Procurement and Financial Performance of Selected National Government Agencies in Camarines Norte

This study obtained information regarding the level of procurement and financial performance among selected National Government Agencies (NGA’s) in Camarines Norte. Specifically, the following objectives were addressed: 1) What is the profile of the respondents in terms of: position, years of experience in procurement, and trainings attended on procurement?; 2) What is the perceived level of procurement performance of the National Government Agencies (NGAs) on RA 9184 or Government Procurement Reform Act in terms of legislative and regulatory framework based on RA 9184, institutional framework and management capacity, procurement operations and management practices, and integrity and transparency of the management procurement system?; 3) Is there a significant relationship between the respondents’ profile and their perceived level of procurement performance of NGAs under RA 9184?; 4) What is the financial performance of the selected NGAs in terms of their budget utilization rate?; 5) What are the internal and external factors affecting the procurement performance of the selected NGAs as perceived by the respondents?; and 6) What intervention plan may be recommended to enhance the procurement performance of the selected National Government Agencies in Camarines Norte?
The study used quantitative with descriptive-correlational research design wherein primary data were gathered through a structured survey while secondary data from the NGAs Financial Accountability Reports were also obtained. The statistical tools were utilized in analyzing the data collected; Frequency, percentage and ranking technique to answer the profile of the respondents (SOP 1-2), weighted mean to answer the level of significance (SOP 3), finally, to test the relationship of variables, Somer’s Delta (d), and p-values were applied. There were a total of 45 respondents from three (3) National Government Agencies who participated in the study.
Based on the data gathered, the following are the findings of the study:
1) Out of the 45 respondents, the highest number are BAC Members and procurement staff with 11 & 12 respondents respectively, while only two (2) BAC Chairman participated. While majority of the respondents have 1-5 years of experience in procurement, one respondent has 16-20 years of experience. Further, 38 respondents have already attended trainings on RA 9184.
2) The level of procurement performance of the selected National Government Agencies across all four major indicators — (A) Legislative and Regulatory Framework based on RA 9184 (4.77), (B) Institutional Capacity (4.55), (C) Procurement Operations and Management Practices (4.37), and (D) Integrity & Transparency (4.37), obtained a rating of Very Satisfactory to Outstanding level of procurement performance. Indicator A achieving the highest performance rating, while Indicator C and D as the lowest;
3) The relationship between the respondents’ profile and their perceived level of procurement performance of NGAs under RA 9184 across all four indicators (A to D) of procurement performance, obtained no significant relationship. The corresponding p-values, all above 0.05 (0.623–0.831), revealed no significant relationship between training exposure and perceived procurement performance;
4) Only two out of the three selected NGA respondents were able to provide the necessary financial data for the study, with reported Budget Utilization Rates (BUR) of 95% and 60%, respectively.
5) The external factors received sum of ranks 162, slightly higher than that of the internal factors which is 161. This indicates that procurement is more significantly influenced and affected by external issues such as limited suppliers’ competition, price fluctuation and supply shortages.
6) The proposed intervention plan was formulated to address the areas that need improvement based from the results of the study.
Considering the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
1) The respondents occupied various procurement-related roles, indicating that procurement performance was assessed from a broad cross-section of agency functions. Most respondents had 1–5 years of procurement experience, reflecting frequent reassignment and role rotation within NGAs. Respondents generally attended at least one procurement-related training, but the frequency and depth varied;
2) NGAs in Camarines Norte exhibit outstanding compliance with RA 9184 requirements. However, Green Public Procurement remains the weakest aspect due to limited awareness and the absence of practical tools to guide agencies. Further, operations were rated very satisfactory, showing that procurement records, evaluations, and contract management are generally well-executed. However, the complaints mechanism and anti-corruption safeguards are not maximized, indicating areas for enhancement to fully strengthen procurement accountability;
3) There is no significant relationship between respondents’ position, years of experience, and number of trainings attended, and their perceived level of procurement performance across all indicators. This means procurement performance perceptions are consistent regardless of personal or professional background, reflecting the standardized and procedural nature of RA 9184 implementation in NGAs;
4) Only two out of three NGAs provided complete FY 2024 financial data, showing a reasonable BUR; however, the absence of the third NGA data, despite formal requests, demonstrates existing challenges in financial transparency and responsiveness. This aligns with respondents’ perception that certain transparency mechanisms require strengthening.
5) The factors affecting procurement performance dwells on both external and internal. Overall, while internal conditions matter, procurement challenges arise more strongly from external factors; and,
6) Based on the identified gaps, the study concludes that NGAs would benefit from practical and implementable interventions so that the level of procurement and financial performance will be enhanced.
Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations were made: 1) The NGAs may also integrate Green Public Procurement (GPP) into agency processes, ensuring that sustainability requirements are systematically incorporated in PPMPs and technical specifications; 2) NGAs may establish a Procurement Complaints and Feedback Quick-Response Desk with clear procedures for handling inquiries, concerns, and complaints from suppliers, observers, and internal stakeholders. This will ensure that procurement practice and implementation are at highest compliance and effectiveness among all its end-users; 3) The NGAs may formulate a Financial Catch-up Plan to monitor financial performance monitoring as well to accomplish high BUR; 4) The NGAs may conduct Suppliers’ conference or forum to formulate a Suppliers’ Directory for easier communication and access to the market ensuring competition among the available service and goods providers in the locality of Camarines Norte; 5) The NGAs may adopt the Intervention Program formulated by the Researcher so that the level of procurement and financial performance may be enhanced; and 6) For the future researchers, it is recommended to study the factors affecting the procurement performance of NGAs which are not covered in the study

