MALACAÑAN PALACE
MANILA
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
[ Memorandum Order No. 149-A, October 29, 2004 ]
FURTHER AMENDING MEMORANDUM ORDER NO.4, DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2001 AS AMENDED BY MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 149, DATED OCTOBER 15, 2004, “IMPLEMENTING IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (PROPER) A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION SYSTEM (OP-PMES)”
Item V D of Memorandum Order No. 149, dated October 15, 2004, amending Memorandum Order No.4, dated February 1, 2001, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
“D. MECHANICS OF RATING
D.1 Components of Rating
D.1.1 For Supervisors
a. Part I- Performance (Quantity, Quality, Time) (Refer to Annex “A”) 70%
b. Part II – Critical Factors (Refer to Annex “B”) 30%
Leadership 5%
Stress Tolerance 5%
Initiative 5%
Human Relations 5%
Courtesy 5%
Punctuality & Attendance 5%
D. 1.2 For Non-Supervisors
a. Part I – Performance (Quantity, Quality, Time) (Refer to Annex “A”) 70%
b. Part II -Critical Factors (Refer to Annex “B”) 30%
Stress Tolerance 6%
Initiative 6%
Courtesy 6%
Human Relations 6%
Attendance & Punctuality 6%
D.2 Performance of Intervening Tasks
The employees performance of intervening tasks may be given a maximum of one (1) additional point to his/ her overall rating.
D.3 Cross Rating
| Rater |
Overall Weight |
| Supervisor Rater |
50% |
| Self Rater |
20% |
| Subordinate Rater (s) |
10% |
| Peer Rater (s) |
10% |
| Client Rater (s) |
10% |
|
100% |
D.4 Guidelines in the Computation of the Rating
D.4.1 Supervisor and Employee Ratings on Part I-Performance
1. During the appraisal discussion at the end of the rating period, the Supervisor Rater and the Self-Rater fill-up the accomplishment portion of the targets and accomplishment column of the PEF-1 (Refer to Annex “C”).
The QL, QN and T standards are used in giving each accomplishment a numerical point rating.
2. Add all the point scores under QN, QL and T for each work/ activity for each rater and divide by the number of entries to get their respective Average Point Scores (APSs).
3. Multiply each Average Point Score by the assigned percentage weight for each work or activity to get the Equivalent Point Scores (EPSs).
4. Add all Equivalent Point Score (EPSs) of both the Supervisor Rater and Self Rater separately to get their respective Total Equivalent Point Scores for Part I.
5. Multiply separately the Total Equivalent Point Scores of both Supervisor Rater and Self Rater by 70% to get their respective Weighted Average Scores (WASs).
D.4.2 Supervisor and Employee Ratings on Part II-Critical Factors
1. Using PEF-1 (Refer to Annex “C”), the Supervisor Rater and Self Rater rate each factor. There should be at least three factors to be used for each rate.
2. Add all Supervisor Rater Point Scores and all Self Raters Point Scores, then divide by the total number of entries to get their respective Average Point Scores (APSs) for Part II.
3. Multiply each Average Point Score (APS) by 30% to get the Weighted Average Score (WAS) for each rater in Part II.
D.4.3 Subordinate(s), Peer(s) and Client(s) Ratings
1. Compute the average ratings of each category of raters for Part I and Part II separately (Refer to Annex “D-1; D-2; D-3”).
2. Multiply the resulting average ratings by 70% for Part I and by 30% for Part II to get the Weighted Average Scores.
D.4.4 Overall Rating
1. Using the Summary of Rating portion of PEF-1, indicate the Raters Weighted Average Scores for both Part I and Part II.
2. Add the Weighted Average Scores for Part I and Part II of each rater to get the Overall Point Scores and multiply by the Raters Percentage Weight Allocation to get their respective Overall Weighted Scores.
3. Add all Overall Weighted Scores to get the Total Overall Score or Final Numerical Performance Rating.
4. Add the rating for Intervening Task, if any.
5. Convert the Total Overall Score or Final Performance Numerical Rating to Adjectival rating using the conversion table.
D.4.5 Conversion Table:
| Numerical Rating |
Adjectival Rating |
| 9.50 – 10.0 – |
OUTSTANDING |
| 7.51 – 9.49 – | ᇈWᑭHIL
VERY SATISFACTORY |
| 4.01 – 7.50 – |
SATISFACTORY |
| 2.01 – 4.00 – |
UNSATISFACTORY |
| 2.00 Below |
POOR |
Note: Intervening rating and Outstanding rating should be fully supported/justified by a certification of the immediate supervisor, and approved by the Head of Office. Documentary evidence should be submitted.”
This amendment shall take effect immediately.1aшphi1
By authority of the President:
(Sgd.) EDUARDO R. ERMITA
Executive Secretary
Manila, October 29, 2004
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
