LGU

Assessor
Assessment Date

LRMPAT Consolidation Tool

Indicators
Capacity Element 1: Organizational Structure, Roles and Responsibilities

Capacity Element 2: Knowledge and Skills for Local Road Management

Capacity Element 3: Information and Resources for Local Road Management

Capacity Element 4: Policies and Plans

Capacity Element 5: Local Road Management Processes

Performance Element 1: Effectiveness of Local Road Management

Performance Element 2: Efficiency of Local Road Management

T Consolidation Tool

Indicators
y Element 1: Organizational Structure, Roles and Responsibilities
Indicator 1: Functionality of an inter-office road management structure for roads management.
y Element 2: Knowledge and Skills for Local Road Management
Indicator 2: Complement of LGU staff with knowledge and skills in road management
y Element 3: Information and Resources for Local Road Management
Indicator 3: Availability of road management-related information
Indicator 4: Annual budget for road maintenance
Indicator 5: Annual budget for road rehabilitation
y Element 4: Policies and Plans
Indicator 6: Level of correspondence between local road management plan and annual road works
Indicator 7: Presence of safety, asset care, climate resilience, and SDG provisions in the local
road management plan
y Element 5: Local Road Management Processes
Indicator 8: Level of participation in local road processes
Indicator 9: Availability of detailed engineering designs for road rehabilitation projects
Indicator 10: Level of compliance with procurement laws
Indicator 11: Functionality of internal audit on local roads
Indicator 12: Presence of constructor performance evalution system
Indicator 13: Regularity of conduct of monitoring activities on local road projects
Subtotal for Capacity Elements
mance Element 1: Effectiveness of Local Road Management
Indicator 14: Percentage of total length of local roads maintained and in fair to good condition
Indicator 15: Change in the total length of local roads in fair to good condition compared to previous
year
mance Element 2: Efficiency of Local Road Management
Indicator 16: Completion rates of local road projects scheduled for the year
Subtotal for Performance Elements
TOTALS

Percantage rating for CAPACITY

Percantage rating for PERFORMANCE
Overall Percentage Rating
Fill-up B1 with the name of the LGU
Fill-up B2 with the name of the assessor
Fill-up B3 with the date of assessment

Raw Score Weight Final Score

0 1 0

0 1 0

0 2 0
#DIV/0! 3 #DIV/0!
0 3 0

#DIV/0! 1 #DIV/0!

0 1 0

0 1 0
#DIV/0! 1 #DIV/0!
-1 1 -1
0 1 0
0 1 0
#DIV/0! 1 #DIV/0!
18 #DIV/0!

#DIV/0! 8 #DIV/0!

#DIV/0! 8 #DIV/0!

#DIV/0! 6 #DIV/0!
22 #DIV/0!
40 #DIV/0!

#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Capacity Element 1: Organizational Structure, Roles and Responsibilities

Indicator 1: Functionality of an inter-office road management structure for roads management.

Question Response
1.1 Is there a local road management structure?
1.1.a Does the engineering office consult other offices regard
1.2 Is the road management structure formalized?
1.3 Is the road management structure inter-office?
1.4 Is the road management structure functioning?

Score 0

Do not modify the values in the table below

1.1
Structure
1
1
1
2
2
1
Notes/Annotations:
Please indicate name of the structure, if any, and composition.

To get the ratings the following serve as guide:

If item 1.1 to 1.4 are all answered yes: score is 4
If only items 1.1, 1.3. and 1.4 are all answered yes: score is 3
If only items 1.1 to 1.3 are all answered Yes: score is 2
If item 1.1 is No, but item 1.1.a is Yes: score is 1
If item 1.1 is No, and item 1.1.a is also No: score is 0
If only items 1.1 and 1.4 are answered Yes: score is 0
 pw: lrmpat2020

e for roads management.

If the response to item 1.1 is 1, fill up the response for item 1.1.a with 0.

o not modify the values in the table below.

1.1.a 1.2 1.3 1.4
consult other off Formalized Inter-Office Functioning Result
0 1 1 1 4
0 2 1 1 3
0 1 1 2 2
1 0 0 0 1
2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
Capacity Element 2: Knowledge and skills for local road management

Indicator 2: Complement of LGU staff with knowledge and skills in road management
2.1
The LGU has staff with knowledge and Response
skills in the following:
1. Facilitating road planning
2. Prepareing road design
3. Road contract management
4. Construction supervision
5. Maintenance management
6. Road monitoring and evaluation
7. Environmental management
8. Road asset management

Note: if an item in 2.1 has a value of 2, the same item in 2.2 should also have a 2

Notes/Annotations:
 pw: lrmpat2020

in road management
2.2
The LGU staff use their knowledge and Response
skills in the following: 2.1 values 2.1 results
1. Facilitating road planning all 0
2. Prepareing road design at least 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 0
3. Road contract management at least 2, 3, 4, 5 0
4. Construction supervision at least 2, 4, 5 0
5. Maintenance management not 2, 4, 5 0
6. Road monitoring and evaluation
7. Environmental management
8. Road asset management

Score 0

ame item in 2.2 should also have a 2

 2.2 values 2.2 results score
all 0 4 0
at least 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 0 3 0
at least 2, 3, 4, 5 0 2 0
at least 2, 4, 5 0 1 0
not 2, 4, 5 0 0 0
0
Capacity Element 3: Information and resources for local road management

Please indicate who manages these information.

Capacity Element 3: Information and resources for local road management

Indicator 3: Availability of road management-related information

The LGU has the following road management-related information

a. Updated List of road sections with description of road condition, surface type (concrete, asphalt, gravel, earth), width and l
b. Information on the number and type of culverts per road section
c. Information on the number and type of bridges
d. Local road asset valuation based on COA Circular 2015-008
e. GIS-based local road network map showing road network with topographic information and overlays on hazard, production
f. Update traffic counts
g. Updated traffic accident records
h. Updated list of roads with road right of way (RROW) issues
i. Updated inventory of installed road safety devices

Notes/Annotations:
Please indicate who manages these information.

To get the ratings for 3.1 the following serve as guide:

Score is 4 if all items are selected.
Score is 3 if only items 1 to 7 are selected.
Score is 2 if only items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are selected.
Score is 1 if only items 1, 3, and 6 are selected.
Score is 0 if no item is selected.
pw: lrmpat2020

Response Items selected Result

1 All 0
2 Only 1 to 7 0
3 Only 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 0
4 Only 1, 3, 6 0
5 None 0
6 0
7
8
9

0
Capacity Element 3: Information and resources for local road management

Indicator 4: Annual budget for road maintenance

Please fill up the table that follows with information on length of roads in good and fair condition for t

Year Total Length Ideal Budget (EMK) Ideal Budget (x 100,000)

2022 Current Year -
2021 Prior Year -
2020 Two Years Prior -

Notes/Annotations:

Score is 4 if percentage is 100 or more.

Score is 3 if percentage is at least 80.
Score is 2 if percentage is at least 60.
Score is 1 if percentage is at least 50.
Score is 0 if percentage is below 50.
 pw: lrmpat2020

s in good and fair condition for the last three years

Actual Budget %
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Average #DIV/0!

Score #DIV/0!
Capacity Element 3: Information and resources for local road management

Indicator 5: Annual budget for road rehabilitation

Please fill up the table that follows with information on length of local core roads for the last three yea

For Core Roads in Gravel

Total Length of Core Thickness of Road in Cost of rehabilitation

Year Roads (a) mm based on thickness

2022 Current Year 150.00 4,572,000.00

2021 Prior Year 150.00 4,572,000.00
2020 Two Years Prior 150.00 4,572,000.00

For Core Roads in Asphalt

Total Length of Core Thickness of Road in Cost of rehabilitation

Year
Roads mm based on thickness

2022 Current Year 50.00 6,591,000.00

2021 Prior Year 50.00 6,591,000.00
2020 Two Years Prior 50.00 6,591,000.00

For Core Roads in PCCP

Year Total Length of Core Thickness of Road in Cost of rehabilitation

Roads (a) mm based on thickness

2022 Current Year 230.00 9,847,000.00

2021 Prior Year 200.00 9,106,000.00
2020 Two Years Prior 150.00 7,487,000.00

Average of all surfaces

Surface Three-year average
Gravel
Asphalt
PCCP
Average 0
Score 0

Notes/Annotations:
Please indicate total length of core roads for rehabilitation in the indicated year.

Score is 4 if percentage is 100 or more.

Score is 3 if percentage is at least 80.
Score is 2 if percentage is at least 60.
Score is 1 if percentage is at least 40.
Score is 0 if percentage is at least 20.
 pw: lrmpat2020

e roads for the last three years

Actual Budget for Road

Ideal (Required) Budget Rehabilitation based on % of Budget against Requirement
Appropriation Ordinance
-
-
-
Average

Score for Gravel only 0

Actual Budget for Road

Ideal (Required) Budget Rehabilitation based on % of Budget against Requirement
Appropriation Ordinance
-
-
-
Average

Score for Asphalt only 0

Actual Budget for Road

Ideal (Required) Budget Rehabilitation based on % of Budget against Requirement
Appropriation Ordinance
- 970,000,000.00
- 810,000,000.00
- 590,000,000.00
Average

Sore for PCCP only 0

Capacity Element 4: Policies and Plans

Indicator 6: Level of correspondence between local road management plan and annual road works

Question Response
6.1 Does the LGU have a local road management plan?

6.2 If your answer to item 6.1 is Yes, fill up tables that follow with information on local road works for the

2022 Road works for Current Year Response

Total Number of 1 0
Total Number of Road Projects for the year 0
 % of local road projects programmed for the year taken from the local road #DIV/0!
management plan

2021 Road works for Prior Year Response

Total Number of 1 0
Total Number of Road Projects for the year 0

% of local road projects programmed for the year taken from the local road #DIV/0!
management plan

2020 Road works for Two Years Prior Response

Total Number of 1 0
Total Number of Road Projects for the year 0

% of local road projects programmed for the year taken from the local road
management plan #DIV/0!

Summary Table:

Current Year

% of local road projects programmed for the year taken from the local road #DIV/0!
management plan
Notes/Annotations:
What is the name of the document used as basis for the proposed road projects?

Score is 4 if percentage is 100.

Score is 3 if percentage is at least 80.
Score is 2 if percentage is at least 60.
Score is 1 if percentage is at least 50.
Score is 0 if percentage is below 50
 pw: lrmpat2020

n local road works for the past three years

Additional rows should be inserted above this row.

Additional rows should be inserted above this row.
Additional rows should be inserted above this row.

Average Of three
Prior Year Two Years Prior
Columns

#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Score #DIV/0!
Capacity Element 4: Policies and Plans

Indicator 7: Presence of safety, asset care, climate resilience, and SDG provisions in the local road management

7.1 The local road management plan contains provisions for the items enumerated in the table that fo

Provisions Response
a. Road safety
b. Local road asset management
c. Climate resilience
d. Provision on how local roads can help attain the SDGs

Score 0

Notes/Annotations:
SDGs are Sustainable Development Goals.

Score is 4 if all items are selected.

Score is 3 if at least three of the items are selected.
Score is 2 if at least two of the items are selected.
Score is 1 if only one item is selected.
Score is 0 if none of the items is selected.
 pw: lrmpat2020

G provisions in the local road management plan

e items enumerated in the table that follows:

Capacity Element 5: Local road management processes

Indicator 8: Level of participation in local road planning and implementation processes

8.1 Civil society groups, community associations, and other stakeholders outside government participate in th

Processes Response
a. Defining the prioritization criteria for road project selection
b. Road planning processes
c. Road monitoring
d. Road maintenance

Are stakeholders outside government consulted in any of

the activities related to LRM

Score 0

Notes/Annotations:

Score is 4 if all items are selected.

Score is 3 if only items 1, 2, and 3 are selected.
Score is 2 if only items 1 and 2 are selected.
Score is 1 if none of the items is selected but stakeholders outside government are consulted in any of the activities rela
Score is 0 if none of the items is selected and stakeholders outside government are not involved in any LRM function.
 pw: lrmpat2020

government participate in the processes enumerated in the table that follows:

lted in any of the activities related to LRM.

nvolved in any LRM function.
Capacity Element 5: Local road management processes

Indicator 9: Availability of detailed engineering designs for road rehabilitation projects

Please fill up the table that follows with information on road rehabilitation projects for the current yea

Roads for rehabilitation Engineering design

2022

Total (Number of road projects with all the planning elements)

Total Number of road projects

Percentage of road projects with all planning elements as against

total road projects

Notes/Annotations:
Score is 4 if percentage is 100.
Score is 3 if percentage is at least 90.
Score is 2 if percentage is at least 80.
Score is 1 if percentage is at least 70.
Score is 0 if percentage is below 70.
 pw: lrmpat2020

habilitation projects

itation projects for the current year

Program of Environmental
works management plans Detailed estimates Overall Rating

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 Additional rows should be inserted above this

#DIV/0!

Score #DIV/0!
hould be inserted above this row.
Capacity Element 5: Local road management processes

Indicator 10: Level of compliance with procurement laws

Question Response
10.1 Has the LGU performed audit of compliance and
procurement laws?

10.2 Fill in the rating column with the LGU's average rating on each pillar, if 10.1 is 1
Pillar Rating

a. Compliance with the Legislative and Regulatory Framework

b. Agency Institutional Framework and Management Capacity
c. Procurement Operations and Market Practices
d. Integrity and Transparency of the Agency Procurement System

Score -1

Notes/Annotations:
10.2 is based on the 2022 APCPI results submitted to GPPB.

Score is 4 if all pillars have very satisfactory (3) rating

Score is 3 if the lowest of the ratings is satisfactory (2)
Score is 2 if the lowest of the ratings is acceptable (1)
Score is 1 if the lowest of the ratings is poor (0) all 0s will give 1?
Score is 0 if answer to 10.1 is No
pw: lrmpat2020
Capacity Element 5: Local road management processes

Indicator 11: Functionality of internal audit on local roads

Question Response

11.1 Does the LGU have an internal audit unit?

11.2 Is the internal audit unit formally

established by EO or local ordinance?

11.2 Fill in the response columns with appropriate values if 11.1 is 1

2020 2021 2022
Does the LGU perform Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Road-related audit?
Compliance Monitoring (CM)?
Non-road related audit?

Score 0

Notes/Annotations:
Please indicate the EO.

Score is 4 if response is Yes in road-related audit in all three years and compliance monitoring done in every roa
Score is 3 if there is at least two Yes responses in road-related audit in the past three years and compliance mo
Score is 2 if there is at least one Yes response in road-related audit in all three years and compliance monitorin
Score is also 2 if there is road-related audit in all 3 years, but no compliance monitoring in all three
Score is 1 if there is no Yes response in road-related audit in all three years, but has yes in non-road audit.
Score is 0 if there was no audit at all
Score is 0 if response in 11.1 is No
 pw: lrmpat2020

Condition result score

RRA in 3 yrs and CM done on all 0 4
at least 2 yes in RRA and CM on each 0 3
at least 1 yes in RRA and CM on such 0 2
has RRA in 3 yrs, but no CM on all 0 2
no yes in RRA, has yes in non-road 0 1
no audit at all 0 0

toring done in every road-related audit.

ars and compliance monitoring is done on such audits.
d compliance monitoring is done on such audit.

in non-road audit.
Capacity Element 5: Local road management processes

Indicator 12: Level of functionality of a constructor performance evaluation system

12.1. Does the LGU have a CPES unit that is accredited by PDCB?

Fill in the response column with the appropriate response

Question Response
Does the LGU have a CPES unit? 1
Is the CPES unit accredited by PDCB 2

12.2. Is evaluation conducted using the Contractor Evaluation System, at least once during the project
Contracts related to roads and bridges Response

Summary
Total number of contracts (a) 0
Total number of Yes responses (b) 0
Percentage of evaluation conducted (b/a*100) #DIV/0!

Score 0

Notes/Annotations:
Please indicate who conducted the CPES on the projects in 12.2
Score is 4 if the percentage of evaluation conducted is 100
Score is 3 if the percentage of evaluation conducted is at least 80
Score is 2 if the percentage of evaluation conducted is at least 60
Score is 1 if the percentage of evaluation conducted is at least 50
Score is 0 if the percentage of evaluation conducted is below 50
Score is 0 if there is a CPES unit, but not accredited
Score is 0 if there is no CPES unit.
 pw: lrmpat2020

at least once during the project’s lifetime

Additional rows should be inserted above this row.

Capacity Element 5: Local road management processes

Indicator 13: Regularity of the conduct of monitoring activities on local road projects

13.1. Fill in the table that follows with information on the conduct of local project monitoring

Monitoring With Civil

Projects of the immediate preceding year
Conducted (a) Society (b)
2021

Summary
Total number of projects (d) 0
Total number of projects with all Yes on (a, b, and c) --- (e) 0
Percentage of projects monitored with civil society
participation and results reported to LRM body #DIV/0!
(e/d*100)

Score #DIV/0!

Notes/Annotations:
Score is 4 if the percentage of projects monitored is 100
Score is 3 if the percentage of projects monitored is at least 80
Score is 2 if the percentage of projects monitored is at least 60
Score is 1 if the percentage of projects monitored is at least 50
Score is 0 if the percentage of projects monitored is below 50
 pw: lrmpat2020

roject monitoring

Results
Reported (c)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 Additional rows should be inserted about this row
Performance Element 1: Effectiveness of local road management

Indicator 14: Percentage of total length of local roads maintained and in fair to good condition

Please fill up the table that follows with information on local roads inventory for the current year.

Question Response
12.1 Is there a local road inventory for the year?

12.2
Total Length of Local Length in fair to good condition Percentage of local roads in fair to
Roads in Km (current year) good condition
#DIV/0!

Score #DIV/0!

Notes/Annotations:

Score is 4 if percentage is 100.

Score is 3 if percentage is at least 80.
Score is 2 if percentage is at least 60.
Score is 1 if percentage is at least 50.
Score is 0 if percentage is below 50.
Score is 0 if there is no inventory for the year
 pw: lrmpat2020

d condition

for the current year.

Performance Element 1: Effectiveness of local road management

Indicator 15: Change in the total length of local roads in fair to good condition compared to previous year

Please fill up the table that follows with information on local roads inventory for the current and previ

Current Year Previous Year

Percentage of local roads in Total Length of Local Length in fair to good

fair to good condition Roads in Km condition (previous year)
(a) (b) (c)

#DIV/0!

Scoring guide
Per

% of roads in fair to good condition Bracket 1

% inc points

<=50% 100 4

51 to 60 >40 4

61 to 70 >30 4

71 to 80 >20 4

81 to 95 >10 4

96 to 100 A consistent score within this bracket will get 4 points

Look up for 50 and below

-10000 0
25 1
50 2
75 3
100 4

Look up table for 51 to 60

-10000 0
6 1
15 2
25 3
40 4

Look up table for 61 to 70

 -100 0
5 1
11 2
20 3
30 4

Look up table for 71 to 80

-100 0
4 1
9 2
15 3
20 4

Look up table for 81 to 95

-100 0
3 1
5 2
7 3
10 4

Look up table for 96 to 100

-100 0
0 4

Notes/Annotations:
 pw: lrmpat2020

ition compared to previous year

nventory for the current and previous year.

Year

Percentage of local roads Difference/Change Percent of Change

in fair to good condition (e)
(d)

#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Score #DIV/0!

Percentage increase in total length of roads in fair to good condition in current year against previous year

Bracket 2 Bracket 3 Bracket 4

% inc points % inc points % inc

75-99 3 50-74 2 25-49

25-39 3 15-24 2 6-14

20-29 3 11-20 2 5-10

15-19 3 9-14 2 4-8

7-9 3 5-6 2 3-4

ious year

Bracket 4 Bracket 5 Bracket 5

points % inc points % inc points

1 <25 0 negative 0

1 <6 0 negative 0

1 <5 0 negative 0

1 <4 0 negative 0

1 <3 0 negative 0

negative 0
Performance Element 2: Efficiency of local road management

Indicator 16: Completion rates of local road projects scheduled for the year

Please fill up the table that follows with information on local roads projects for the current year.

Actual Completion
Local Road Projects Target Completion Date Date
2022

Total Number of Road Projects that are completed wit

Total Num
Percentage of road projects completed with
Notes/Annotations:

Score is 4 if percentage is 100.

Score is 3 if percentage is at least 80.
Score is 2 if percentage is at least 70.
Score is 1 if percentage is at least 60.
Score is 0 if percentage is below 60.
 pw: lrmpat2020

ojects for the current year.

Completed within Time

Budget Actual Cost Frame Competed within Budget

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Road Projects that are completed within budget and within timeframe

Total Number of road projects for the year

entage of road projects completed within time frame and within budget
Score
within Budget
and Time
Frame
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 Additional rows should be inserted above this row.
0

0
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!