Procurement performance, financial performance

1. A. Books [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 687–732). Consulting Psychologists Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-97625-019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Johnston, M. P. (2017). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619–626. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://www.qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/169 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. McCombes, S. (2023). Descriptive research: Definition, types, methods & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Merriam-Webster. (1999). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. https://www.mheducation.co.uk/spss-survival-manual-9780335249493-emea-group [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8thEdition.) Pearson.https://www.pearson.com/en-gb/subject-catalog/p/research-methods-for-business-students/P200000006316 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Vartanian, T. P. (2011). Secondary data analysis. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/secondary-data-analysis-9780195388817 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Government Manuals, Laws, and Official Guidelines [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Administrative Order No. 17. (2011, July 28). Directing the use of the Procurement ServiceandPhilGEPS.https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2011/07/28/administrative-order-no-17-s-2011/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Commission on Audit. (2019). Government accounting manual (GAM), Volumes I–III. https://www.coa.gov.ph/guidelines/gam/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Commission on Audit. (2021). Executive summary: Camarines Norte. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://coa.gov.ph/download/5244/provinces/71152/camarines-norte-executive-summary2021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Department of Budget and Management. (2020). Public procurement service operational guidelines. https://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php/procurement-service [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). (2019). Philippine Green Public Procurement technical guidelines https://gppb.gov.ph/ .laws_rules/GreenProcurement/DENR-GPP-Guidelines.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Executive Order No. 40. (2001). Consolidating procurement rules and procedures for all national government agencies. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/ 2001/10/08/executive-order-no-40-s-2001/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Government Procurement Policy Board. (2009). Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9184. https://www.gppb.gov.ph /laws_rules/IRR/R9184_IRR.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Government Procurement Policy Board. (2016). Non-CSE green specifications guide. https://www.gppb.gov.ph/laws_rules/GreenProcurement/Non-CSE- [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Green-Specifications.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Government Procurement Policy Board. (2017). Green public procurement roadmap. https://www.gppb.gov.ph/laws_rules/GreenProcurement/GPP- [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Roadmap.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Government Procurement Policy Board. (2017a). Agency procurement compliance and performance indicator system (APCPI). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. https://www.gppb.gov.ph/apcpi/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Government Procurement Policy Board. (2017b). Resolution No. 39-2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. https://www.gppb.gov.ph/issuances/Resolutions/GPPB-Resolution-39-2017.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Government Procurement Policy Board. (2018). Circular No. 07-2018: Guidelines in the recognition of procurement trainings https://www.gppb.gov.ph/. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. issuances/Circulars/GPPB-Circular-07-2018.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Government Procurement Policy Board. (2020). Procurement monitoring report: Compliance of NGAs with RA 9184. https://www.gppb.gov.ph/monitoring/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Government Procurement Policy Board. (2023). Republic Act No. 9184 (updated version). https://www.gppb.gov.ph/laws_rules/RA9184/RA_9184.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Republic Act No. 8792. (2000). Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2000/06/14/republic-act-no-8792/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Republic Act No. 9184. (2003). Government Procurement Reform Act. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2003/01/10/republic-act-no-9184/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Republic Act No. 10633. (2013). General Appropriations Act of 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/12/20/republic-act-no-10633/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Republic Act No. 12009. (2024). New Government Procurement Reform Act. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2024/07/20/republic-act-no-12009/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Electronic Database [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Adjepong, B. K., & Anane, A. (2022). Factors affecting procurement performance in municipal assemblies in Ghana. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 15(3), 261–268. https://wjarr.com/content/ factors-affecting- [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. procurement-performance-municipal-assemblies-ghana [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Al Hashmi, M. H., Khan, M. M., & Ajmal, M. M. (2020). Internal and external factors on sustainable procurement. International Journal of Procurement Management, 13(1), 42–62. https://www.inderscience.com/info/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. inarticle.php?artid=105078 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Alsamarraie, M. M., & Ghazali, F. (2022). Procurement performance in public construction projects. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(14), 2499–2508. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1917362 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Casiano, G., Dela Cruz, J., & Ireneo, R. (2022). Factors affecting suppliers’ refusal to participate in competitive bidding. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 8(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. https://ijaems.com/detail/factors-affecting-suppliers-refusal-to-participate-in-competitive-bidding/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Changalima, I., & Mdee, A. (2022). Procurement skills and procurement performance: Mediating role of planning. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2145723 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Dagohoy, A. M. V., et al. (2023). Level of awareness and challenges on RA 9184 procurement procedures. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(12), 4302–4319. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. https://ijmaberjournal.org/index.php/ijmaber/article/view/1703 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Daniel, E., McMurray, A., & Muenjohn, N. (2022). Sustainable procurement practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(2), 525–548. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05070-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Dela Cruz, M. (2021). Factors affecting procurement delays in Philippine agencies. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 9(2), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v9i2.18427 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Duyan, J. V. (2020). Awareness on RA 9184 among provincial employees. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5, 2522–2533. https://ijels.com/detail/awareness-on-ra-9184-among-provincial-employees/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Gabriel, A., & Castillo, L. (2020). Transparency and accountability in local governments. Public Organization Review, 20. https://link.springer. com/article/10.1007/s11115-020-00478-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Gusmartina, S., Azlina, N., & Julita, J. (2021). Factors influencing budget absorption. AFEBI Accounting Review, 6(1), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. https://journal.afebi.org/index.php/aar/article/view/413 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Innocent, C., Osuizugbo, O. A., & Adenuga, O. (2022). Sustainable procurement in construction. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJBPA-01-2022-0010/full/html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Imasa, D. A., & Campos, K. (2025). Issues in Philippine procurement based on COA reports. Character: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. https://characterjournal.org/issues-in-philippine-procurement-based-on-coa-reports/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Magdaraog, K. S. (2023). Developing procurement systems in public schools. International Journal of Economics, Business and Entrepreneurship Research. https://ijebers.com/article/developing-procurement-systems-public-schools/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Magtalas, A. M. F., et al. (2019). Transparency practices in public bidding. IISTE Journal. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/PPAR/article/view/46873 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Manlapas, O. R., & Mantillas, C. C. (2024). Good governance and procurement reforms. Social Sciences and Development Review, 16(1), 77–103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. https://journals.ateneo.edu/ssdr/article/view/5251 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Masoud, Y. (2023). Impediments to procurement performance. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 12(2), 187–196. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. https://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs/article/view/2402 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Mebrate, Y., & Shumet, K. (2024). Procurement practice and organizational performance. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2314478 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Mendoza, R. (2022). Tenure and perception alignment in procurement systems. Philippine Journal of Governance Studies, 5(1), 22–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. https://pjgs.up.edu.ph/article/tenure-and-perception-alignment/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Navarro, A., & Tanghal, J. (2017). Procurement reforms in the Philippines. PIDS Discussion Paper No. 2017-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1716.