From Performance Evaluation to Procurement Decision-Making: Institutionalizing Constructors’ Performance Information for Agricultural and Fisheries Infrastructure Accountability in the Philippines

This study examined the perceived awareness, usefulness, reliability, and institutionalization of the Constructors’ Performance Evaluation System (CPES) among personnel involved in agricultural and fisheries infrastructure in selected Department of Agriculture Regional Field Offices (DA RFOs) in the Philippines. A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted with 45 respondents, consisting of three directly involved representatives in CPES implementation from each of the 15 DA RFOs. The 28-item questionnaire utilized in the study covered Awareness, Usefulness, Reliability, and Institutionalization, respectively. The expert content validation was completed before pilot testing. Three validators assessed the items using Item–Objective Congruence (IOC), 26 items obtained IOC=1.00 and two items (U9 and R17) obtained IOC=0.67, producing an overall mean item-level IOC of 0.98. A separate pilot test with 15 respondents yielded an overall Cronbach’s alpha of .964. In the final survey, Awareness (M=4.80), Usefulness (M=4.80), Reliability (M=4.83), and Institutionalization (M=4.53) were all interpreted as Very High with an overall mean of 4.73. The most frequently selected areas for strengthening were integration of CPES information into appropriate procurement processes (57.8%), strengthening CPES implementation procedures (48.9%), and strengthening institutional policies on retention and use of constructor-performance information (35.6%). The findings describe strong perceived value and credibility of CPES information and a high level of perceived institutionalization, while identifying administrative mechanisms that respondents frequently selected for further strengthening of CPES. The study is descriptive and does not establish causal effects on procurement or project outcomes.

Constructors’ Performance Evaluation System; performance information; public procurement; infrastructure accountability; development administration; agricultural and fisheries infrastructure; Philippines

1. Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Construction Industry Authority of the Philippines. (n.d.). Constructors’ Performance Evaluation System (CPES). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Gizachew, M. (2026). Conceptualizations of Reliability, Validity, Credibility, and Trustworthiness in Quantitative and Qualitative Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Government Procurement Policy Board. (2025). GPPB Resolution No. 02-2025: Approving the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 12009, otherwise known as the New Government Procurement Act, and approving the formulation of related procurement guidelines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Government Procurement Policy Board–Technical Support Office. (2011). Constructors’ Performance Evaluation System (CPES): Implementing guidelines for infrastructure projects. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Kroll, A. (2015a). Drivers of performance information use: Systematic literature review and directions for future research. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 459–486. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Kroll, A. (2015b). Explaining the use of performance information by public managers: A planned-behavior approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(2), 201–215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Kroll, A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2015). Does training matter? Evidence from performance management reforms. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 411–420. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Moynihan, D. P., & Lavertu, S. (2012). Does involvement in performance management routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 592–602. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. OECD. (2015). Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. OECD. (2023). Public procurement performance: A framework for measuring efficiency, compliance and strategic goals. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 36. https://doi.org/10.1787/0dde73f4-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Republic of the Philippines. (2013). Republic Act No. 10601: Agricultural and Fisheries Mechanization Act. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Republic of the Philippines. (2024). Republic Act No. 12009: New Government Procurement Act. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Republic of the Philippines. (2025). Implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 12009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Turner, M., & Hulme, D. (1997). Governance, administration and development: Making the state work. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Weidner, E. W. (Ed.). (1970). Development administration in Asia. Duke University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. World Bank. (2020). Infrastructure governance assessment framework. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Yetano, A. (2013). What drives the institutionalization of performance measurement and management in local government? Public Performance & Management Review, 37(1), 59–86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Decadal Overview of Welfare Schemes in Telangana (2014–2024)
• Ubuntu and the Missed Development Goals in the Global South: Rethinking MDGs and SDGs through an African Philosophical Lens
• Exploring the Factors of Obesity: Insights from Johor State Civil Servants
• Navigating the Nexus: Challenges Faced by Part-Time Postgraduate Government Employees in Malaysia
• The Lived Experiences of Skilled Filipino Women Immigrants in Denmark