ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT January 2020 – January 2021
PHOTO CREDIT: GROUP FOR LEGAL AND POLITICAL STUDIES
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT 2020
USAID TRANSPARENT, EFFECTIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE MUNICIPALITIES ACTIVITY IN KOSOVO USAID Transparent, Effective and Accountable Municipalities Activity (USAID TEAM) in Kosovo
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT 2020
Year 4
Project Title: USAID Transparent, Effective and Accountable Municipalities (USAID TEAM) Activity in Kosovo Sponsoring USAID Office: USAID/Kosovo Contract Number: AID-167-C-17-00001 COR: Jeton Cana Contractor: DAI Global, LLC Date of Submission: February 11, 2021 Prepared by: USAID Transparent, Effective and Accountable Municipalities
DISCLAIMER This publication was produced by the USAID TEAM Activity under Contract No. AID-167-C-17-00001 at the request of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This document is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAID or the U.S. Government.
USAID TEAM – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 | ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS iv
USAID TEAM Background 6 Adaptive Management Plan and Approach 6
Most Important Findings 7
USAID TEAM Adaptive Management Approach 11 After-Action Review – Structured Feedback and Reflection 11 Meetings With the CSOs that are Not Supported by the Project 16 Individual Meetings With Targeted Private Sector Economic Operators Experienced in Public Procurement Processes 18 Meetings With Municipal Management And Partner Institution Representatives. 18 Meetings With Local Government Representatives 20 feedback From Civil Society Organizations 22 Feedback From Csos And Other Reports 22 Meeting With NAO Anti-Fraud Unit 24 Learning Summit With Central Level Institutions 24 Most Significant Change Stories 26 Management-Level Adaptation 27 Year 4 Adaptive Management Activities Implemented 29
Performance Monitoring Plan 30
PMP Indicator Progress 36
ANNEX 1: AMP Indicators Table 95 ANNEX 2: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) 107
USAID TEAM – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 | iii ACRONYMS ACA Anti-Corruption Agency BIRN Balkan Investigative Reporting Network CHU Central Harmonization Unit CLA Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting CM Contract Management COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 CPE Contractor Performance Evaluation CSO Civil Society Organization DCSA Department of Civil Service Administration EO Economic Operator EU European Union GLPS Group for Legal and Political Studies GOK Government of Kosovo HR Human Resources IA Internal Audit IAU Internal Audit Unit IR Intermediate Result KDI Kosova Democratic Institute KIPA Kosovo Institute for Public Administration MAC Municipal Audit Committees MELA Monitoring Evaluation, Learning, and Adapting MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MLGA Ministry of Local Government MOF Ministry of Finance MPECV Municipal Procurement Effectiveness and Corruption Vulnerability MTBF Mid-Term Budget Framework NAO National Audit Office OPTP Open Procurement Transparency Portal
USAID TEAM – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 | iv PO Procurement Offices PPL Public Procurement Law PPL Public Procurement Law PPRC Public Procurement Regulatory Commission PRB Procurement Review Body ROGPP Rules and Operational Guideline for Public Procurement SOP Standard Operating Procedure TEAM Transparent, Effective and Accountable Municipalities Activity USAID United States Agency for International Development
USAID TEAM – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 | v USAID TEAM BACKGROUND The USAID Transparent, Effective and Accountable Municipalities (USAID TEAM) activity is a five-year project that began in January 2017 and is scheduled to conclude in January 2022. The activity aims to improve procurement effectiveness and transparency by providing comprehensive assistance to all 38 Kosovo municipalities, with more intensive coaching and mentoring in a selected sub-set of focus municipalities. At the central level, USAID TEAM works closely with actors such as the Central Harmonization Unit of the Ministry of Finance (MOF), Public Procurement Regulatory Commission (PPRC), National Audit Office (NAO), and the Procurement Review Body (PRB). Civil society also plays a key role in exposing corrupt practices by working with citizens and local governments in the procurement modernization process. USAID TEAM partners with an active network of civil society organizations (CSOs) to promote transparency and accountability. This network is educating and engaging citizens to identify corruption when it occurs—from the municipal to the national level—and provides sustained pressure to improve transparency. Activities implemented by USAID TEAM contribute to the Country Development Cooperation Strategy Development Objective 1: Improved Rule of Law and Governance that Meet Citizens’ Needs. The activity directly contributes to two Intermediate Results (IRs) under this Development Objective: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes. USAID TEAM is improving the accountability of municipal administrations and assemblies through greater transparency and effectiveness. IR1.4: Civil Society Strengthened to Increasingly Engage Constructively with Government. USAID TEAM is working with civil society to monitor municipal procurement.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROACH This adaptive management report documents USAID TEAM adaptive activities implemented in Year 4. USAID TEAM utilized adaptive management tools that enabled the project to learn and then design and deliver more effective technical support to counterparts at the local and central levels. Through adaptive management and learning mechanisms, USAID TEAM solicited feedback and recommendations from project recipients aiming to make results sustainable. Tools and activities used in Year 4 include: • After-Action Review - structured feedback and reflection from project events. • Feedback from municipal officials. • Feedback from economic operators (EOs).
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 6 • Feedback from partner CSOs. • Feedback from NAO Anti-Fraud Unit representatives. • A learning summit with private sector EOs. • Review of the custom municipal work plan activities and targets achieved for adaptive management, in meetings with municipal management. • Learning summits with central-level institutions, such as PRB, PPRC, NAO and CHU. • Focus groups/individual meetings with CSOs not directly supported by the project. • Most significant change stories. • Analysis of reports, including those from local-level CSOs as a result of the Applied Learning workshops and the Democracy Plus report with information on PRB monitoring activities. USAID TEAM developed and continues to use the Collaborating Learning and Adapting (CLA) Map. A data tracking tool that contains findings and recommendations from previously mentioned adaptive management activities and CSO reports. The CLA Map serves as a source of information for the project to adapt its approach and refine its upcoming activities. It also helped the project to design activities for Year 5. This multi-step feedback cycle allowed the project to evaluate performance, assess needs, learn from experience, and adapt its approach to technical interventions and solutions leading to greater impact and more effective programming for the next cycle of technical assistance.
MOST IMPORTANT FINDINGS During Year 4, USAID TEAM identified important issues that derived from project activities with central- and local-level partner institutions, CSOs, and EOs, namely: Central-Level Institutions • A need for harmonization of legislation that will improve contract management. This includes clarification of procedures and responsibilities of each institution, project design, a commitment of funds before the initiation of procurement activity, and inspections, etc. • The need to update the PPRC regulation to allow for the launch of the contract management and contractor performance evaluation modules. • The need to monitor the PRB data migration from old database into new database and activation of the web application for better transparency and accessibility. • A need for capacity building for all NAO auditors on how to treat procurement with fraud elements.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 7 • A need for capacity building for auditors on the use of the e-procurement platform to publish their audit reports (CHU). Local-Level Institutions • The need to enforce institutions to use economic criteria in Public Procurement. • Re-occurring challenge with the inability of courts to solve cases in time • The need for improvements in contract management, monitoring, controls, and reporting processes. • The need to increase the capacity of bid evaluation members. • The need to improve skills in drafting technical specifications. • The need to improve initiation of procurement activities including project design, since municipalities in most of the cases lack executive projects. • A continued need to enhance procurement capacities which have been further limited because of pandemic necessitated remote work. • The need to develop a manual of reference prices for procurement activity items. • A continued need to support municipalities in addressing NAO recommendations. Civil Society Organizations • The need to increase the sustainability of local CSOs to monitor municipal procurement. • The need to increase active citizenship by mobilizing the community to monitor project implementation together with CSOs and community representatives. Private Sector • The need to enforce the use of economic criteria in Public Procurement by institutions. The table below outlines in detail the main findings and actions taken as part of USAID TEAM’s quick, responsive, and flexible adaptive management approach:
No. Adaptation Status USAID TEAM will provide support to the PPRC Monitoring The risk-based selection tool was developed. The project assessed Department on selection of the monitoring department and will integrate the tool within the new 1 cases for monitoring based on and improved business processes which are expected to be at the risk criteria, as part of the beginning of the Y5. implementation of the Year 3 work plan. The project developed a risk-based selection methodology. The USAID TEAM will help the project conducted an assessment and provided recommendations to 2 NAO implement a risk-based NAO Performance Audit Department on the methodology of selection methodology. selecting cases based on a risk-based approach. The project prepared
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 8 a matrix for the performance audit department with a risk base approach for risk selection of performance audits. The GOK has approved the Concept Note on the Public Procurement Law, which paves the way for drafting the new PPL. USAID TEAM supported the working group, established by the Ministry of Finance and led by PPRC, on drafting this Concept Note. The key changes in the concept document supported by the project include: USAID TEAM is coordinating its • Formalization of the use of the e-Procurement system, efforts with other donors and • Introducing the concept of self-declaration (where bidders Government of Kosovo (GOK) declare that they meet the minimum bidding requirements related to public procurement and must provide proof only in case they win), 3 processes and the project used • Introducing the Contractor Past Performance function as part EU directives for its of contract management, recommendations for revisions • Increasing the number of PRB Board Members from five to to the PPL. seven, and • Harmonization with the European Union (EU) directives on public procurement. The project will continue to support PPRC during the process of drafting the law. The first draft of the law is completed and is under review from Government before it will proceed for approval at Kosova assembly. This table presents findings and recommendations as well as actions taken that are in process of addressing findings and recommendations.
No. Findings and Recommendations Actions During Year 4, USAID TEAM helped new focus municipalities with the tender evaluation processes and Municipal officials lack knowledge on the procedures. Additionally, through on-the-job-coaching, the rules, procedures, legal deadlines to 1 project procurement advisers will ensure that municipalities implement procurement procedures in apply effective procurement evaluation procedures. tender evaluation. Further, the project procurement advisers provided training on tender evaluation to the ten new focus municipalities. USAID TEAM continued to promote cross-department collaboration and advise municipalities on improving Improve municipal staff capacities in drafting technical specifications for public works (e.g. roads, schools, 2 technical specifications. medical centers, parks, etc.). Additionally, the project contract management advisor is supporting municipalities to improve the technical specifications. The project ensures better implementation In Year 4, the project continued supporting municipalities 3 of NAO recommendations in all to increase the number of addressed recommendations. institutions. In Year 4, the project assisted in developing and monitored Lack of proper municipal procurement implementation of the procurement plans for all 15 focus 4 plans and lack of specified and detailed municipalities. The project procurement advisors held budget plans in new municipalities. workshops on progress of the implementation of the procurement plans. Contract management and contractor past performance Poor performance of economic operators modules are developed and introduced to the government 5 to be documented by municipalities. officials. The regulation is drafted, and the modules will be launched in February 2021.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 9 In Year 4, USAID TEAM continuously provided on-the-job Internal auditors lack capacities to audit coaching to internal auditors to monitor procurement 6 procurement activities through e- activities electronically. In addition, the project contracted Procurement platform. a company to develop video tutorials. USAID TEAM continuously advised municipalities not to Municipalities are facing problems with 7 initiate projects without ensuring project design of the project design. activity. Old cases in the courts are causing a lot of trouble. Withdrawal of finances according USAID TEAM continuously advised municipalities to 8 to judicial decisions may impact the consider this issue during the budget planning process. implementation of the procurement plan. Municipalities should work more on the In Year 4, USAID TEAM provided budget templates budget planning process, so the budget and designed during project Year 3 to all focus municipalities 9 the procurement plan are harmonized. This through capacity building activities that took place when the would decrease the number of unplanned government budget circulars are issued. activities. Municipalities request changes to the Law on Public Finances to allow them to initiate projects without committing all funds. Due to the own-source revenues that are collected at the end of the year, USAID TEAM raised this issue with MOF/Treasury 10 municipalities plan projects considering department. these funds as well. Nonetheless, none of the projects that are planned to be implemented with these funds can be initiated if all the funds are not available. During Year 4, USAID TEAM planned to award small grants to local-level CSOs to continue monitoring municipalities as a follow-up to the CiviKos workshops. The grantees were The MLG could play an important role in planned to be selected (in coordination with USAID TEAM supporting CSOs to monitor public and USAID) by MLG based criteria to be developed in the procurement. MLG could fund CSOs to 11 future which will include proof of capacity to monitor monitor municipal procurement and the procurement. Potential grantees will use the monitoring data could as well serve the MLG to methodology developed by CiviKos and will target all focus monitor the performance of municipalities. municipalities. MLG assigned funds, but due to COVID-19 budget priorities for the central government, this activity is postponed for Y5. Municipalities should inform the beneficiary USAID TEAM worked with municipalities to increase community for the projects that will be municipal transparency by assisting the publication of all 12 implemented so they can be involved in procurement information, including municipal procurement monitoring of the works. plan. CSOs should participate in the one of the most important processes of public procurement, that is the evaluation and selection of bids. According to the CSOs, USAID TEAM is continually supporting the capacity building 13 CSO representatives can participate in this of the CSOs from central and local level on the monitoring process by only making a request to of the municipal procurement. municipality. However, none of the CSOs representatives have taken this option so far. Use the Most Economically Advantageous The project helps municipalities to use these criteria when 14 Tender criteria to increase quality and possible. competition. Increase the responsibilities of municipal USAID TEAM, in its Year 4 work plan, planned quarterly 15 department directors in preparing the meetings with municipal management to discuss and
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 10 action plans and concrete actions for evaluate progress of the recommendation provided and addressing recommendations provided by addressed. Due to pandemic these meetings were not held internal auditor and NAO. as planned. Municipalities should introduce USAID TEAM conducted training on how to conduct audit performance auditing that includes properly performance, developed forms and templates, however, 16 completing the documents needed for the due to pandemic the pilot performance audits were planning phase, as well as preparing and postponed to the upcoming period. implementing audit performance. Fiscal number of businesses to be included The fiscal number was incorporated into the e- 17 in the e-Procurement platform. Procurement platform. Supported by USAID TEAM, the e-Procurement platform Update of the e-Procurement platform with 18 was updated with CM and CPE modules, which will be new functionalities. launched in Quarter 1 of 2021. Publication of additional documents on USAID TEAM assisted municipalities to increase 19 municipal websites, such us contract transparency by publishing all procurement information management reports and invoices. allowed by law. PRB data migration from old database into PRB will take the lead to perform the data migration. The 21 new database and activation of the web project will provide supervisory support in this process as application. needed. USAID TEAM provided a guideline on the Handling Fraud Capacity building for all NAO auditors on 22 in Public Procurement which is now integrated in the NAO how to treat fraud cases. induction training program. Capacity building of the auditors on the use The project has already provided trainings and developed 23 of the e-Procurement platform. trainings tutorials on how to use the platform. USAID TEAM developed a SOP for standardizing municipal payment processes for legal frameworks, with the goal of digitalizing the whole payment procedure in five focus Municipalities fact issues with billing, municipalities. This will increase municipal transparency in 24 highlighting the need to introduce an reports with stakeholders, as well as accountability and invoice management system. fiscal prudence. In order to digitalize the process, the project must have a joint approach with MOF Treasury. However, due to circumstances created by pandemic and the government change, this activity is postponed for Y5.
