Steering Committee

20