Project monitoring
26 Feb. 2008

.
At the 3rd meeting of the Pro-Performance steering Committee, a reconstituted committee under Executive Order 564-A was launched.


To further broaden the private sector’s role in monitoring government projects, the chairmanship of the committee was given to a private sector representative, with the Director General of the Presidential Management Staff as vice chairman. This, in addition to the non-government composition of the steering Committee, which composed of representatives of NGO’s, Business Youth Sectors, Media, Church/Religious sector, and International Development Organizations.

It is perhaps worth noting that while many labor under the impression that projects are being implemented willynilly with no oversight, performance tracking dates back to the late 80’s, under the Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System, reconfigured into the Infrastructure Monitoring Task Force Projects Performance Tracking System (Pro-performance System) under EO 564 issued in August, 2006.

The Pro-performance System is composed mainly of the Steering Committee and Independent Support Groups, the latter to be composed of the Procurement Transparency Group and other advocacy groups.

Implementing agencies and the Super Regional Champions are also part of the monitoring infrastructure.

The first function of PPS is to fast track project implementation. Towards this end, the PPS conducts regular technical and/or high-level Steering Committee meetings and undertakes project visits to monitor the status of the different infrastructure projects. In the process, bottlenecks, if any, are cleared to fast track project implementation.

The second function of PPS is to promote transparency in project implementation, zeroing in on priority projects with transparency issues and holding meetings to address these issues. PPS also conducts special investigations on projects with such issues and recommend appropriate action on problematic projects, including the filing of necessary reports with the appropriate agencies.

The third core function of the PPS is to look into cost overruns, assess the probable reason and recommend appropriate action.

Lastly, the fourth core function of the PPS is to increase public awareness of the government’s priority programs and projects, and for this purpose a Pro-Performance Advocacy Group (Pro-PAG) has been created.

The PPS, as of January this year monitored and evaluated the implementation of 151 priority infrastructure projects of the President, covering: 32 bridges; 10 railways; 32 airports; 27 seaports; 26 power and electrification plants; 14 agri productivity projects that include major and small irrigations, farm-to-market roads, flood control projects, and cold chains; and, eight (8) social infrastructure projects that include water supply, hospitals, sanitary landfills, housing, and sanitation projects.

More than just monitoring as to timeliness and cost, the PPS mandate includes a closer look into transparency, so that the chances of irregularities are effectively obviated or minimized.

In fact, in a recent Administrative Order (AO 210, S. 2007), the President underscored this with the directive for PPS to "undertake regular consultation with foreign funding agencies to minimize, uncover and address anomalies in foreign-funded projects."

While concern for transparency in every public-funded project is always a legitimate concern, I am pleased to note that even before the question is raised, we already have the answer. Or at least the lead to one.

[TOP] [HOME]