3 Project Preparation (to completion) NGA Departments access TRIP to procure Feasibility Studies, Environmental Impact Assessments, Detailed Engineering Designs, Detailed Costings and Cash Flows; and commence Right of Way acquisitions to support the procurement of project implementation contracts. Full project preparation may take several years to complete. Delays in this process will initiate TRIP and MYOA re-phasing by DBM. ADB China JICA KOICA (Flagship Projects only) LIMITED PFMP II budget too small to impact at National level. Other donor with large resources is present here. 4 Annual Procurement Plan NGA Annual Procurement Plan (APP) needs to be prepared by each department and linked to the annual Budget submission. GPH PFM system needs annual and forward years cash budgeting capacity; and Departments need in-house progress payment scheduling and cash flow forecasting capacity to do this. GPPB Circular No. 07-2015 GAA PFM-I, DBM and DOTr HIGH DBM relationship and can build on work in Annual Cash Budgeting and cash-flow management. DOTr relationship exists around organisational capacity and can be extended to procurement planning.
5 Procurement NGA, DBM, GPPB Departments procure infrastructure delivery contracts. DOTr >P50m tender managed by DBM; <P50m by DOTr in-house. All other Departments manage tenders in-house. GPPB Technical Support Office (TSO) provides research, technical and administrative support to the GPPB. The GPPB- TSO has implemented various projects to assist Procurement Entities to comply with provisions of RA 9184. However, the current manpower complement of GPPB-TSO may not be sufficient to respond to the procurement requirements surge of the government’s infrastructure Build Build Build Program. GPPB Guidelines 2011 DOTr Procurement Guidelines 2017 PFM-I, DOTr HIGH DOTr relationship is well established and procurement manual well-received by DOTr and donors (e.g. KOICA, JICA). This can be built on in GPPB. DBM/ GPPB has expressed interest in procurement strengthening, but needs restructure to support this role. 6 Disbursement/ Expenditure NGA, DBM, DOF, BTR, COA Departments pay infrastructure contract progress claims. DBM guidelines NONE Reputational risk for external donor program seeking to expedite GPH infrastructure with direct involvement in any transactions is high, due to the possibility of incorrect and/ or irregular transactions being processed. General support to PFM efficiencies is already being provided.
Table 5B - PFMP-II Summary Monitoring Framework (to be refined and expanded during inception and as interventions are confirmed and designed – and then reviewed annually after that) Indicators What we will measure How we will measure Who will measure Frequency of measurement How will results be reported & used Goal: Contribute to delivery of safe and accessible public infrastructure for inclusive and sustainable economic growth in the Philippines Number of DBM, DOTr or DPWH operational breakthroughs that reduce delays in infrastructure project delivery Examples of new practice adoption in DBM, DOTr and DPWH that support better infrastructure delivery (e.g. reduced time to delivery from active use of procurement guide, ROWSA guide for specific projects) Evaluative studies, case studies, performance monitoring PFMP-II M&E Specialist with inputs from NEDA and PFMP-II technical advisers Annual Semi-annual progress reports and case studies used to inform portfolio reviews and dialogue with NEDA, DBM, DOTr, and DPWH. End-of-Program Outcome: Targeted Philippines government agencies and private sector service providers use more efficient, collaborative and innovative systems for inclusive public infrastructure delivery % DOTr infrastructure tenders classified “failed” (by number & value) % DPWH infrastructure tenders classified “failed” (by number & value) % infrastructure disbursement delivered through BTMS [in PHP billion] Total number of infrastructure tenders issued by DOTr disaggregated by those classified “failed” and those classified “successful” Total number of infrastructure tenders issued by DPWH disaggregated by those classified “failed” and those classified “successful” Total, actual cash disbursement for infrastructure projects [in PHP billion] disaggregated by amounts through BTMS and amounts otherwise managed Semi-annual review of DOTr procurements with support from GPPB – compared against 2017 baseline Semi-annual review of DPWH procurements with support from GPPB Semi-annual review of infrastructure project disbursement in selected agencies with support from DBM and BTr PFMP-II M&E Specialist with inputs from PFM and Transport/ Infrastructure Specialists working with DOTr and DPWH staff Semi-annual Semi-annual Semi-annual Semi-annual progress reports and case studies used to inform portfolio reviews as well as dialogue with NEDA, DBM, GPPB, DOTr and DPWH. Information shared with influencers to support advocacy for better infrastructure delivery.
Risk Event, Source & Impact (what could happen (event), what could cause the event to happen (source) and what would happen if the event occurs Risk Owner (who will manage the risk?) Existing Controls (what’s currently in place?) Risk Rating with existing controls in place Is risk rating acceptable? Y/N (if no, please propose treatments) Proposed Treatments (If no further treatment required or available, please explain why) Consequence Likelihood Risk Rating CONTEXTUAL RISKS Event: Administration makes changes to senior officers in Implementing Agencies Source: Infrastructure delivery targets fall behind and agencies need to boost performance Impact: PFMP-II may lose reform champions in the process Philippine Government N/A Minor Possible Medium Yes N/A Event: The modular approach is not implemented properly Source: The Managing Contractor lacks experience in managing multiple interventions in a complex program Impact: Program implementation is slow and contract milestones are not achieved on time DFAT and Managing Contractor Evaluation of tenderers will include demonstrated relevant implementation experience The Statement of Requirement for the Managing Contractor includes performance-based payments and regular implementation reporting to DFAT. Minor Possible Medium Yes Event: Technical advisers and specialists are not mobilised on a timely basis Source: The Managing Contractor's recruitment system is weak. Impact: Implementation of program interventions is delayed. Managing Contractor Evaluation of tenderers will include demonstrated experience systems for recruitment and mobilisation of advisers The Statement of Requirement for the Managing Contractor includes performance-based payments and regular implementation reporting to DFAT. Minor Unlikely Low Yes
Risk Event, Source & Impact (what could happen (event), what could cause the event to happen (source) and what would happen if the event occurs Risk Owner (who will manage the risk?) Existing Controls (what’s currently in place?) Risk Rating with existing controls in place Is risk rating acceptable? Y/N Proposed Treatments (If no further treatment required or available, please explain why) Consequence Likelihood Risk Rating INSTITUTIONAL RISKS Event: Program activities overlap with other donor-funded activities Source: Insufficient coordination by Managing Contractor and/or partner government with other donors Impact: Duplication of program activities DFAT and Managing Contractor Mapping of donor activities, including consultations with multilateral and bilateral donors, were part of the design process Confirmation with partner government that proposed program activities will complement other donor activities Minor Possible Medium Yes At implementation, the Managing Contractor Team and Advisers will need to liaise closely with other donor programs. Program Steering Committee to provide guidance on other on-going and proposed donor activities. Event: High reliance on Managing Contractor and partner government Source: Limited technical resources at Post Impact: Insufficient oversight of the program DFAT DFAT will recruit technical advisers Minor Unlikely Low Yes INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION RISKS Event: Selected government agencies are not ready to take up the indicative interventions Source: Design overestimates the readiness of counterpart agencies and organisations Impact: Implementation of new or successor interventions are delayed Managing Contractor Managing Contractor to assess indicative interventions and consult with counterparts during the inception period Defer transition for trial to successor interventions, or redirect resources to other/new intervention(s). Moderate Unlikely Medium Yes