Guide IPCR craftingv2

GUIDE TO CRAFTING INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AND
REVIEW (IPCR)
FOR OFFICIALS
I. BACKGROUND
In 2012, the Civil Service Commission issued Memorandum Circular No. 06 or the
Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS) which focused on the strategic
alignment between the organization’s goals, operations of the units and cascading
these to all individuals. Following these, the Department had separated office
targets/performance from the Official or Head of Office, Bureau, Service (HOBS)
leading the office targets/accomplishments.
The Performance Evaluation System for Third Level Officials or the adoption of
Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System (CESPES) mandated by
the Career Executive Service Board (CESB), prescribed rating forms must be duly
accomplished and submitted to the CESB by first quarter of the succeeding year of
the rating period. Failing which, officials will not have a performance rating on record.
Thus, the Individual Performance Contract and Review (PCR) form was designed to
measure performance of Officials based on the targets and indicators approved
during the Performance Planning/Contracting as indicated in their Individual
Performance Contract (IPC).
II.
OBJECTIVES
1. Assess the performance/ value added contribution of the Officials in moving their
respective Office targets.
2. Determine the actual accomplishments of the Officials vis­a vis their committed
targets for the rating period.
III. COVERAGE AND APPROVING AUTHORITY
This guide covers all personnel who are incumbents of the following positions including
those designated to act in that capacity (e.g. Officer­in­Charge):
­ Director III (e.g. Assistant Bureau Director, Assistant Regional Director, Deputy
Project Manager)
­ Director IV (e.g. Bureau/Service Director, Regional Director, National Project
Manager)
­ Assistant Secretary or Undersecretary
The IPCR of Official also referred to as Ratee shall be approved by the following
approving authority respectively:
Official /Ratee
Recommending Approving / Rater
(including OICs)
Undersecretaries Secretary
Assistant Secretaries Cluster Head/
Secretary
Undersecretary
Regional Directors Secretary
Page 1 of 5

Heads of Office/ Bureau/
Service/ Attached Agency
(OBSA)
Director III or Assistant
Directors
Cluster Head/
Undersecretary
Secretary
HOBS (Director IV)
IV. SECTIONS AND WEIGHT ALLOCATION FOR OFFICIAL’S IPCR
The IPCR Form (Annex 1) is tools used rate/assess the targets committed by the
Official during the performance planning stage for the rating period.
1. Following IPC weight allocation, the IPCR has the following weight allocation per
section depending on the type of office (as per memorandum from the Secretary
dated 28 January 2014):
Areas/ Sections FOs Strategic
Offices
Support
Offices
EXECOM
Offices
Strategic Priorities 50% 50% 35% 35%
Core functions of Official 35% 35% 50% 35%
Leadership and Managerial 15% 15% 15% 30%
Total 100%
2. Weight assignments for each section vary according to where the office of the official
is categorized:
a. Field Offices ­ are Offices in regions directly implementing DSWD
programs/operations.
b. Strategic Offices ­ are Offices identified as strategic because they have direct
impact to the achievement of Strategic Goals (SG) and Major Final Outputs
(MFO). They are NHTO, PANTAWID, NCDDP, PSB, Convergence Management
Office, DRRROO, SLP, STB, PDPB, RMEO, SB, CBB, and OSM.
c. Support Offices ­ are Offices that have no immediate impact to the SGs and
MFOs but are critical to the achievement of the SGs and MFOs. They do
administrative/logistics such as TAU, HRDB, SMS, IAS, ICTMS, DLLO, FMS, AS,
PS, LS, and attached agencies.
d. Executive Offices ­ are primarily the Offices of the ExeCom that provide overall
cluster/group direction and oversight. They are OSec, OUSGASSG,
OASGASSG, OUSIDG, OASIDG, OUSPPG, OASPPG, OUSOPG, OASOPG
Protective, OASOPG Support, OASOPG Promotive, and OASOSG.
V. STEPS IN ACCOMPLISHNG THE IPCR
Step 1. Filling­up the Columns of the
Indicators
KRA and the Performance
1.A On Strategic Priorities
A. For Cluster Heads & Heads of Office/Bureaus/Service:
Page 2 of 5

Please leave blank. The rating for this section will be derived from the
score/rating in the OPCR.
B. For Asst. Secretaries , Asst. Directors, or Officials not heading an OBS 1 :
From the approved IPC, copy the approved targets and indicators of
this section into the IPCR form.
1.B. On Core Functions of HOBS
From the approved IPC, copy the targets and indicators of this section into
the IPCR form.
1C.. Leadership and Managerial Competencies.
Please leave blank. The score/rating for this section will be based on the
Competency Assessment Tool (CAT). The tool will be used to gauge how officials
practice DSWD’s Core, Leadership and Managerial Competencies.
Step 2. Filling­up the “Actual Accomplishments” Column
Specify your actual accomplishments for each of the targets in
consideration of the performance indicators (Qn, Ql and T) set.
The accomplishments should be stated as specific as possible since
this shall primarily serve as the basis for your performance rating for
that certain target: the actual quantity, how well your output has been
accomplished and the date of submission/accomplishment should be
indicated in this column. The quantity, quality and timeliness of
accomplishments should be reflected.
Moreover, if the accomplishment did not meet/fell short of expected
deliverable (i.e., only 4 out 5 reports were made), justifications may be
placed in this section to guide the Superior Rater in giving the final
rating.
Step 3. Rating the Performance
In giving rating for the Quantity, Quality and Time (Qn,Ql,T), kindly
refer to the 1 ­5 Rating guide (Annex 2).
1
Per Memorandum dated August 28, 2014 signed by the Undersecretary for Institutional
Development Group (IDG), Angelita Gregorio­Medel, the above­mentioned Officials shall specify
their specific contribution/leadership role in moving the targets on SP as indicated in the approved
OPC of their OBS.
Page 3 of 5

For some IPC targets which were not acted upon/no actions were
needed for the year due to some uncontrollable factors, the key result
shall not be rated and will not form part of the total average rating.
Additionally, to uphold the approved IPC, only the approved indicators
shall be rated based on the actual accomplishments indicated. To
illustrate, if in the approved IPC, only the Qn and Ql performance
indicators were specified, only the Qn and the Ql shall be given rating.
However, the Superior Rater may give rating on the lacking indicator/s
based on the Means of Verification (MOVs) provided by the Ratee.
Means of verification (MOV) is a documentary evidence that will
support claims that an output or service was accomplished. It is a proof
that objectives were met and verifies success of performance indicator.
MOVs are sources of data such as reports, statistics, observation,
monitoring, etc.
Step 4. Computing the Final Rating.
Step 1: Determine the average rating of each key result/target.
Average Rating = Quantity + Quality + Time 2
3
Step 2: Compute the weighted average of each Section. This could done
by getting the total average rating of the all the averages of the targets
under each section. When the total average rating for that certain IPCR
section has been obtained, multiply it according to its weight allocation.
Weighted Rating = Total Average rating x Weight % of Section
Step 3: For the final IPCR rating, add all the weighted average ratings.
Step 4: In determining the corresponding adjectival rating of the obtained
score, please refer to the Section III of the 1­ 5 Rating Guide.
2
For targets that has only 2 performance indicators (Qn & Ql), the divisor shall by 2
Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AND REVIEW
(Name of Office/Bureau/Service)
CY ____
I, ________________________, commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets and indicators for my duties.
KEY RESULT AREA/
Program, Activity, Project/
Deliverable
I. Strategic Priorities ( __ %)
Success/ Performance
Indicators/Measures
(Quantity, Quality,
Time)
Weight
Actual Accomplishment
Rating
Qn Ql T Ave.
Remarks/Coaching
II. KRAs/CORE FUNCTIONS of the HOBS ( ___ %)
III. Leadership and Managerial Competencies (15%)
Please leave blank. Performance rating will be based on the Competency Assessment Tool [CAT])
Final Average Rating
Adjectival Rating
Prepared by:
Concurred by:
(Name of Ratee) (Name of Coach) (Name of Director/HOBS)
(Position) (Position) (Position)
Date:_________ Date:_________ Date:___
Page 6 of 5