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Pysmenna, M., Pohribna, N., & Kalnytska, M. (2019). Public procurement efficiency assessment. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 5(5). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2019-5-5-180-186 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Querijero, N. J. V. B., et al. (2022). Public procurement practices and policies. Journal of Public Affairs and Development, 9(1), 4–22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. https://journals.uplb.edu.ph/index.php/JPAD/article/view/3898 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Quinde, A., & Ferreira, J. (2020). E-procurement and university procurement performance. International Journal of Management and Business Education, 9(1), 26–46. https://ijmbe.org/article/e-procurement-and-university-procurement-performance/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Rivera, J. (2020). Effectiveness of procurement training programs. Asian Journal of Public Procurement, 4(3), 78–92. https://ajppjournal.org/effectiveness-of-procurement-training-programs/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Roque, M. (2023). Awareness of procurement law in the AFP. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts. https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2303456.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Salami, A., & Uyarra, E. (2024). Procurement delay index. Journal of Public Procurement, 24(1), 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-08-2023-0061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Torres, L. (2021). Competency and procurement performance. Journal of Government Operations, 12(4), 55–70. https://jgojournal.org/competency-and-procurement-performance/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Institutional & International Reports [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Asian Development Bank. (2019). Improving public sector efficiency: Capacity-building and procurement reform strategies. https://www.adb.org/ publications/improving-public-sector-efficiency [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Asian Development Bank. (2023). Annual procurement report 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. https://www.adb.org/documents/annual-procurement-report-2022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. OECD. (2015). SIGMA public procurement toolkit. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. https://www.sigmaweb.org/publications/Public-Procurement-Toolkit.htm [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. OECD. (2016). Public procurement for sustainable development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. https://www.oecd.org/gov/public-procurement/sustainable-procurement/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. OECD. (2023). Professionalising the public procurement workforce. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. https://www.oecd.org/gov/public-procurement/professionalising-procurement-workforce.htm [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. OECD. (2023). Public procurement in Malta: Building capacity and managing risks. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. https://www.oecd.org/publications/public-procurement-in-malta-6f49c91c-en.htm [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. OECD. (2025). Government at a glance 2025: Efficient public procurement. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. https://www.oecd.org/gov/government-at-a-glance/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. United Nations Development Programme. (2017). Sustainable procurement implementation guidelines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. https://www.undp.org/publications/sustainable-procurement-implementation-guidelines [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Guidelines for sustainable public procurement. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/guidelines-sustainable-public-procurement [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. World Bank. (2018). Enhancing government procurement systems. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/680491539344734686 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

105. World Bank. (2020). Public procurement modernization and capacity development toolkit. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance/public-procurement [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (1987). Official website. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

108. https://www.denr.gov.ph/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

109. Institute for Supply Management. (2025). Procurement. In Wikipedia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

110. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procurement [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

111. Official Gazette. (2003). Republic Act No. 9184. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

112. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2003/01/10/republic-act-no-9184/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria