Title
Constructors Performance Evaluation System Guidelines
Law
Ciaotp
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1998
A Philippine law mandates the evaluation of contractor performance in government infrastructure projects, establishing guidelines, units, and processes to ensure fair and accurate evaluations and the utilization of results for improvement and decision-making.
contractor performance evaluation
government infrastructure projects
fair evaluations
A

Policy, Purpose, and System Objectives

  • The CPES is designed to establish a uniform set of criteria for rating the performance of constructors.
  • The CPES is designed to develop a centralized base of information on performance ratings for licensing, pre-qualification, quality improvement, and other purposes of government agencies, project owners, financing and insurance companies, and other interested parties.
  • The CPES is designed to ensure infrastructure projects conform to the specified requirements of project owners.

Coverage and Defined Scope

  • The guidelines apply to the performance evaluation of constructors undertaking government road, bridge, housing, building, port and harbor projects.
  • Coverage includes local constructors licensed by and registered with the Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board (PCAB).
  • Coverage includes foreign constructors licensed by the PCAB.
  • Coverage includes joint ventures and consortia licensed by the PCAB.
  • The term constructor covers any entity—including joint venture and consortium—licensed by PCAB that undertakes or purports to have the capacity to undertake or submits a bid for infrastructure projects.
  • The term infrastructure projects includes construction, improvement, or rehabilitation of roads and highways, airports and air navigation facilities, railways, ports, flood control and drainage, water supply and sewerage, irrigation systems, dams, buildings, communication facilities, dredging and reclamation, power generating plants, power transmission and distribution facilities, and other related construction projects.

Key Definitions and Core Concepts

  • “Constructor” is deemed synonymous with “builder” and includes PCAB-licensed entities that undertake or bid for infrastructure projects.
  • “Constructors’ Performance Evaluation System (CPES)” is a system of grading a constructor’s performance for a specific kind of projects using a set of criteria.
  • “Constructors’ Performance Evaluators (CPE)” are individuals or groups of evaluators accredited by CIAP tasked to undertake performance evaluation of a constructor’s project using the CPES guidelines and/or evaluation requirements.
  • “Corrective Action Request (CAR)” is a form where the CPE records validated findings (with locations) that do not conform to checklist criteria, requiring immediate actions by the constructor, and records the constructor’s specific corrective actions and timetable to immediately correct and prevent recurrence; the proposed corrective/preventive actions recommended by the constructor’s project engineer are approved by the head of the concerned Implementing Unit (IU) or authorized representative.
  • “CPES Implementing Unit (IU)” is the unit of an agency responsible for implementing CPES.
  • “During Construction” runs from the time the constructor receives the Notice of Proceed (NTP) up to substantial completion, or up to the period covering the contract effectivity date stated in the NTP up to the date of substantial project completion.
  • “Upon Completion” refers to 100% completion of the project as claimed by the constructor.
  • “Percentage Weight” is the weight for a specific item of work, computed by dividing its cost by the total contract amount.
  • “Rate” is the score for each evaluated item of work derived using criteria for workmanship and materials aspects.
  • “Relative Percentage Weight” is the weight of an item of work to be rated, computed by dividing its percentage weight by the sum of the percentage weights of all items of work to be rated.
  • “Relative Rate” is the product of the relative percentage weight and the rate for each item of work.

CPES Evaluation Flow and Operational Duties

  • The CPES follows a sequential functional deployment among the CPES IU, CPE, constructor, implementing office, and CIAP, as illustrated in Annex 1.
  • The IU must prepare a monthly list of all road, bridge, housing, building, port and harbor projects of the agency that have been issued an NTP, based on documents listed in Section 10.1 from concerned implementing offices.
  • The IU determines evaluation frequency and tentative dates using During Construction and Upon Completion parameters.
  • During Construction evaluations require:
    • At least two (2) evaluations for projects, except projects with duration of less than two months, which require evaluation beyond the minimum determined by the IU based on project size, nature, and complexity and subject to approval by proper authorities within the agency.
    • The first evaluation is scheduled when the constructor has accomplished substantial work based on the approved schedule.
    • Regardless of project duration, an evaluation is always performed when fifty percent (50%) of the value of works is completed.
  • Upon Completion evaluation requires:
    • Only one (1) evaluation right after the constructor claims one hundred percent (100%) completion of the project.
  • Before tentative evaluation dates, the IU must require the implementing office to submit copies of documents listed in Section 10.1, consolidate the project documents, and determine the most appropriate evaluation date(s) and the CPES evaluation forms to be used.
  • The IU must coordinate and schedule CPE evaluation date(s), select a CPE from CIAP-accredited evaluators, and provide the CPE all necessary documents for evaluation.
  • The CPE, upon receiving IU-supplied documents, must:
    • Review the documents and enter pertinent data (standards and tolerances) into the CPES checklist spaces.
    • Randomly pre-determine evaluation spots comprising at least ten percent (10%) of the ongoing or accomplished portions of each item of work, provided such spots are verifiable.
  • The IU must finalize actual evaluation date(s) using latest project updates and agreements by the CPE, and notify the agency’s and constructor’s project engineer:
    • Within 24 hours for projects located in urban areas where communications are accessible.
    • Within three (3) working days for projects located in remote areas.
  • The CPES IU must inform the CPE and CPE resource persons/witnesses of evaluation date(s), request their presence, and specify venue.
  • The constructor’s project engineer must consolidate documents listed in Section 10.2 and present them during an on-site pre-evaluation meeting.
  • Prior to actual evaluation, the CPE and resource persons/witnesses must conduct an on-site pre-evaluation meeting to discuss CPES purpose and mechanics, scope and status of each work item by percentage accomplishment, constructor-supplied documents, and other implementation factors; the CPE must then update/validate standards/tolerances on relevant checklists.
  • During the actual evaluation, the CPE and resource persons/witnesses must:
    • Evaluate at pre-determined verifiable spots, record findings in relevant checklists, and may list additional criteria in relevant checklists if needed.
    • Take photos and/or videos to substantiate findings.
    • Submit evaluation results to the IU and/or concerned agency units; the IU may also request a warranty-period evaluation by the CPE.
  • After evaluation, the CPE must hold post-evaluation meetings for:
    • Validation of findings by the CPE leader with CPE members, resource persons, and witnesses.
    • Finalization of evaluation rating and CAR(s); each CAR must be prepared in duplicate copies.
    • Presentation/issuance of the rating and the duplicate CAR(s) to the constructor’s project engineer.
    • Recording agreement/disagreement:
      • If the constructor’s project engineer agrees with the rating and all CAR(s), the CPE leader must request the engineer’s signature in provided spaces on all copies, then provide duplicate CAR copies.
      • If the constructor disagrees with the rating or any CAR(s), the CPE leader must inform that these shall be settled by an appropriate adjudicating body designated by the agency.
  • Immediately after evaluation, the CPE leader must submit to the IU the original copies of:
    • The accomplished rating sheet (cover sheet, checklists, and summary sheet), and
    • The CAR(s),
      and prepare a report indicating documents to be submitted to the agency-designated adjudicating body.
  • Based on non-conformance findings, the constructor must prepare and submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to the head of the Implementing Office for assessment and subsequent approval.
  • If the CAP is approved, the constructor’s project engineer must implement the plan and be monitored by the project owner’s project engineer; if disapproved, the constructor must submit another CAP proposal for approval.
  • If similar findings occur twice or more, the constructor must submit a Preventive Action Plan (PAP) proposal under the same approval process as the CAP.
  • Upon receipt of CPES rating sheets, the IU must review completeness and consistency; if in order, the IU must submit the rating to the Agency Head and concerned implementing office.
  • The concerned implementing office must monitor the constructor’s implementation of CPE recommendations, supported by videos or photos before, during, and after rectification; after satisfactory completion, the implementing office must submit reports to the IU.
  • The IU must submit to CIAP’s PDCB an authenticated photocopy of the complete CPES Evaluation Form (Parts I, II, III, IV) and/or other required report(s) within a week after the final visit for completion phase.

CPES Evaluation Weights, Aspects, and Rating Rules

  • The constructor’s performance is evaluated in two phases:
    • During Construction, and
    • Upon Completion.
  • The evaluation weights and maximum ratings depend on project type.
  • During Construction maximum ratings (with overall weight):
    • Road, bridge, port and harbor projects: overall weight 60%
      • Workmanship 0.40
      • Materials 0.30
      • Time 0.10
      • Facilities 0.03
      • Environmental, Safety and Health (ESH) 0.07
      • Resources Deployment 0.10
      • Total 1.00
    • Housing and building projects: overall weight 70%
      • Workmanship 0.40
      • Materials 0.30
      • Time 0.10
      • Facilities 0.03
      • Environmental, Safety and Health (ESH) 0.07
      • Resources Deployment 0.10
      • Total 1.00
  • Upon Completion maximum ratings (with overall weight):
    • Road and
        ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms