Presented during the e-Staff Meeting July 16, 2020

1. THE CDA SPMS-RATING
SCALE
CSC-NCR approved the CDA-SPMS on
October 21, 2016
By Filipina H. Porio
Sr CDS

3. Rating scale for quantity
B.1. For fix or regulatory targets
02 Amet, consectetur adipiscing elite. Curabitur eleifend a diam quiz suscipit. Class
aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra.
03

4. Performance Review and Evaluation
➔ Office performance is assessed.
➔ Performance Management Team (PMT) calibrates and
consolidates result.
➔ Head of agency determines final office ratings
➔ Individual ratings are based solely on performance, no need for
self rating.

5. Performance measurement
FOUR CATEGORY
A. Quantity- Measures the extent of accomplishment vis-a-vis targets
expressed in numerical value.
B. Efficiency- Measures the magnitude to which resources are used
for the intended task or purpose with the objective of
accomplishing targets with a minimum amount of budget.
C. Timeliness - Measures whether the deliverable was done on time
based on the requirements of the law and/or the office.
D. Quality - Measures the degree to which objectives are achieved
based on the expectation of clients/customers and/or applicable
standards.

6. A. Rating scale for quantity
A.1. For fix or regulatory targets (Regn, amend, mandatory reports, trngs etc.)
non
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding 100% of targets accomplished
4 Very satisfactory 90-99.99%
3 Satisfactory 80-89.99%
2 Unsatisfactory 70-79.99%
1 Poor Below 70%

7. A.2 . Non regulatory targets
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding Exceeding 130% and above of the
planned targets
4 Very satisfactory 115-129%
3 Satisfactory 100-114%
2 Unsatisfactory 51-99%
1 Poor Below 50%
A. Rating scale for quantity

8. B. Rating scale for efficiency
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding 96-100% budget
spent
4 Very satisfactory 90-95%
3 Satisfactory 80-89%
2 Unsatisfactory 70-79%
1 Poor Above 100% or Below
70%
B.1 . for fix or regulatory targets

9. C. Rating scale for timeliness
C.1. For fix or regulatory targets
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding Submitted 3 days before the
deadline
4 Very satisfactory Submitted on the deadline
2 Satisfactory Submitted after the deadline

10. Rating scale for timeliness
C.2 . for non regulatory targets
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding Submitted 3 days before the
deadline
4 Very satisfactory Submitted on the deadline
2 Satisfactory Submitted after the deadline

11. D. Rating scale for quality
D.1. for reports, letters, memoranda, and IEC development
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding No revisions
4 Very satisfactory 1 revision
3 Satisfactory 2 revisions
2 Unsatisfactory 3 revisions
1 Poor 4 and above revisions

12. D. Rating scale for quality
D.2. for evaluation completeness of documents
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding 100% accurate in checking of requirements
3 Satisfactory Once returned due to inaccurate checking of
documents
1 Poor Twice returned

13. D. Rating scale for quality
D.3. for evaluation of documents as to substance and accuracy
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding Evaluation approved with no corrections to
findings or recommendations
3 Satisfactory Evaluation approved with 2 corrections
1 Poor Evaluation approved with more than 2
corrections

14. D. Rating scale for quality
D.4. for evaluation of TAS rendered registration process by clients and
training assessment
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding No rating below good or better
3 Satisfactory Rating received is fair
1 Poor Poor/unsatisfactory rating

15. D. Rating scale for quality
D.5. for data accuracy
Numerical Adjectival Description
5 Outstanding 100% accurate data
3 Satisfactory Rating 10% standard degree of error
1 Poor More than 10% degree of error

16. Thank you!

17. Reference:
https://www.slideshare.net/coopjbb1/cda-strategic-
performance-management-system-revised