USAID TEAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH
AFTER-ACTION REVIEW – STRUCTURED FEEDBACK AND REFLECTION In Quarter 1 of 2020, the project solicited feedback and recommendations from an event with central- and local-level institutions on improving public projects and contract management supervision. Institutions participating in this event included the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, MOF – Treasury and Ministry of Local Government Administration, Gjakova/Đjakovica, Pristina, Gjilan/Gnjilane, and Vushtrri/Vućitrn municipalities. Recommendations: Central government institutions requested that USAID TEAM work with them to harmonize the legislation in force in order to improve contract management. That included clarification of procedures and the responsibilities of each institution, project design (the current legislation has removed the revision of project design), a commitment of funds before the initiation of procurement activity, and inspection, etc.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 11 Action Taken: The Kosovo Government has approved the Concept Note on the Public Procurement Law, which paves the way for drafting the new PPL. USAID TEAM has supported the working group, established by the Ministry of Finance, and led by the PPRC, to draft this Concept Note. The key changes in the concept document supported by the project include: • Formalization of the use of the e-Procurement system, • Introducing the concept of self-declaration (where bidders declare that they meet the minimum bidding requirements and must provide proof only in the case that they win), • Introducing the Contractor Past Performance function as part of contract management, • Increasing the number of PRB Board Members from five to seven, and • Harmonization with EU directives on public procurement. The project continued to support PPRC on drafting new PPL and the first draft has been presented to GoK who is reviewing it before it will be submitted to the assembly for approval.
Representatives from central and local level suggesting recommendations on how to improve public contract/project supervision
In April 2020, the Monitoring Evaluation, Learning, and Adapting (MELA) Specialist, in close cooperation with Component 1 staff, solicited feedback and recommendations from the focus group conducted with CSOs representatives of the Pejë/Peć region as a part of the Citizens Perception Survey activity. Participants provided feedback and recommendations regarding municipal public procurement transparency, including municipal budgets, municipal investments, and corrupt practices. CSOs participating in the focus groups include: Let’s Do it Peja, OJQ ZANA, Perspektiva Studentore, ERA, Shoqata e femrës kontabiliste – Venera, Qendra për Mirëqenien e Gruas, Abstract, Qendra furnizimi i Diturisë, GWY-YMCA, Çohu, and Syri i Vizionit. Some of the positive feedback highlighted includes: • Increased transparency at the municipal level, including publication of contracts, • The publication of budgets, procurement plans, and other information related to procurement,
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 12 • Simplified access to information when compared to previous years, and • Increased in readiness of municipal officials to accept remarks and suggestions from CSOs. Some of the recommendations provided by CSO representatives to further improve the public procurement processes are: • Municipalities should inform the beneficiary community for the projects that will be implemented so they can be involved in monitoring the work. Action Taken: USAID TEAM assisted municipalities to increase transparency by publishing all procurement information per the legislation in force. • CSOs should participate in the evaluation process of bid selection. According to their representatives, CSOs can participate in this process by making a request to the municipality. However, none of the CSOs’ representatives have taken this action so far. Action Taken: USAID TEAM continuously supports the capacity building of the CSOs from central- and local-levels to monitor municipal procurement activities. The focus group with CiviKos facilitators was another event in which the AAR tool was applied. The focus group gathered representatives from KDI, Çohu, BIRN, INPO, and Democracy Plus in April 2020 to discuss opportunities and challenges, regarding the certification of individuals in public procurement monitoring, and the implementation of monitoring processes during COVID-19. Since procurement activities were implemented online, the participants foresaw challenges in monitoring municipal procurement, especially given that municipalities were working with limited staff and adjusted schedules. As such, access to documents like contracts and invoices was expected to be more difficult as some of this information may not be accessible online. During an online hands-on training on how to prepare and refer cases to enforcement mechanisms, participants learned the following: • Possible violations,
• Where to send the file/dossier in the Hands-on training with Lëvizja FOL on how to prepare and refer case of violations, cases to enforcement mechanisms. • The importance of submitting the case to more than one institution, • The available sanctions that can be undertaken against government officials in the case that they abuse their official position, and • The importance of public pressure on institutions responsible for investigating a case. As a result, trained CSOs prepared cases and developed 12 draft letters on violations of procurement procedures, with ten of them being submitted to appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 13 The AAR was also applied at the Peer- Learning Workshops organized by Component III and CiviKos. These online Peer-Learning workshops with local-level CSOs on monitoring public procurement gathered participants from six CSOs of the Ferizaj/Uroševac region, including: Iniciativa per Progres (INPO), Nisja Zhvillohu, Peer-Learning workshop with local-level CSO of Ferizaj/Uroševac to monitor Leadership Development Association public procurement. Albania (branch in Kosovo, Shtime/Štimlje), Qendra per Edukim, Inovacion dhe Zhvillim Profesional – Akademia – Shtime/Štimlje, Youth Club Ferizaj/Uroševac, and five CSOs from the Gjilan/Gnjilane region: KCIC, KAND, Transparence Monitor, Dardana Press, and NOPM. Participants listed perceived benefits of the workshops including: • Development and enhancement of individual and CSO skills in municipal procurement monitoring, • Gaining skills through learning by doing, • An opportunity to share knowledge and experiences, as well as • Establishment of a CSO network experienced in monitoring the municipal procurement process. The participants also expressed challenges they face during the pandemic, including issues with the online platforms, lack of laptops for some of the CSOs’ staff, and the lack of electricity. Through the AAR tool, the project also solicited feedback and recommendations on the project’s activities including ‘Bid Evaluation,’ ‘Progress of implementation of the procurement plan,’ and the ‘Book of process: Public finance management.’ USAID TEAM conducted training sessions with bid evaluation committee members of the ten new focus municipalities. Lack of experience in the following was identified among municipal officials: • Treatment of abnormally low tenders, • The contract award criteria lowest price with scores, and • Limitation of the number of LOTs to be awarded to one EO, etc. USAID TEAM procurement advisors continuously assisted the ten new focus municipality representatives to improve their skills and gain experience on the above areas. Virtual workshops with the ten new focus municipalities were held on the progress of the implementation of the Procurement Plan. The following were the main findings from these workshops:
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 14 • Lack of knowledge in the preparation of procurement plans, • Lack of knowledge on the preparation of technical specifications, and • Lack of knowledge for contract implementation. USAID TEAM assisted the ten new focus municipalities to prepare procurement plans for 2021. Regarding contract management, in Year 4, the project contract management advisor assisted municipalities in drafting technical specifications. In Year 5, USAID TEAM will pilot a new contract management model, aiming to increase contract management capacity. The purpose of this model is to create a structured guide on the steps and processes that are necessary for implementation in certain municipal projects. ‘Book of Processes: Public finance management’ is another activity that was implemented with an AAR tool during Year 4. The project is supporting ten new focus municipalities to develop a Book of Processes on finance management. So far nine of these municipalities (Ferizaj/Uroševac, Hani i Elezit/Elez Han, Istog/k, Junik, Lipjan/Lipljane, Podujevë/o, Prizren, Rahovec/Orahovac, and Suharekë/Suva Reka), have developed and approved this, and only one municipality remaining to approve the document in Year 5. To approve the Book of Processes, the municipalities asked the project for assistance on the following issues: • Sharing the format and template of mayors’ decision from municipalities that already approved this mechanism. • Supporting the treatment of legal issues on the possible processes within it. • The project also provided assistance for the municipal representatives’ requests. The AAR was also introduced in contract management and performance evaluation of economic operator training. USAID TEAM supported the PPRC to develop Contract Management (CM) and Contractor Performance Evaluation (CPE) e-Procurement system modules. Following this, in September 2020 the project introduced these modules to the PPRC Procurement IT Administrators, and the Help Desk staff, and presented them to Kosovo institutions such as the ministries and municipalities. Some of the issues discussed with representatives of the institutions that were part of this training included: how participants evaluated these modules/functionalities; how useful they are going to be; and what ways Kosovo society will benefit from these modules/functionalities. The feedback
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 15 they provided was that this is one of the biggest breakthroughs of the decade in public procurement, and it will: • Increase the level of the transparency, effectiveness, and accountability of the parties involved, • Facilitate the auditing process, • Enable following/tracking of the progress of the contract implementation online by the heads of institutions/mayors, • Enable the transfer of responsibilities through the system, and • Increase the level of responsibility of the contract managers and other parties involved in contract management. Recommendation: The participants recommended that the project develop manuals and video trainings on the use of these modules. Action taken: The PPRC, supported by USAID TEAM, will update the legal basis, and develop online video trainings on the use of these modules. According to the workshop participants the greatest challenge will be the use of these modules. Some of the questions from the participants included the following: • Will these modules be legally regulated? • What is the minimum percentage of contract implementation necessary to be considered a successful contract? • Is there an opportunity for the members of the evaluation commission to see the EOs’ performance for contracts implemented for other contracting authorities? • Who will have the responsibility to terminate a contract, if the contract is not implemented as foreseen? The next step for this activity will be to pilot these modules/functionalities once government officials have had the opportunity to implement some of the procurement procedures with the support of the PPRC and the Help desk. The PPRC, supported by USAID TEAM, will update the legal basis and develop online video training for the use of these modules. MEETINGS WITH THE CSOS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PROJECT Ec ma ndryshe, Avoko, CBM, NOPM, Syri i Vizionit, YMCA, Zana, were contacted to solicit their feedback on anti-corruption outcomes focused on the local and national level. These CSOs are engaged in areas such as procurement transparency, and accountability, etc. USAID TEAM developed and shared with the CSOs a questionnaire that helped to facilitate this process. The CSOs made the following recommendations:
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 16 • Recommendation: Municipal procurement activities included in the Procurement Plan should be more detailed and specific. Action taken: In Year 4, the project assisted with the development of procurement plans for all 15 focus municipalities and monitored their implementation. This assistance was provided through workshops and ongoing coaching sessions. • Recommendation: Dates in the tender dossier should be in accordance with the dates in the contract to avoid discrepancies. Action Taken: During Year 4, USAID TEAM aided focus municipalities on tender evaluation processes and procedures. Additionally, through on-the-job-coaching, the project procurement advisers ensured that municipalities applied effective procurement evaluation procedures. Furthermore, the project procurement advisers provided training on tender evaluation to focus municipalities. • Recommendation: The timeline of project implementation should be more realistically defined. Action Taken: USAID TEAM will continue to employ an integrated and adaptive approach to achieve transformational change. In the original focus municipalities, project advisors started shifting their engagement from addressing the basic skills gap to implementing more effective enforcement mechanisms and more active coaching and mentoring through on-the-job oversight of the procurement cycle, including contract management. • Recommendation: Increase the number of officials in the procurement offices and in the monitoring of the municipal contracts. Action Taken: USAID TEAM advised municipalities to increase their staff based on the legislation in force. • Recommendation: Increase the capacities of the local-level organizations to monitor public procurement and increase funds available for local-level organizations to monitor municipal procurements. Action Taken: USAID TEAM is working with the subcontractor CiviKos and other national- level CSOs to increase the expertise of municipal-level CSOs in monitoring public procurement and expose municipal-level malfeasance. The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced implementation of some activities planned for Year 4 including one related to
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 17 provision of seed funding for CSOs to monitor public procurement to be implemented in cooperation with GoK. However, USAID TEAM initiated discussions with the Ministry of Local Governance related to the possibility of co-financing CSOs to implement activities focused on monitoring public procurement. The MLG had decided to allocate 50,000 Euros to support the monitoring efforts of CSOs, but the Ministry of Finance rejected this allocation, as the funds were required to finance COVID-19 related expenses. During Year 5, USAID TEAM will award small grants to local-level CSOs to continue monitoring municipality performance as a follow-up to the CiviKos workshops. INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH TARGETED PRIVATE SECTOR ECONOMIC OPERATORS EXPERIENCED IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PROCESSES. On a semiannual basis, the MELA Specialist contacts economic operators experienced in public procurement processes to solicit feedback and recommendations related to the procurement processes at the local level. The following economic operators, identified from the Open Procurement Transparency Portal (OPTP) tool, were contacted via phone during Year 4, as part of adaption to the pandemic situation: Grafx Studio sh.p.k, Lulzim Katanolli b.i, Refki Çoçaj B.I, Er – Lis, Joos & Krasniqi, Bardhi, El-bau shpk., Euro Abi sh.p.k., La Fenice sh.p.k., Berisha Construction sh.p.k, Fortesa o.p., Fortesa sh.p.k, Edibau-Ing. sh.p.k, Gurëbardhi sh.p.k, and Seticommerc sh.p.k. The main recommendations from these economic operators were as follows: • Recommendation: Municipalities should continue improving the process of bid evaluation, to continue to build on existing improvements. Action taken: During Year 4, USAID TEAM aided municipalities on bid evaluation processes and procedures. Additionally, through on-the-job-coaching, the project procurement advisors ensured that municipalities applied effective procurement evaluation procedures. • Recommendation: Municipalities should use the ‘Most Economically Advantageous Tender’ criteria to increase the evaluation quality of works, services, and supplies. Action taken: The project helps municipalities to use these criteria whenever possible. EOs stated that complaints at the PRB lead to delays in initiating a project’s implementation. According to them, improvements have been seen in the use of the e-Procurement platform and the execution of payments. According to the EOs interviewed, the level of payments at the local- level is much better than at the central-level. MEETINGS WITH MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT AND PARTNER INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVES. Through this activity, the project presents graduation indicator results separately to each focus municipality. These meetings also serve to solicit feedback and recommendations from municipalities, as well to provide recommendations on actions to be taken to improve indicator performance. Due to the current pandemic situation, instead of in-
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 18 person meetings, USAID TEAM organized online meetings with the 15 focus municipalities. The following are some of the findings and recommendations raised by municipal representatives: • Recommendation: The low-price criteria in the PPL should be changed. Action Taken: USAID TEAM is coordinating its efforts with other donors and GoK related to the public procurement processes and the project used EU directives for its recommendations for revisions to the PPL. • Finding: Issues with contract management: monitoring of contracts, quality control, and reporting. Action taken: Based on the assessments in the field, USAID TEAM will continue the reform with central- and local-level institutions that will include the organizational and legal area improving the contract management processes. • Finding: Low capacities of the members of bid evaluation committees. Action Taken: During Year 4, USAID TEAM aided the ten new focus municipalities on tender evaluation processes and procedures. Additionally, through on-the-job-coaching, the project procurement advisers will ensure that municipalities apply effective procurement evaluation procedures. • Finding: Poorly drafted technical specifications. Action Taken: USAID TEAM promoted cross-department collaboration and advised on improving technical specifications for public works (e.g. roads, schools, medical centers, parks, etc.). Additionally, the project contract management adviser is supporting municipalities to improve their technical specifications. • Finding: Lack of project designs for executive projects. Action Taken: USAID TEAM continuously advised municipalities not to initiate projects without ensuring appropriate project design for the activity. • Finding: Low level of addressing NAO recommendations. Action Taken: During Year 4, the audit advisors supported focus and non-focus municipalities in the implementation of the NAO and IA recommendations. Also, the project supported the focus municipalities in improving the audit processes, starting from commenting on the draft NAO reports, preparing comments for submission to NAO, drafting an action plan for implementing recommendations, review of Action Plans, and preparing progress reports on the implementation of NAO recommendations. The support in these directions will continue during 2021, with aim to enforce good practices and achieve sustainability of these processes. Limited capacities in procurement and reduced own-source revenues’ impact on implementation of procurement plans are two other challenges that municipalities face due to the pandemic.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 19 MEETINGS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES. Aiming to evaluate the project assistance provided to the ten new focus municipalities, the MELA Specialist conducted individual interviews with municipal procurement offices (POs) via phone. It was found that as a result of COVID-19, municipalities prioritized emergency projects such as food, hygiene, and medical supplies, provision of protective materials, disinfection, and other related procurement activities throughout Year 4. For these procurement activities, municipalities used negotiation procedures without publication, which have not previously been frequently used by municipal Pos. USAID TEAM played a crucial role in providing the expertise needed to undertake these procurements. Additional support was given to the ten new focus municipalities including: • Sharing developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), guidelines, manuals, forms and templates, • Assistance in preparing tender dossiers and contracts, • Assistance in preparing special conditions of the contracts, • Advice on emergency procedures, and • Assistance in the review of appeals. Questionnaires were also used as a tool for conducting interviews with local government representatives, including internal auditors. Municipal internal auditors emphasized that online communication was a challenge for them and the lack of in-person communication created difficulties in understanding the issues as well as in resolving them. The main assistance provided by the project was related to (1) Drafting and updating of the Internal Audit Units (IAU) Status, (2) Drafting and updating Municipal Audit Committees (MACs) Statute, (3) Reviewing of the Annual Plan for internal auditing for year of 2020, (4) Training in performance audit (two days online training), and (5) Commenting on the NAO draft reports. The main recommendations and findings from the meetings with the representatives of the local level include: • Recommendation: USAID TEAM should continue assisting municipal management to further improve their ability to address issues and recommendations in Audit Reports. The municipal department directors should increase their level of responsibility in preparing Action Plans and concrete actions to address recommendations provided by Internal Auditors and the NAO. Action taken: During Year 4, audit advisors supported the focus and non-focus municipalities in the implementation of the National Audit Office and Internal Audit (IA) recommendations. Also, the project supported the focus municipalities in improving the audit processes, starting from commenting on the draft NAO reports, preparing comments for submission to NAO, drafting an action plan for implementing recommendations, review of Action Plans, and preparing progress reports on the
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 20 implementation of NAO recommendations. The support in these directions will continue during 2021, with aim to enforce good practices and achieve sustainability of these processes, though the following sub-activities: – Support on addressing NAO and internal audit (IA) recommendations. The advice initially focused on those recommendations which can be implemented in a shorter period of time, but not leaving aside the recommendations which require longer time, and this will apply to both NAO and IA recommendations. – Implementation of SOP on Audit Process. During 2020, the USAID TEAM assessed which aspects of the SOP on Audit Process encountered significant implementation and identified areas where intervention is needed. Based on the assessment, in Year 5, three aspects will be given more attention: NAO Action Plan to be discussed in the Municipal Assembly, timely preparation of the progress report for the implementation of NAO recommendations, and discussing the progress report with the Mayor. – Implementation of IAU and MAC Statutes. The project supported several municipalities in developing and approving the Statute of the IA Unit and MAC. During Year 5, the project will continue to support the implementation of Regulation No. 01-2019 on the Establishment and Implementation of the Internal Audit Function in the Public-Sector Entity, and with the update of the Statute of the IAU and of MAC in those municipalities where the statute has not been yet updated and approved. This will be one of mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of project actions in its final year and beyond. – Development of an action plan for addressing NAO recommendations. During Year 4, most of the municipalities have prepared and submitted action plans and have made efforts to make them specific, measurable, achievable, and realistic. Process coordinators and working groups are no longer hesitating to determine who which officials are in charge of certain addressing NAO recommendations and setting deadlines for them to be addressed. Still, this process will be monitored during Year 5 to ensure that municipalities continue to prepare qualitative action plans and submit them to NAO in a timely manner. Project Audit Advisors jointly with municipal officials will make sure that the timetable for implementing a recommendation is determined realistically, considering that there are findings/recommendations that require strategic approaches in their implementation. Findings relevant at the central level, will be addressed by Component II of the project. • Recommendation: USAID TEAM should continue support pilot audit performance by assisting municipalities in properly preparing documents for the planning phase, as well as preparing and implementing audit performance. This will help municipalities better understand and use the audit performance process.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 21 Action taken: In consultation with CHU, due to the pandemic, municipalities postponed the pilot audits to 2021. As such, the project will guide pilot municipalities on this, utilizing the Manual on Performance Audit, while Internal Auditors will apply working papers, in practice improving their work methodology. The results of this activity will be transmitted to CHU to institutionalize these practices. IA Units, by law, are required to conduct performance audits to assess whether public institutions are using public resources in an economic, efficient, and effective way. FEEDBACK FROM CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS USAID TEAM conducted scheduled feedback sessions with CSOs through an online platform. The session with CSO partners included representatives of USAID, KDI, Group for Legal and Political Studies, Riinvest, CiviKos, D+, and Lëvizja FOL. CSOs provided recommendations regarding accountability in public procurement from the CSOs’ perspective, covering progress, challenges, and recommendations for improvement, as well as progress on anti-corruption efforts at the local- and central-levels, and challenges that CSOs faced during the implementation of activities due to COVID-19. The project received much positive feedback, as well as many useful recommendations from participants, including: • The increased willingness to be accountable, as positive competition among municipalities increases, • Increased transparency in the PRB, and • The need for the office of the state prosecutor to be more active in pursuing procurement fraud cases. Regarding contract implementation, the participants highlighted the importance of active citizenship through mobilizing the community to supervise projects together with CSOs and village councils, and for legal measures to be taken towards municipalities that do not implement recommendations provided by the NAO. Participants raised several challenges they faced in implementing activities during COVID-19, including gaining access to public information and municipal staff capacities; if a staff member tests positive for COVID-19, then the entire department will have to go into isolation, significantly reducing capacity and limiting the ability for CSOs to work with municipalities. Municipal budgets have been affected, and the reduction or prohibition of public gathering activities continues to be an obstacle. FEEDBACK FROM CSOS AND OTHER REPORTS. The project developed its annual “Citizens’ Perception Survey” including conducting five focus group sessions and 30 in-depth interviews. The discussions were held from in the first half of Year 4, and the interviews were conducted from in Quarter 2. These focus groups and interviews consisted of 40 business representatives and 38 representatives from CSOs.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 22 Business representatives raised the following issues: • Municipalities should publish information for budget allocations, public procurements, and capital projects on their websites, and • Municipalities should provide access to information about all phases of the contracting process. Action taken: USAID TEAM works with municipalities to increase municipal transparency by assisting the publication of all procurement information. • Functionality of the e-Procurement platform should be improved, since there are cases when the platform is blocked, thus tenders are canceled, and • Consider European practices for public procurements, such as those of Germany and the Netherlands. Action taken: USAID TEAM is coordinating its efforts with other donors and GOK related to the public procurement processes and the project used EU directives for its recommendations for revisions to the Public Procurement Law. While CSOs made the following recommendations: • Involve CSOs in the monitoring of all public procurements, Action taken: USAID TEAM continuously supported local level CSOs to monitor municipal public procurements. In Year 5, the project will work to create a sustainable environment for CSOs working on monitoring public procurement and to build bridges between CSOs and public institutions. • Appropriate penalties should be applied to companies that disregard their contract terms, Action taken: Contract management, including the application of penalties, continues to be one of the most challenging areas. Based on assessments previously conducted, the project identified that contract management is one of the most vulnerable areas to corruption. Aiming to improve contract management capacity, in Year 5 the project will pilot a new contract management model aiming to create a structured guide for the steps and processes that are necessary for implementation of certain municipal projects. • USAID TEAM should expand its focus to more municipalities, providing professional support to the CSOs and municipalities. Action taken: In the beginning of Year 4, USAID TEAM expanded its support to ten new focus municipalities. Furthermore, all manuals, SOPs, good practices, and other mechanisms developed are shared with all non-focus municipalities. Feedback from KDI reports: KDI, in 2020 published the Procurement Monitoring Report covering the activities of Prizren, Suharekë/Suva Reka, Ferizaj/Uroševac, Lipjan/Ljipljane,
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 23 Podujevë/o, and Istog/k municipalities in 2019, with the aim of assessing the level of legislative compliance in the municipal tender process. A further 12 tenders announced by the municipalities of Prizren, Suharekë/Suva Reka, Ferizaj/Uroševac, Lipjan/Ljipljane, Podujevë/o and Istog/k were monitored by a coalition of CSOs, consisting of the Youth Association for Human Rights (YAHR), the Institute for Sustainability and Development of Youth (ISDY), Syri i Vizionit, Ekovizioni (EV), and the Kosova Democratic Institute (KDI). Their report presents findings from the tendering process in these six municipalities, focusing on their compliance with relevant laws and best practices during this monitoring process. In general, the research found that there is (1) a conflict between the Law on Public Procurement (Article 108/A), and the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement (Article 43), (2) the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement do not provide sufficient guidance on how bidders should be in compliance with Article 65 of LPP, and (3) the law requires that bidders should two certificates issued by two different courts that deal with matters of solvency and corruption separately. In absence of clear guidance, companies would only bring certificates covering solvency, omitting certificates declaring that the EO, and any executive, manager or director thereof, has in the past ten years been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction has or has not committed a criminal or civil offense involving corrupt practices, money laundering, bribery, kickbacks or any similar activities. MEETING WITH NAO ANTI-FRAUD UNIT. The MELA Specialist contacted the representatives of the NAO Anti-Fraud Unit via phone aiming to solicit feedback and recommendations regarding the challenges faced in the process of detecting and reporting alleged cases of fraud. The unit representatives recommended that USAID should continue providing expertise on treating fraud cases for handling to the State Prosecution and provide capacity building for all the auditors on how to treat fraud cases. USAID TEAM has provided the Guideline on Handling Fraud in Public Procurement which is now integrated in the NAO induction training program. LEARNING SUMMIT WITH CENTRAL LEVEL INSTITUTIONS to address findings and recommendations for adaptive management. USAID TEAM convened a learning summit with central-level partner institutions including the MOF CHU, PPRC, NAO, and the PRB to jointly discuss and evaluate the effectiveness of the project interventions and solicit recommendations to adjust, adapt, or amplify assistance. All partners provided their feedback and recommendations which will be taken into consideration by the project. Some of the recommendations include: • Recommendation: PPRC: After completing and introducing the CM and CPE modules, there is a need to update procurement regulation which will allow for the launch of the modules. Action taken: Supported by USAID TEAM, the e-Procurement platform is in the process of being updated with the Contract Management and Contractor Past Performance Evaluation modules. Both modules have been introduced to government officials.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 24 • Recommendation: PRB: Data migration from the old database into the new database and the activation of the web application. Action Taken: PRB will take the lead to perform the data migration. The project will provide supervisory support in this process as needed. • Recommendation: NAO: Capacity building for all auditors on how to treat fraud cases. Action Taken: USAID TEAM has provided the guideline on the handling fraud in public procurement which is now integrated in the NAO induction training program. • Recommendation: CHU: Capacity building for auditors on the use of the SharePoint portal (intranet) to publish their audit reports. Action Taken: The project has already developed the online semiannual reporting tool for internal auditors. Due to the pandemic, the piloting of this tool has been postponed for Year 5. USAID TEAM continued to solicit feedback and recommendations from central- and local-level representatives, as well as CSOs through various activities implemented and reports provided, including the Round Table on Audit processes, a meeting with MAPL representatives, and CSOs reports. Round table on Audit Processes. The highlight of the roundtable discussion on Audit Processes was the decision to move forward with the internal control processes in order to address internal audit recommendations more adequately. This round table was organized in coordination with the CHU and Ministry of Local Governance. The Head of the CHU advised municipal internal auditors to use USAID TEAM support to fill open auditor positions in municipalities, especially in those cases that the position has been advertised but not filled. They also called on the internal auditors to increase their efforts to expand their roles and encourage trust from municipal management. During this meeting the participants explained that the pandemic is still causing many issues, such as municipalities being unable to conduct all planned audit activities, meaning that some must be postponed for next year. Meeting with Ministry of Local Government. USAID TEAM also met with MLG representatives to coordinate upcoming activities and ongoing assistance. MLG highlighted their dissatisfaction with progress made towards PRB performance. The fact that PRB is proposing to reevaluate the bidding process is causing difficulties for the municipalities as they lose grants and grant opportunities, for instance the Municipality of Gjilan/Gnjilane has lost 400,000 Euros. There are other municipalities that will lose their ministry grants because of the PRB reevaluation. The project has trained municipal staff on contract management and developed and
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 25 shared with municipalities a contract management manual, to help them produce detailed project plans before initiating procurement activities. Finally, MLG requested that the project assist them in developing a standard operating procedure for publishing municipal acts on municipal websites. MLG will establish a working group who will work alongside the project Communications STTA.
MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORIES Effective Online Procurement of Emergency Supplies During the Country’s Lockdown. The COVID-19 pandemic brought extraordinary challenges to governments all over the world, as they had to ensure public health while continuing to provide basic services to citizens. In March 2020, like most countries worldwide, Kosovo declared a lockdown including restrictions on movement. Citizens could go out only for one hour each day; schools, educational institutions, and public institutions were closed; and the private sector was not allowed to operate with the exception of essential businesses. The situation in Kosovo was especially chaotic as the country was experiencing a simultaneous political crisis. Notwithstanding, GoK was able to effectively deliver goods and services to its citizens, and efficiently manage emergency supplies. Thanks to electronic enhancements “…the e-Procurement platform is our hero. Two years ago, introduced by GoK in recent years, this system was a dream for us – something unimaginable, contracting authorities in Kosovo working while today it saved lives, bypassed a system collapse, and remotely deliver urgently needed health avoided misconduct of public money. We are proud that we products and services in the immediate could deliver goods and services in an efficient and response to the COVID-19 crisis and transparent manner even during COVID-19.” ensured smooth and accountable - Sami Uka, management of its ongoing activities and Public Procurement Regulatory Commission Board Member contracts. Supported by the project, in 2018 the GoK functionalized the e-Procurement platform. This platform enabled Kosovo’s local and central governments to continue with their procurement operations despite the movement restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The e-Procurement allowed all public institutions to conduct procurement activities online, from drafting the tender dossiers and publishing calls for application, to bid applications, bid evaluation, bid-protests, and the signing of contracts. More importantly, the e-Procurement system was crucial to the smooth operation of all emergency procurements necessary for the country's medical staff and patients including Personal Protective Equipment, PCR tests for COVID-19 for regional hospitals and local family medical centers. Without this mechanism, it would have been impossible for Kosovo institutions to address the global emergency without putting people at risk, leading to a higher number of positive cases and ultimately risking a higher death toll. According to PPRC, in the period between March and September 2020, contracting authorities conducted around 4,000 procurement activities using the e-Procurement system, out of which 400 contracts totaling 50 million Euros provided medical supplies for staff and patients in need.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 26 The technological enhancements introduced by the GoK marked transformational change as they are not limited to processing of the procurement activities. Today, Kosovo has a system that allows better and more fair competition through online appeals and the facilitation of advanced oversight by civil society and interested partners. The project supported the PRB to develop the e-Appeals module within the e-Procurement platform, enabling economic operators to appeal online without the need to be physically present. In the past, economic operators that wished to appeal, had to go the PRB offices in Pristina to submit an appeal, this was time consuming and would have been impossible during the lockdown due to the movement restrictions that were in place. In addition, USAID TEAM, supported the PRB in developing an online database, where interested parties can watch live hearing session of bid-protests and search through records of older bid protests. The Head of PRB, Blerim Dina gratefully informed the project: “[that] during the most difficult times when people couldn’t go out of their homes, our e-Appeals module and database allowed interrupted work increasing the transparency of the procurement review process thereby building public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the PRB as a government institution.” The Head of PRB also confirmed that complaints from economic operators were received seamlessly using the e-Appeals module of the e-Procurement system. He added that between March and September of 2020, economic operators submitted 598 appeals using the e- Procurement system, 42 cases more compared to the same period last year despite the pandemic. This has enabled businesses to appeal online increased transparency and fairness of the procurement processes even during difficult COVID-19 times.
MANAGEMENT-LEVEL ADAPTATION USAID TEAM continuously monitors and refines its activities to ensure it is delivering maximum impact and effectiveness. Despite continuing COVID-19 restrictions throughout this reporting period, the project continued to support GoK through tailored activities that fit their requirements and needs and maximize project impact. Using different communication tools, the project continued to produce high quality deliverables, including by providing continuing support to municipal staff on conducting procurement activities, increasing the effectiveness of internal controls, and maintaining and upgrading the e-Procurement platform enabling contracting authorities and economic operators access to sound and transparent procurement processes. In addition, the project continued to monitor the performance of municipalities engage with CSOs, and work with municipal management to address all shortcomings. As a result of work that USAID TEAM is conducting with its partners, specifically targeting the need of municipalities to increase internal controls, the project began to work with ten new focus municipalities. To date nine of the new focus municipalities have approved the Handbook on
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 27 Internal Public Expenditure Management Processes. In addition, all new focus municipalities have approved the Code of Ethics. Since all municipalities are not in the same stage of performance vis-a-vis the graduation plan indicators, USAID TEAM tailored support to fit the needs and requirements of each municipality. In order to define the targeted assistance, in addition to delivering detailed reports to all 15 focus municipalities, the project conducted a series of online meetings to present the graduation results to the municipal managements of the five original focus municipalities, as well as baseline results to the municipal managements of the ten new focus municipalities. USAID TEAM instituted processes to tailor activities to target each partner’s weakest areas and to tailor assistance to help each municipality increase its performance. As such, the project coached and mentored municipal procurement officers on the levels of municipal compliance with the PPL and vulnerability to corruption for tender dossiers, bid opening, bid evaluation, claims, contract management and project technical specifications. During the reporting period, the project conducted activities tailored to GoK needs, including but not limited to supporting PPRC in finalizing the development of the API and implementing OCDS, revising rules and regulations to include the development of new modules, including contract management and contractors past performance. USAID TEAM received a request from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA)/DCSA to support the development of video trainings for public services on Human Resources Management Information System processes, which is an activity outside the work plan. This year, with the entry into force of the Law on Public Servants, MIA/DCSA, knowing the project’s expertise in providing sustainable solutions in the field of training, requested this support, which the project took on as an adaptive activity. The project has already contracted a company that is developing the video in collaboration with MIA/DCSA. USAID TEAM’s quick mobilization of experts to support the PPRC in drafting the first version of the new Law on Public Procurement shows noteworthy adaptation to new realities and an ability to refine activities in order to achieve maximum impact. In addition, the support of PRB in implementing and holding virtual hearings amidst difficulties faced due to COVID-19 further illustrates adaptation as a core principle in the project’s methodology ensuring achievement of successful and meaningful outcomes. With USAID TEAM’s support, Levizja FOL, which runs OPTP, has also employed adaptive management to improve OPTP. FOL interviewed representatives of CSOs, media, and researchers to identify possible improvements to the portal. The survey recommendations are being transformed into an action plan that will address any shortcomings and further enrich the portal.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 28 YEAR 4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED Workplan Component One Timeline Reference After Action Review - After every major activity (training, A.1.1 workshop), USAID TEAM will undertake ‘after action review” Quarter One, Two, Three 2020 (AAR) to evaluate assistance provided. Conduct individual meetings with targeted private sector A.1.2 economic operators experienced in public procurement Quarter Two, Three 2020 processes. Meetings with municipal management and partner institutions A.1.3 Quarter Two, Three 2020 representatives - of five focus municipalities (1.1.6) Meetings with local government representatives aiming to A.1.4 evaluate project assistance provided to the focus June, October 2020 municipalities Meetings with municipal management and partner institutions A.1.5 Quarter Two, Three 2020 representatives - of 10 new focus municipalities (1.1.6) A.1.6 Most significant change stories Achievement based Component Two A.2.1 Meeting with NAO Anti-Fraud Unit Quarter Three 2020 Convene learning summit with central level institutions to A.2.2 address findings and recommendations for adaptive Quarter Three 2020 management After Action Review - After every major activity (training, A.2.3 workshop), USAID TEAM will undertake ‘after action review” Quarter Three 2020 (AAR) to evaluate assistance provided. A.2.4 Most significant change stories Achievement based Component Three After Action Review - After every major activity (training, A.3.1 workshop), USAID TEAM will undertake ‘after action review” Quarter Two, Three 2020 (AAR) to evaluate assistance provided. A.3.2 Feedback from CSOs meetings Quarter Three 2020 Meetings with CSOs that are not supported by the project for A.3.3 Quarter Three 2020 adaptive management. A.3.4 Most significant change stories Achievement based A.3.5 Feedback from CSO and other reports Report based 2020
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 29 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN Summary This section presents the USAID Transparent Effective Accountable Municipalities (USAID TEAM) indicators, targets, and actuals for Year 4. It also presents the explanation of the indicators, indicators that exceeded their targets, and indicators that did not reach their targets. During Year 4, USAID TEAM measured and reported on the progress of 25 indicators.
Revisions to the original AMP Since USAID TEAM exercises an adaptive management approach, addressing the evolving needs of the beneficiaries, USAID TEAM adapted its methodology for some activities by shifting from traditional training to practical tools – like video trainings and mechanisms used by the beneficiaries to reach project goals. Considering the shift of activities as well as the expansion at the end of Year 4, many of the indicators were affected. Therefore, in Year 3, and in Year 4, USAID TEAM revised the performance monitoring plan and adjusted indicators to capture adaptation and effectiveness of project assistance. Below is a summary of the indicators that have been 1) eliminated; 2) revised; and 3) added with the justification for each. ELIMINATED INDICATORS Indicator 1: # of facilitated events geared toward strengthening the capacities of USAID TEAM partners including central and local institutions, CSOs and economic operators USAID TEAM proposes eliminating this indicator which no longer reflects the substance and technical direction of the project’s work across the components. USAID TEAM will continue to maintain detailed records on event management. Indicator 3: # of officials (local and national) trained in e-Procurement USAID TEAM proposes eliminating this indicator and creating a single training indicator (see below for revisions to Indicator #2). This change will allow the project to continue reflecting on significant training efforts in Years 1 and 2, and the transition away from traditional training in Years 3 – 5 based on the Mission’s shifting priorities and project adaptation. Indicator 4: # of economic operators and CSO representatives trained in the training topic e-procurement and business ethics USAID TEAM proposes eliminating this indicator and creating a single training indicator (see below for revisions to Indicator # 2). Like the case above, this change allows the project to continue reflecting on significant training efforts in Years 1 and 2, and the transition away from traditional training in Years 3 – 5.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 30 Indicator 10: % of procurement activities sent to PRB USAID TEAM proposes eliminating this indicator because the project already measures this as part of the Municipal Graduation Index indicator which, in addition to measuring the percentage of procurement activities sent to the PRB, also factors in the number of PRB decisions in favor of the municipality. REVISED INDICATORS Indicator 2: # of people trained from local and central institutions (procurement, public finance, fraud detection, HR, auditing) recipients or participants in USAID TEAM events USAID TEAM proposes to revise this indicator to capture the full range of training provided by the project. Proposed revised indicator 1: # of people trained from local and central institutions, civil society, private sector and media in USAID TEAM Events. USAID TEAM will report this information to USAID disaggregated by category of trainee and by training topic. Indicator 5: Municipal Procurement Effectiveness and Corruption Vulnerability Proposed revised indicator #17(a): Change in municipal procurement effectiveness and corruption vulnerability. The Index is the tool by which this change is measured. This high-level measure is an important method for telling the story of the overall project impact. Indicator 3: % of entries made in Contractor Past Performance Database Proposed revised indicator #20: % of entries made in Contractor Past Performance Database in the 15 focus municipalities. Based on discussions with the PPRC, the database will be rolled out first as a pilot and then, based on feedback, to a broader set of contracting authorities. The revised indicator will capture changes in USAID TEAM focus municipalities only, and not in all 38 municipalities. Indicator 14: # of procurement fraud cases detected by the NAO Fraud Unit and handed over to prosecutors Proposed revised indicator #21: # of fraud cases detected by NAO Fraud Unit and handed over to prosecutors. USAID TEAM will disaggregate by type of fraud, i.e. # of procurement fraud cases (and give examples) and report disaggregated by contracting authority type (central, municipal, or publicly owned enterprises). Indicator 17: # of cases of municipal procurement malfeasance reported by CSOs Proposed revised indicator #24: # of cases of municipal procurement malfeasance reported by CSOs supported by USAID TEAM. CSOs trained by USAID TEAM are receiving funding from other sources to conduct procurement reports. The rephrasing of the indicator will allow the project to capture this impact.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 31 NEW INDICATORS COMPONENT ONE Indicator 4: Municipal graduation index indicator Through this index indicator, USAID TEAM will track municipal progress in addressing corruption vulnerabilities and enhancing transparency in public procurement to “graduate” from project assistance. The progress will be tracked in the 15 focus municipalities. Indicator data will be collected, analyzed, and reported for each of the 15 municipalities, separately. Indicator 5: % of procurements activities that are canceled due to irregularities in 15 focus municipalities This indicator measures the percent reduction in bid cancellations for irregularities in the 15 focus municipalities that are not covered by article 62.2.1. of the PPL. Indicator 6: % of municipal procurement plans implemented in 15 focus municipalities This indicator measures the percent of municipal procurement activities implemented by focus municipalities from their plan, expressed as an average of the 15 focus municipalities. Indicator 7: % of implementation of procurement activities not planned in 15 focus municipalities The project will track the progress in the 15 focus municipalities. Indicator 8: % of EOs protests to PRB in 15 focus municipalities This indicator will track the percentage of EO protests submitted to PRB for municipal procurement activities. The project will track the progress in the 15 focus municipalities. Indicator 9: % of PRB decision in favor of CA in 15 focus municipalities The project will track the progress in the 15 focus municipalities. Indicator 10: % of completion of contracts within the time limit according to the contract conditions in 15 focus municipalities This indicator measures whether the municipality is adhering to the time limits on implementing a contract as planned in the procurement plan. Indicator 11: % of executed payments within the time-limit according to the financial rules in 15 focus municipalities This indicator will measure the extent to which a municipality applies time limits for the execution of payments, which is allowed up to 30 days after the receipt of the invoice. The project will track the progress in the 15 focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 32 Indicator 12: % of procurement financial and audit documents publicized in 15 focus municipalities The project will track documents that should be published including: approved budget (1 document), periodic financial reports (3 documents), annual financial reports (1 document), mid- term budget framework, mayors plan, mayors reports (2 documents), monthly financial time series (12 documents), the NAO report, and all procurement activities published (procurement plans, contracts, etc.) The project will track the progress in the 15 focus municipalities. Indicator 14: % of all NAO findings that are fully addressed by all municipalities This indicator measures the extent to which municipalities follow-up and address NAO audit findings. Indicator15: % of implementation of internal audit recommendations in 15 focus municipalities This indicator will measure the percentage of the implemented internal audit recommendations. The project will track the progress in the 15 focus municipalities. Indicator 16: % of citizen perception on existence of corruption in municipality USAID TEAM conducts an annual survey to assess citizens’ satisfaction with transparency in public procurement. Data for this indicator will be extracted from this annual survey (survey question #17c: In your opinion if corruption exists to what extent is it prevalent in municipality?) Indicator 18: Transparent, effective, and accountable index indicator in all municipalities This index indicator measures the performance of all 38 Kosovo municipalities in three main areas of performance including procurement, transparency, and audit. Data will be disaggregated to show performance in all municipalities thus demonstrating the impact of the project’s activities in focus municipalities compared to all other municipalities. Data will be collected and reported on an annual basis (data collected in January – data reporting in February). COMPONENT TWO Indicator 22: # of correction letters sent by PPRC Monitoring Unit regarding public procurements with irregularities or red flags This indicator will measure the correction letters sent by the PPRC Monitoring Unit and reporting will be disaggregated by contracting authority type (central, municipal, or publicly owned enterprises). USAID TEAM will specifically disaggregate findings for the 15 focus municipalities. COMPONENT THREE Indicator 25: # of CSO and media recommendations on corruption red flags and irregularities in public procurement addressed by municipalities
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 33 USAID TEAM is supporting several CSOs and media organizations that prepare monitoring reports and action plans to address findings. Findings are addressed by the 15 focus municipalities. NOTE ON ACTIVITY EXPANSION: Because of the recent activity expansion to ten (10) additional municipalities, the indicators added will separately measure the performance of the additional 10 municipalities. Therefore, these indicators will be categorized in two groups: (a) and (b). Group (a) represents indicators for the five original municipalities while group (b) represents indicators for 10 new focus municipalities. For instance: Indicator 5 (a): % of procurement activities canceled due to irregularities in the five original focus municipalities. Indicator 5 (b): % of procurement activities canceled due to irregularities in the 10 new additional municipalities. The thirteen indicators that will measure original five and ten new focus municipalities separate, are: • Indicator 4(a): Municipal graduation index indicator for five original focus municipalities. • Indicator 4(b): Municipal graduation index indicator for ten new focus municipalities. • Indicator 5(a): % of procurement activities canceled due to irregularities in five original focus municipalities. • Indicator 5(b): % of procurement activities canceled due to irregularities in ten new focus municipalities. • Indicator 6(a): % of municipal procurement plans implemented in five original focus municipalities • Indicator 6(b): % of municipal procurement plans implemented in ten new focus municipalities • Indicator 7(a): % of implementation of procurement activities not planned in five original focus municipalities. • Indicator 7(b): % of implementation of procurement activities not planned in ten new focus municipalities. • Indicator 8(a): % of EO protests to PRB in five original focus municipalities. • Indicator 8(b)B: % of EO protests to PRB in ten new focus municipalities. • Indicator 9(a): % of PRB decisions in favor of CA in five original focus municipalities. • Indicator 9(b): % of PRB decisions in favor of CA in ten new focus municipalities. • Indicator 10(a): % of contracts completed within the time limit according to the contract conditions in five original focus municipalities. • Indicator 10(b): % of contracts completed within the time limit according to the contract conditions in ten new focus municipalities. • Indicator 11(a): % of executed payments within the time-limit according to the financial rules in five original focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 34 • Indicator 11(a): % of executed payments within the time-limit according to the financial rules in ten new focus municipalities. • Indicator 12(a): % use of “price quotations low value” contracts conducted by municipal departments in five original focus municipalities. • Indicator 12(a): % use of “price quotations low value” contracts conducted by municipal departments in ten new focus municipalities. • Indicator 13(a): % of procurement financial and audit documents publicized in five original focus municipalities. • Indicator 13(b): % of procurement financial and audit documents publicized in ten new focus municipalities. • Indicator15(a): % of implementation of internal audit recommendations in five original focus municipalities • Indicator15(b): % of implementation of internal audit recommendations in ten new focus municipalities • Indicator 16(a): % of citizen perception on existence of corruption in five original focus municipalities • Indicator 16(b): % of citizen perception on existence of corruption in ten new focus municipalities • Indicator 17(a): Change in Municipal Procurement Effectiveness and Corruption Vulnerability in five original focus municipalities. • Indicator 17(b): Change in Municipal Procurement Effectiveness and Corruption Vulnerability in ten new focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 35 AMP INDICATOR PROGRESS Note: Data for municipal indicators are preliminary. USAID TEAM is in the process of verifying the data with the municipalities.
INDICATOR 1: # OF PEOPLE TRAINED FROM LOCAL AND CENTRAL INSTITUTIONS, CIVIL SOCIETY, PRIVATE SECTOR AND MEDIA IN USAID TEAM EVENTS Indicator status:
Target for Year 4: 1,095 Actual: 1,195 Target exceeded by 100 participants.
INDICATOR BASELI Y1 ACTU Y2 ACTU Y3 ACTU Y4 ACTU LOP REPORTIN NE TARGE AL TARGET AL TARGET AL TARGET AL TARGET G T FREQUENC Y # of people trained 0 900 1,076 995 1,702 1,045 1,489 1095 1,195 4,680 Quarterly from local and central and institutions, civil Annually society, private sector and media in USAID TEAM events This indicator measures the number of people trained from local and central institutions as well as representatives from CSOs, economic operators, and the media that are recipients or participants in USAID TEAM events. This data is reported on a quarterly and annual basis.
The tables below present events conducted during Year 4 disaggregated by topic and number of participants. Workshops Events Participants Quarter 1 1 1.3.2. Managing public projects and contracts - Challenges and recommendations 1 30 Total 1 30 Quarter 1 & 4 1 1.3.1.c Build capacities for drafting technical specifications 11 137 Total 11 137 Quarter 2 1 3.1.1 Social auditing in selected infrastructure projects in six second-tier municipalities 7 46 Total 7 46 Quarter 2 & 3 1 1.3.1.b Build capacities of the bid evaluation committee members 10 135 2 3.2.1 Applied Peer Learning workshop for CSOs on monitoring public procurement 6 43
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 36 Workshops Events Participants 3 3.2.1 Applied Peer Learning workshop for CSOs on Policy communication 4 26 Total 20 204 Quarter 3 1 1.4.3 Development of Action Plan for addressing the NAO recommendations 8 49 2 1.1.5.a Measure and report on the annual project and graduation indicator results 5 38 3 1.3.1.a Progress of Procurement Plan Implementation 10 98 4 1.7.2.a - Handbook on Internal Public Expenditure Management Process 4 37 5 3.1.6 Meeting with the Social Audit Team - Construction of city park / Renovation of the River Krena -second phase, Gjakovë/ Đjakovica and municipal representatives 1 14 6 3.1.6 Meeting with the Social Audit Team - Construction of the Art School, Pejë/ Peć and municipal representatives 1 5 7 3.1.6 Meeting with the Social Audit Team - Construction of the Elderly House, Pejë/ Peć and municipal representatives 1 7 8 3.1.6 Meeting with the Social Audit Team - Revitalization and construction of the park near the Morava river in the city of Gjilan/ Gnjilane Construction of the sports field in Pogragja and municipal representatives 1 13 Total 31 261 Quarter 3&4 1 1.1.5.b Introduce municipal Graduation plan and OCAT results in 10 new focus municipalities 10 85 2 1.3.1.d Procurement capacity building for School Directors 10 196 Total 20 281 Quarter 4 1 1.3.1.d Procurement capacity building for Municipal Directors 11 93 2 1.4.4 Build capacity of Municipal Committee for Policy and Finance on procurement, audit and financial control processes 4 26 2.3.7 Risk Case selection - PPRC Monitoring Department 1 12 Total 16 131 Total number of events and participants 106 1,090
Training Sessions Events Participants Quarter 2 1 1.4.2 Enhance the performance audit methodology for internal auditors 1 28 Total 1 28 Quarter 2 & 3 1 3.3.2 Initial hands-on training for CSOs on how to prepare and refer cases to enforcement mechanisms, including police, prosecutors 7 20 Total 7 20
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 37 Quarter 3 1 2.3.1 Contract management and Contractor performance evaluation modules - PPRC 1 6 2 2.3.2 Contract management and Contractor performance evaluation modules – government officials 1 25 3 Monitoring Public Procurement - North Mitrovica 1 6 Total 3 37 Quarter 4 1 Training of the Newly Law Graduates 1 20 Total 1 20 Total number of events and participants 12 105
Roundtables Events Participants Quarter 4 1 1.3.4 Support AKM Procurement Collegium as a venue for 2 35 information exchange and roll-out of technical assistance 2 1.4.5 Disseminate internal audit processes to build capacity 2 50 of IAU and MACs 3 1.5.3 Engage all municipal HR managers through learning 1 38 summits to roll-out solutions 4 1.6.2 SOP for standardized municipal web publications and 1 10 dissemination of practices 5 1.7.3 Disseminate handbook, SOP’s, templates and 1 19 practices for Public Financial Management and control 6 3.1.4 Let’s talk with investigative journalists 2 41 Total 9 193 Total number of events and participants 9 193
Focus Group DISCUSSIONS Events Participants Quarter 2 1 1.1.4 Focus Group discussion with business 4 40 representatives 2 1.1.4 Focus Group discussion with CSO representatives 4 38 3 Virtual – Feedback from CSOs 1 9 Total 9 87 Total number of events and participants 9 87 Note: Additionally, through this indicator, the project will report on the number of participants in other events such as, focus groups, round tables and launching events, for information purposes. However, only training and workshop participants will be counted for this indicator.
INDICATOR 2: TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL’S CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX Based on expert opinions from around the world, the Corruption Perceptions Index measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption worldwide. With a score of 36, Kosovo scored
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 38 the same as last year. A score of 100 means the country is wholly free of corruption, while a score of 0 means the country is perceived as very corrupt. From 2017-2019 Kosovo’s score dropped. While in 2020 Kosovo received the same score as 2019, ranking 104th out of 183 countries measured by Transparency International. This indicator is reported annually. However, USAID TEAM does not have a target for this indicator and no project activities directly influence the CPI and there is no clear contribution of project activities to changes in the CPI score. This indicator is included as an informational indicator, capturing broader trends in corruption
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET 2017 2018 2019 2020 TARGET FREQUENCY Transparency 36 (2016) – N/A 39 37 36 36 N/A Annually International’s global average Corruption was 43 Perception Index
INDICATOR 3: WORLD BANK CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDICATOR Control of Corruption captures perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as "capture" of the state by elites and private interests.
The World Bank presents the country's score as an aggregate indicator, in units of a normal distribution, i.e. ranging from approximately -2.5 to 2.5.
However, USAID TEAM does not have a target for this indicator and no project activities directly influence the Control of Corruption Indictor. There is no clear attribution of project activities to changes in the World Bank indicator. This indicator is included as an informational indicator only capturing broader trends in corruption.
https://databank.worldbank.org/data/source/worldwide-governance-indicators/preview/on#
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET 2017 2018 2019 2020 TARGET FREQUENCY World Bank 36.5 (percentile N/A -0.4 (2016) -0.5 (2017) -0.5 (2018) -0.6 (2019) N/A Annually Control of rank) (2015) Corruption Indicator 0.5 (2015) 0.6 (2016)
INDICATOR 4(A): MUNICIPAL GRADUATION INDEX INDICATOR FOR FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 77 Actual: 74 Target not fully reached.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 39 Through this index indicator, USAID TEAM tracks municipal progress in addressing corruption vulnerabilities and enhancing transparency in public procurement to “graduate” from project assistance. Indicator data is collected, analyzed and reported separately for each municipality. The graduation index indicator consists of the following indicators/sub-indicators: • Percentage decrease of municipal procurement activities canceled • Percentage increase of implementation of municipal procurement plans • Percentage decrease of implementation of procurement activities not planned • PRB appeals index o Percentage decrease of EO protests to PRB o Percentage increase of PRB decision in favor of municipality • Contract Management Effectiveness Index o Time limit of the completion of contract o Percentage of liquidated damages applied (penalties) o Time limit of execution of payments o Number of annex contracts • Publication of financial, procurement, and audit documentation • Percentage increase of citizen perception of corruption and transparency in public procurement and public finance at the municipal level implemented • Percentage increase of implementation of National Audit Office (NAO) recommendations related to finance management, public procurement, mayor’s office, and HR • Percentage increase of implementation of internal audit recommendations related to finance management, public procurement, mayor’s office, and HR • Municipal Procurement Effectiveness and Corruption Vulnerability index o Planning and budgeting o Staff capacity o Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, and anti-fraud
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET L TARGET FREQUENCY
Municipal 51 (2017) N/A 61 61 72 76 77 74 82 Annually graduation Pristina 44 index Gjilan 44 indicator for Gjakove five original 51 focus Peje 60 municipalities Vushtrri 57 Average 51 The chart below illustrates graduation results in the period 2017-2020 for the five original focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 40
Five original focus municipalities
Graduation results 2017-2020 90 84 80 82 76 77 80 80 73 80 80 8075 80 69 72 68 64 70 60 62 62 57 60 53 51 51 50 44 44 40 30 20 10 0 Pejë Vushtrri Gjilan Gjakovë Prishtinë
Dec. 2017 Dec. 2018 Dec. 2019 Dec. 2020 Min. score for grad.
INDICATOR 4(B): MUNICIPAL GRADUATION INDEX INDICATOR FOR TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES Indicator status:
Target for Year 4: 62 Actual: 68 Target exceeded.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTIN TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET G FREQUENC Y Municipal Baseline N/A N/A Baseline 62 68 72 Annually graduation index 2019: 55 2019: 55 indicator for ten new focus municipalities
The chart below illustrates graduation results covering period 2019-2020 for the additional ten municipalities.
INDICATOR 5(A): PERCENTAGE OF PROCUREMENTS ACTIVITIES CANCELLED DUE TO IRREGULARITIES IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 3.5% Actual: 4.0% Target not fully reached.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 41 In Year 4, the total number of cancelled procurement activities was 25. Gjakova/Đjakovica municipality had the lowest number of procurement activities cancelled, with only 3 out of 125, Pristina cancelled 3.4% of procurement activities, Vushtrri/V 4.17%, Peja/Pec 5.13% and Gjilan/Gnjilane 9.33% of its procurement activities, as described in the table below. The main reasons given for the cancellation of procurement activities were no bidders, unresponsive bidders, weak drafting of the technical specifications, and PRB decisions, etc.
This indicator measures the percent reduction in bid cancellations for irregularities in the focus municipalities that are not covered by Article 62.2.1.
INDICAT BASELI Y1 ACTU Y2 ACTU Y3 ACTU Y4 ACTU LOP REPORTIN OR NE TARG AL TARG AL TARG AL TARG AL TARG G ET ET ET ET ET FREQUEN CY % of 21.5% 16.50% 8.5% 13% 15.42% 10.50% 6.4% 3.5% 4.0% 3.0% Annually procureme (PPRC nt activities report canceled 2016) due to irregulariti es in five original focus municipaliti es.
% OF PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES CANCELLED 2020 Focus Number of Number % of canceled municipalities procurement of activities activities for 2020 canceled activities in 2020 Gjilan/Gnjilane 75 7 9.33% Vushtrri/Vučitrn 96 4 4.17% Pristina 206 5 2.4% Gjakove/Đjakovica 125 3 2.40% Peje/Peć 117 6 5.13% TOTAL 619 25 4.0%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 42
Ind.#5(a): Percentage of canceled activities in 2020 250 206 200
150 125 117 96 100 75
50 7 4 5 3 6 9.3% 4.2% 2.4% 2.4% 5.1% 0 Gjilan Vushtrri Prishtine Gjakove Pejë Number of procurement activities for 2020 Number of canceled activities in 2020 Percentage of canceled activities in percentage
INDICATOR 5(B): PERCENTAGE OF PROCUREMENTS ACTIVITIES CANCELLED DUE TO IRREGULARITIES IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 4.5% Actual: 4.5% Target not fully reached. In Year 4, the total number of cancelled procurement activities was 50. Suharekë/Suva Reka and Podujeva/o municipalities had the lowest number of procurement activities cancelled at 2.3% for Suhareka/Suva Reka and 2.5% for Podujeva/o. Rahovec/Orahovac and Istog/k cancelled 3.79% and 4.5% respectfully of procurement activities. Prizren cancelled 2.02% of its procurement activities, Hani i Elezit/Elez Han and Junik municipalities 6.2% and 6.9, Lipjan/Lipljane municipality 7.3%, Decan 11.7% and Ferizaj/Uroševac 21.6%, as described in the table below. The main reason given for the cancellation of the procurement activities is no bidders, unresponsive bidders, weak drafting of the technical specifications, PRB decisions, etc.
This indicator measures the percent reduction in bid cancellations for irregularities in the focus municipalities that are not covered by Article 62.2.1.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 43 INDICAT BASELINE Y1 ACTU Y2 ACTU Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTING OR TARGET AL TARGET AL TARGE L TARGE L TARGET FREQUENC T T Y % of Baseline 2019 N/A N/A Baseline 4.5% 4.5% 3.5% Annually procureme average: 5.5% 2019: nt activities Decan 8% 5.5% canceled Ferizaj 9% due to Hani i Elezit irregularitie 10% s in ten Istog 9% new focus Junik 9% municipaliti Lipjan 6% es. Podujevë 0% Prizren 3% Rahovec 6% Suharekë 3%
% OF PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES CANCELED 2020 Focus Number of procurement Number of canceled % of canceled municipalities activities for 2020 activities in 2020 activities Decan 34 3 8.82%
Ferizaj 119 12 10.08%
Hani I Elezit 64 4 6.25%
Istog 132 5 3.79%
Junik 29 2 6.90%
Lipjan 136 10 7.35%
Podujeve 156 4 2.56%
Prizren 198 4 2.02%
Rahovec 68 2 2.94%
Suhareke 172 4 2.33%
TOTAL 1108 50 4.5%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 44 Ind.#5(b): Percentage of canceled activities in 2020
250 198 200 172 156 150 132 136 119
100 64 68 50 34 29 12 4 5 10 4 4 4 3 2 7.35% 2.56% 2.02%2 2.33% 0 8.82% 10.08% 6.25% 3.79% 6.90% 2.94% Decan Ferizaj Hani I Istog Junik Lipjan Podujeve Prizren Rahovec Suhareke Elezit
Number of procurement activities for 2020 Number of canceled activities in 2020 Percentage of canceled activities in percentage
INDICATOR 6(A): PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPAL PROCUREMENT PLANS IMPLEMENTED IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 82% Actual: 74% Target not fully reached. This indicator measures the percent of municipal procurement plans implemented by focus municipalities, expressed as an average of the five municipalities. It is expected that by the end of the project, focus municipalities will implement an average of 92% of their procurement plans.
USAID TEAM procurement advisers conducted workshops to assist the five-original focus municipalities develop comprehensive procurement plans for 2020. The best performing municipality in this indicator in 2020 is Gjakova/Đjakovica municipality with 84% of implementation of procurement plan activities followed by Peja/Pec with 83%, Vushtrri/Vucitrn 82%, and the municipalities of Pristina and Gjilan/Gnjilane both with 63%.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTI TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGE NG T FREQUEN CY % of municipal 60 63% 75.53% 68% 71% 74% 82.1% 82% 74% 92% Annu procurement ally plans implemented in five original focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 45 The table below presents implementation of the procurement plans of five original focus municipalities for 2020:
Percentage of municipal procurement plans implemented in focus municipalities 2020
Municipality Planned Initiated during 2020 %
Prishtinë 205 129 63% Gjakovë 123 103 84% Pejë 115 95 83% Gjilan 60 38 63% Vushtrri 68 56 82% Total 571 421 74%
INDICATOR 6(B): PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPAL PROCUREMENT PLANS IMPLEMENTED IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 72% Actual: 75% Target exceeded. This indicator measures the percent of municipal procurement plans implemented by the ten new focus municipalities, expressed as an average of the ten municipalities. It is expected that by the end of the project, the additional municipalities will implement an average of 80% of their procurement plans.
As the data on the below table shows, the best performing municipality in this indicator in 2020 was Lipjan/Lipljane with 86% of implementation of procurement plan activities, followed by Istog/Istok with 83%, Suharekë/Suva Reka 82%, Podujevë/o 78%, Rahovec/Orahovac 72%, etc.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTING TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET FREQUENC T T T T Y % of municipal Baseline 2019 N/A N/A Baseline 72% 75% 80% Annually procurement 68% 2019: plans Decan 82% 68% implemented in Ferizaj 63% ten new focus Hani i Elezit municipalities. 39% Istog 88% Junik 53% Lipjan 84% Podujeve 60% Prizren 57% Rahovec 77% Suhareke 83% Average 2019: 68%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 46 The table below presents implementation of the procurement plans of the ten new focus municipalities for 2020:
Percentage of municipal procurement plans implemented in ten new focus municipalities 2020
Municipality Planned Initiated during 2020 %
Deçan 30 17 57%
Ferizaj 118 78 66%
Hani i Elezit 65 47 72%
Istog 96 80 83%
Junik 44 24 55%
Lipjan 108 93 86%
Podujevë 145 113 78%
Prizren 136 93 68%
Rahovec 47 34 72%
Suharekë 141 115 82%
Total 930 694 75%
INDICATOR 7(A): PERCENTAGE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES NOT PLANNED IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 14% Actual: 16% Target not fully reached. This indicator measures the implementation of procurement activities that were not part of the municipal procurement plan. This indicator does not take into consideration procurement activities implemented but not in the procurement plan, as a result of the budget review or activities supported by ministries and potential donors. From the below table, the municipality of Peja/Pec implemented the fewest procurement activities that were not part of the municipal procurement plan with 6%, followed by GJakova/Djakovica municipality with 9%, Pristina 18%, Gjilan/Gnjilane 25% and Vushtrri/Vucitrn 27%.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 47 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTI TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET NG T T T T FREQUEN CY % of 33% - 33% 29% 16% 14% 16% 12% Annually implementation (2018) of procurement activities not planned in five original focus municipalities.
Municipality Number of procurement activities Number of implementation of procurement % not planned activities not planned
Pristina 206 37 18%
Gjakovë 125 11 9%
Pejë 117 7 6%
Gjilan 75 19 25%
Vushtrri 96 26 27%
Total 619 100 16%
INDICATOR 7(B): PERCENTAGE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES NOT PLANNED IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 29% Actual: 28% Target exceeded. The indicator measures the implementation of procurement activities that were not part of the municipal procurement plan. This indicator does not take into consideration procurement activities implemented but not in the procurement plan as a result of the budget review or activities supported by ministries and potential donors. From the below data table, the municipality of Junik municipality has the least number in implementing procurement activities that were not part of the municipal procurement plan with 7%, followed by Istog/Istok 17%, Hani I Elezit/Elez Han 20%, Lipjan/Lipljane 21%, Podujeve/o 22%, etc.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 48 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTI TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET NG T T T T FREQUEN CY % of Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseline 29% 28% 20% Annually implementati 34% 2019: on of Decan 32% 34% procurement Ferizaj 40 % activities not Hani i Elezit planned in 50% ten new Istog 15% focus Junik 39% municipalities. Lipjan 12% Podujevë 37 % Prizren 56% Rahovec 36% Suharekë 12% Average 2019: 34%
Municipality Number of procurement Number of implementations of % activities not planned procurement activities not planned
Deçan 34 9 26%
Ferizaj 119 35 29%
Hani i Elezit 64 12 19%
Istog 132 22 17%
Junik 29 2 7%
Lipjan 136 29 21%
Podujevë 156 34 22%
Prizren 198 93 47%
Rahovec 68 28 41%
Suharekë 172 45 26%
Total 1108 309 28%
INDICATOR 8(A): PERCENTAGE OF ECONOMIC OPERATOR PROTESTS TO PUBLIC PROCUREMENT REVIEW BODY IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 6%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 49 Actual: 27% Target not reached. The total number of complaints or bid protests reviewed by PRB in Year 4 for the five focus municipalities was 167. USAID TEAM measures the decrease of the focus municipality procurement activities sent to PRB for review. Through on-the-job training in all the procurement phases, USAID TEAM supports municipalities in drafting comprehensive tender documents, conducting objective evaluation of the tenders, and providing the unsuccessful bidders a clear justification on the result of the decision. Conditions in Year 4 made it very challenging for municipalities to reach the targets in this indicator. The COVID-19 pandemic affected all municipalities capacity to conduct procurement activities. Many of the municipalities worked with a limited number of staff due to infection with COVID-19 and struggled with a high number of demands for emergency procurement. The increase in the number of complaints is due to the urgency need for municipalities to meet requirements for goods during the pandemic and a lack of experience creating technical specifications for medical supplies and devices, which resulted in weaker drafting of technical specifications.
REPORTI Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 NG TARGE ACTUA TARGE ACTUA TARGE ACTUA TARGE ACTUA LOP FREQUE INDICATOR BASELINE T L T L T L T L TARGET NCY % of Economic Baseline 11% 8.17% 9% 9.5% 7% 15.2% 6% 27% 5% Annually Operators (2017) protests to 11.5% Public Procurement Review Body in five original focus municipalities.
Focus Number of Number of complaints % Municipalities procurement in 2020 by EO activities in 2020
Prishtinë 206 73 35% Gjakovë 125 39 31% Pejë 117 16 14% Gjilan 75 21 28%
Vushtrri 96 18 19% Total 619 167 27%
INDICATOR 8(B): PERCENTAGE OF ECONOMIC OPERATOR PROTESTS TO PUBLIC PROCUREMENT REVIEW BODY IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 12% Actual: 19%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 50 Target not fully reached. The total number of complaints or bid protests reviewed by PRB in Year 4 for ten new focus municipalities was 216.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTING TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET FREQUENC T T T T Y % of Economic Baseline 2019 N/A N/A Baseline 12% 19% 10% Annually Operators 14% 2019: protests to Decan 12% 14% Procurement Ferizaj 13% Review Body in Hani i Elezit ten new focus 0% municipalities. Istog 11% Junik 15% Lipjan 18% Podujevë 7% Prizren 17% Rahovec 22% Suharekë 20% Average 2019: 14%
New focus Number of Number of % Municipalities procurement complaints activities in in 2020 by 2020 EO
Deçan 34 7 21%
Ferizaj 119 31 26%
Hani i Elezit 64 3 5%
Istog 132 9 7%
Junik 29 5 17%
Lipjan 136 21 15%
Podujevë 156 7 4%
Prizren 198 91 46%
Rahovec 68 9 13%
Suharekë 172 33 19%
Total 1108 216 19%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 51 Ind. #8b: % EO protests to public procurement review body in ten new focus municipalities
250
198 200 172 156 150 132 136 119
100 91 64 68
50 34 31 29 33 21 7 9 7 9 21% 26% 3 5% 7% 517% 15% 4% 46% 13% 19% 0 Deçan Ferizaj Hani i Istog Junik Lipjan Podujevë Prizren Rahovec Suharekë Elezit
Number of procurement activities in 2020 Number of complaints in 2020 by EO Expressed in %
INDICATOR 9(A): PERCENTAGE OF PROCUREMENT REVIEW BODY DECISIONS IN FAVOR OF CONTRACTING AUTHORITIES IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 45% Actual: 29% Target not reached. The improved tender dossier, including technical specifications and evaluation criteria, will increase the percentage of the Procurement Review Body decisions made in favor of Contracting Authority. The project will track the progress in the five original focus municipalities. This indicator will track the PRB decisions in favor of CAs. Conditions in Year 4 made it very challenging for municipalities to reach the targets in this indicator. The COVID-19 pandemic affected all municipalities’ capacity to conduct procurement activities. Many of the municipalities worked with a limited number of staff due to infection with COVID-19 and struggled with a high number of demands for emergency procurement. The increase in the number of complaints is due to the urgency need for municipalities to meet requirements for goods during the pandemic and a lack of experience creating technical specifications for medical supplies and devices, which resulted in weaker drafting of technical specifications, and consequently the number of decisions in favor of municipalities declined.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 52 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of Baseline N/A N/A 37% 17% 45% 29% 52% Annually Procurement (2018) Review Body 33% decisions in favor of Contracting Authorities in five original focus municipalities.
Focus Decisions Decisions in % Municipalities taken by the favor of CA PRB
Prishtinë 55 20 36%
Gjakovë 32 6 19%
Pejë 10 2 20%
Gjilan 16 3 19%
Vushtrri 13 5 38%
Total 126 36 29%
INDICATOR 9(B): PERCENTAGE OF PROCUREMENT REVIEW BODY DECISIONS IN FAVOR OF CONTRACTING AUTHORITIES IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 43% Actual: 35% Target not fully reached. The improved tender dossier, including technical specifications and evaluation criteria, will increase the percentage of the Procurement Review Body decisions made in favor of Contracting Authority. The project will track the progress in the ten new focus municipalities. This indicator will track the PRB decisions in favor of CAs.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 53 INDICAT BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING OR TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of Baseline N/A N/A Baseline 43% 35% 52% Annually Procureme 2019: 35% 2019: nt Review Decan 40% 35% body Ferizaj 33% decision in Hani i Elezit favor of 100% Contractin Istog 46% g authority Junik 0% in ten new Lipjan 31% focus Podujevë municipaliti 63% es. Prizren37 % Rahovec 20% Suharekë 30% Average 2019: 35%
Additional Decisions taken Decisions % Municipalities by the PRB in favor of CA
Deçan 7 1 14%
Ferizaj 25 11 44%
Hani i Elezit 3 3 100%
Istog 11 6 55%
Junik 4 2 50%
Lipjan 17 4 24%
Podujevë 4 4 100%
Prizren 73 19 26%
Rahovec 11 4 36%
Suharekë 26 9 35%
Total 181 63 35%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 54 INDICATOR 10(A): PERCENTAGE OF CONTRACTS COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT CONDITIONS IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 59% Actual: 49% Target not fully reached. This indicator measures whether the municipality is following the time limits for implementing a contract as planned. According to contract conditions, contract managers have the authority to extend the deadline for contract implementation with valid justification (atmospheric conditions, certain land/building disputes, etc.), and therefore contracts may have valid extended deadlines. However, not all justifications for contract extension are valid, such as some land/building disputes, budget issues, etc. Therefore, USAID TEAM will measure the start and end-dates of the contract and the actual completion date of the contract. During the pandemic, municipalities faced complete lockdown/closure, which resulted in delays in finalizing contracts.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of contracts Baseline N/A 47% 52% 43% 59% 49% 65% Annually completed within (2018) the time limit 47% according to the contract conditions in five original focus municipalities.
Focus Contracts to Contracts % Municipalities be that were completed completed during 2020 within the time-limit
Prishtinë 80 26 33%
Gjakovë 86 51 59%
Pejë 84 38 45%
Gjilan 28 24 86%
Vushtrri 45 19 42%
Total 323 158 49%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 55 INDICATOR 10(B): PERCENTAGE OF CONTRACTS COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT CONDITIONS IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 45% Actual: 68% Target exceeded. The data for indicator 10(b) is provided for the ten USAID TEAM additional focus municipalities. During the pandemic municipalities faced complete lockdown/closure, which resulted in delays in finalizing contracts. The delays of the contracts were also supported by the regulation issued from PPRC, which enabled all contracting authorities to delay contract implementation due to COVID 19. Therefore, the contracting authorities ultimately were able to extend the deadlines for contract implementation.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of contracts Baseline N/A N/A Baseline 45% 68% 52% Annually completed 2019: 40% 2019: within the Decan 56% 40% time limit Ferizaj 30% according to Hani i the contract Elezit 73% conditions in Istog 34% ten new focus Junik 79% municipalities. Lipjan 57% Podujevë 22% Prizren 25% Rahovec 69% Suharekë 35% Average 2019: 40%
Additional Contracts Contracts % Municipalities to be that were completed completed during 2020 within the time-limit
Deçan 10 4 40%
Ferizaj 52 46 88%
Hani i Elezit 31 20 65%
Istog 114 51 45%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 56 Junik 12 9 75%
Lipjan 110 80 73%
Podujevë 88 60 68%
Prizren 109 97 89%
Rahovec 21 18 86%
Suharekë 110 62 56%
Total 657 447 68%
INDICATOR 11(A): PERCENTAGE OF EXECUTED PAYMENTS WITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT ACCORDING TO THE FINANCIAL RULES IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 85% Actual: 81% Target not fully reached. This indicator measures the extent to which a municipality applies a time limit for payment execution (allowable up to 30 days after receipt of an invoice). The data in the below table shows Gjakova/Djakovica municipality has executed the most payments within the time-limit with 87% of its payments made, followed by Vushtrri/Vucitrn 85%, Peja/Pec and Pristina with 79% and Gjilan/Gjilane with 75% executed payments within the time-limit.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTIN TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET G T T T T FREQUENC Y % of executed Baseline N/A Baseline 73% 81% 85% 81% 89% payments within (2018) (2018) the time-limit 69% 69% according to the financial rules in five original focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 57 Focus Payments executed Payments % Municipalitie executed within s the time-limit
Prishtinë 12111 9528 79%
Gjakovë 6705 5841 87%
Pejë 3195 2536 79%
Gjilan 6816 5135 75%
Vushtrri 5153 4383 85%
Total 33,980 27,423 81%
Indicator # 11(a) % of executed payments within the time-limit according to the financial rules in five original focus municipalities 14000 12111 12000 9528 10000
8000 6705 6816 5841 6000 5135 5153 4383 3195 4000 2536 2000 79% 87% 79% 75% 85% 0 Prishtinë Gjakovë Pejë Gjilan Vushtrri Payments executed Payments executed within the time-limit %
INDICATOR 11(B): PERCENTAGE OF EXECUTED PAYMENTS WITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT ACCORDING TO THE FINANCIAL RULES IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 82% Actual: 71% Target not fully reached. Indicator 11(b) is the same as indicator 11(a) but covers the ten new focus municipalities. The data in the below table shows Suhareke/Suva Reka municipality has executed the most payments within the time-limit with 85% of its payments made, followed by Istog/Istok 75%,
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 58 Podujeva/Podujevo, Lipjan/Lipljane and Rahovec/Orahovac with 74% of payment execution, Hani i Elezit 72%, Prizren 65%, Junik 60%, Decan 56% and Ferizaj with 48% of its payments within the time-limit.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTIN TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET G T T T T FREQUENC Y % of executed Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseline 82% 71% 87% payments 74% 2019: within the time- Decan 75% 74% limit according Ferizaj 39% to the financial Hani i Elezit rules in ten new 71% focus Istog 82% municipalities. Junik 70% Lipjan 72% Podujevë 70% Prizren 82% Rahovec 78% Suharekë 85% Average 2019: 74%
Additional Payments Payments % Municipalities executed executed within the time-limit
Deçan 2472 1386 56%
Ferizaj 3008 1453 48%
Hani i Elezit 1260 902 72%
Istog 4823 3625 75%
Junik 1124 671 60%
Lipjan 4373 3220 74%
Podujevë 2917 2158 74%
Prizren 6533 4228 65%
Rahovec 3777 2777 74%
Suharekë 6639 5615 85%
Total 36,926 26,035 71%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 59 Indicator # 11(b) % of executed payments within the time-limit according to the financial rules in ten additional municipalities
7000 6533 6639
6000 5615
5000 4823 4373 4228 4000 3625 3777 3220 3008 2917 3000 2777 2472 2158 2000 1386 1453 1260 1124 902 1000 671
56% 48% 72% 75% 60% 74% 74% 65% 74% 85% 0 Deçan Ferizaj Hani i Istog Junik Lipjan Podujevë Prizren Rahovec Suharekë Elezit
Payments executed Payments executed within the time-limit %
INDICATOR 12(A): % USE OF “PRICE QUOTATIONS LOW VALUE” CONTRACTS CONDUCTED BY MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 9% Actual: 11% Target exceeded. USAID TEAM measures the percent decrease in the use of the price quotation - low value procedure by municipal departments. Out of 619 procurement activities implemented, the price quotation procedure was used for 68 procurement activities. This represents only a 1.99 percent variance with the target.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % use of “price 22.50% 20% 14.5% 17% 17.5% 13% 15.9% 9% 11% 6% Annually quotations low value” contracts conducted by municipal departments in five original focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 60 Number of % of price price quotations Number of quotations procedures initiated Focus procedures used in total, procurement Municipalities of of activities procurement procurement 2020 activities in activities in 2020 2020 Gjilan/Gnjilane 75 12 16% Vushtrri/Vučitrn 96 22 23% Pristina 206 6 3% Gjakove/Đjakovica 125 20 16% Peje/Peć 117 8 7% TOTAL 619 68 11%
Indicator 12(a): % use of “price quotations low value” contracts conducted by municipal departments 250 206 200
150 125 117 96 100 75
50 22 20 12 16% 23% 6 3% 16% 8 7% 0 Gjilan Vushtrri Pristina Gjakove Peje
# of initiated procurement activities 2020 # of price quotations procedures of procurement activities in 2020 % of price quotations procedures used in total, of procurement activities in 2020
INDICATOR 12(B): % USE OF “PRICE QUOTATIONS LOW VALUE” CONTRACTS CONDUCTED BY MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 20% Actual: 19% Target not fully reached. USAID TEAM measures the percent decrease in the use of price quotation - low value procedures by municipal departments. Out of 1,108 procurement activities implemented, the price quotation procedure was used for 205 procurement activities, only 1.5% above the target
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 61 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % use of Baseline N/A N/A Baseline 20% 19% 12% Annually “price 2019: 25% 2019: quotations Decan 24% 25% low value” Ferizaj 20% contracts Hani i conducted by Elezit 62% municipal Istog 12% departments Junik 52% in ten new Lipjan 31% focus Podujevë municipalities. 25 % Prizren 24% Rahovec 33% Suharekë 7% Average 2019: 25%
Number of price % of price Number of quotations quotations Ten new initiated procedures procedures used focus procurement of in total, of Municipalities activities procurement procurement 2020 activities in activities in 2020 2020 Decan 34 10 29% Ferizaj 119 21 18% Hani i Elezit 64 35 55% Istog 132 9 7% Junik 29 8 28% Lipjan 136 31 23% Podujevë 156 19 12% Prizren 198 31 16% Rahovec 68 14 21% Suharekë 172 27 16% TOTAL 1108 205 19%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 62 Indicator 12(b): % use of “price quotations low value” contracts conducted by municipal departments in ten additional municipalities
250 198 200 172 156 150 132 136 119
100 64 68 34 35 31 31 50 21 29 27 10 19 14 29.4% 17.6% 54.7% 96.8% 827.6% 22.8% 12.2% 15.7% 20.6% 15.7% 0 Decan Ferizaj Hani i Istog Junik Lipjan Podujevë Prizren Rahovec Suharekë Elezit
# of initiated procurement activities 2020 # of price quotations procedures of procurement activities in 2020 % of price quotations procedures used in total, of procurement activities in 2020
INDICATOR 13(A): % OF PROCUREMENT FINANCIAL AND AUDIT DOCUMENTS PUBLICIZED IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 95% Actual: 98% Target exceeded. This index indicator tracks regular publication of municipal documents in municipal websites or municipal portals for the five original focus municipalities. Documents to be published are: procurement activities, budget proposals, approved budgets, periodic financial reports, annual financial reports, monthly time-series on revenues and expenditures, annual procurement plans, municipal annual plans, NAO reports, and mayors’ semi-annual reports.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of Baseline - - 92% 95% 95% 98% 97% Annually procurement (2018) financial and 90% audit Prishtina documents 98% publicized in Gjilan five original 91% focus Gjakove municipalities. 78% Peje 77% Vushtrri 97%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 63
% of procurement financial and audit documents publicized in five original focus municipalities. 1 1 100.00% 1042 1042 100.00% Prishtinë 12 11 100.00% 10 7 70.00% 1 1 100.00% 680 680 100.00% Gjakovë 12 11 91.67% 10 10 100.00% 1 1 100.00% 483 444 91.93% Pejë 12 12 100.00% 10 9 90.00% 1 1 100.00% 317 313 98.74% Gjilan 12 11 91.67% 10 9 90.00% 1 1 100.00% 395 395 100.00% Vushtrri 12 12 100.00% 10 10 100.00% Total 3032 2982 98%
INDICATOR 13(B): % OF PROCUREMENT FINANCIAL AND AUDIT DOCUMENTS PUBLICIZED IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 70% Actual: 87% Target exceeded. The index indicator tracks regular publication of the municipal documents in municipal websites or municipal portals same as 13(a), but for the ten new focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 64 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of Baseline N/A N/A Baseline 70% 87% 85% Annually procurement 2019: 57% 2019: financial and Decan 26% 57% audit Ferizaj 23% documents Hani i Elezit publicized in 69% 10 new focus Istog 49% municipalities. Junik 3% Lipjan 83% Podujevë 62% Prizren 49% Rahovec 87% Suharekë 82% Average 2019: 57%
Indicator 13(b): % of procurement financial and audit documents publicized in ten new focus municipalities. 1 1 100.00% 168 139 82.74% Deçan 12 0 0.00% 10 7 70.00% 1 1 100.00% 644 528 81.99% Ferizaj 12 11 91.67% 10 7 70.00% 1 1 100.00% 215 190 88.37% Hani i Elezit 12 12 100.00% 10 10 100.00% 1 1 100.00% 521 482 92.51% Istog 12 0 0.00% 10 5 50.00% 1 1 100.00% 103 103 100.00% Junik 12 12 100.00% 10 9 90.00% Lipjan 1 1 100.00%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 65 757 746 98.55% 12 12 100.00% 10 10 100.00% 1 1 100.00% 502 430 85.66% Podujeve 12 12 100.00% 10 7 70.00% 1 1 100.00% 879 658 74.86% Prizren 12 12 100.00% 10 10 100.00% 1 1 100.00% 378 370 97.88% Rahovec 12 12 100.00% 10 10 100.00% 1 1 100.00% 697 604 86.66% Suhareke 12 12 100.00% 10 10 100.00% Total 5094 4440 87%
INDICATOR 14: PERCENTAGE OF ALL NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE FINDINGS THAT ARE FULLY ADDRESSED BY ALL MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 42% Actual: 37% Target not fully reached.
This indicator measures the extent to which municipalities follow-up and address NAO audit findings. A finding listed in a NAO audit report will be considered addressed when the municipality has acted on NAO recommendations by removing obstacles or by putting in place sufficient controls or other administrative measures to ensure such the same findings will not arise in follow-up audits.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 66 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of all - - - 30% 32% 42% 37% 55% Annually National Audit Office findings that are fully addressed by all municipalities
Number of NAO % of NAO Number of NAO All implemented recommendations recommendations Municipalities recommendations implemented 2018/2019 during 2019/20 2019/2020 Gjakovë 20 7 35.00% Gjilan 18 10 55.56% Pejë 17 7 41.18% Prishtinë 21 6 28.57% Vushtrri 16 2 12.50% Deçan 18 8 44.44% Ferizaj 25 6 24.00% Hani i Elezit 7 3 42.86% Istog 18 7 38.89% Junik 12 9 75.00% Lipjan 9 3 33.33% Podujevë 20 10 50.00% Prizren 29 8 27.59% Rahovec 21 5 23.81% Suharekë 12 5 41.67% Total 263 96 37%
INDICATOR 15(A): % OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNAL AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 49% Actual: 61% Target exceeded.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 67 This indicator measures the percentage implementation of internal audit recommendations in the five original focus municipalities. The data in the table below show that Peja/Pec municipality is the lead in terms of implementing internal audit recommendations at 70% of recommendation implementation, followed by Vushtrri/Vucitrn municipality 67%, Pristina 63%, Gjakova/Dakovica 50% and Gjilan/Gnjilane municipality with 43%,
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPO TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET RTING T T T T FREQ UENC Y % of Baseline - - 45% 41% 49% 61% 54% Annuall implementation of (2018) 42% y internal audit recommendations in five original focus municipalities.
Indicator 15(a): % of implementation of internal audit recommendations in five original focus municipalities Prishtinë 27 17 63% Gjakovë 6 3 50% Pejë 10 7 70% Gjilan 7 3 43% Vushtrri 9 6 67%
Total 59 36 61%
INDICATOR 15(B): % OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNAL AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 50% Actual: 47% This indicator, like 15(a) measures the percentage implementation of internal audit recommendations in the ten new focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 68 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPOR TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET TING T T T T FREQU ENCY % of Baseline 2019: 47% N/A N/A Baseline 50% 47% 54% Annuall implementation of Decan 52% 2019: y internal audit Ferizaj 41% 47% recommendations Hani i Elezit 0% in ten new focus Istog 40% municipalities. Junik 35% Lipjan 55% Podujevë 70% Prizren 39% Rahovec 53% Suharekë 40% Average 2019: 47%
Indicator 15(b): % of implementation of internal audit recommendations in ten new focus municipalities Deçan 13 5 38% Ferizaj 25 4 16% Hani i Elezit 0 0 Istog 7 3 43% Junik 9 5 56% Lipjan 27 15 56% Podujevë 4 3 75% Prizren 10 5 50% Rahovec 39 26 67% Suharekë 13 3 23% Total 147 69 47%
INDICATOR 16(A): % OF CITIZEN PERCEPTION ON EXISTENCE OF CORRUPTION IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 20% Actual: 18.5% USAID TEAM conducts a focused perception survey on an annual basis to measure citizens’ perception of corruption. USAID TEAM identified survey questions on “perception of the presence of large-scale corruption in municipalities,” as a measure of citizen’s perception of corruption in the focus municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 69 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of citizen Baseline 21.5% 17.5% 21% 26.8% 20.5% 22% 20% 18.5% 19% perception of (2016) corruption and 22% transparency in Prishtine public 31%, procurement Peje 15%, and public Gjakove finance at the 25%, municipal level in Gjilan five original 30%, focus Vushtrri municipalities 9% Average 22%
Focus Municipalities %
Prishtinë 39% Gjakovë 15% Pejë 1% Gjilan 22% Vushtrri 16% Total 18.5%
INDICATOR 16(B): % OF CITIZEN PERCEPTION ON EXISTENCE OF CORRUPTION IN TEN NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 14.5% Actual: 14.7% Target exceeded.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of citizen Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseline 14.5% 14.7% 14% Annually perception of 15% 2019: corruption and Decan 9% 15% transparency in Ferizaj 15% public Hani i Elezit 8% procurement Istog 16% and public Junik 3% finance at the Lipjan 10% municipal level Podujevë 18% in ten new Prizren 20% focus Rahovec 34% municipalities Suharekë 17% Average 2019: 15%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 70
New focus municipalities # Deçan 8% Ferizaj 15% Hani i Elezit 8% Istog 16% Junik 3% Lipjan 10% Podujevë 18% Prizren 20% Rahovec 34% Suharekë 17% Total 14.7%
INDICATOR 17(A): CHANGE IN MUNICIPAL PROCUREMENT EFFECTIVENESS AND CORRUPTION VULNERABILITY IN FIVE ORIGINAL FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 84 Actual: 91.67 Target exceeded. The change in MPECV Index measures improvement in municipal capacity to address corruption vulnerabilities across six dimensions: (1) planning and budgeting, (2) staff capacity, (3) contract administration, (4) audit, (5) appeals and review, and (6) transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, and anti-fraud.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY Change in Average 60.94 66 56.81 67 75.78 75 86.26 84 91.67 91 Annually Municipal Procurement Pristina 54.68 Effectiveness Peja 66.67 and Gjakove 55.37 Corruption Gjilan 65.93 Vulnerability in Vushtrri 62.04 five original focus municipalities
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 71 Indicator17(a): Change in Municipal Procurement Effectiveness and Corruption Vulnerability in five original focus municipalities. 2017 2018 2019 2020 Focus Municipalities 56.81 75.78 86.26 91.67
Pristina
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, 2.00 anti-corruption, anti- 1.50 Staff capacity fraud 1.00 0.50 0.00
Contract Appeals and review administration
Audit
Pristina 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 2.33 2.00 2.50 2.83 2.83
Staff capacity 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.67 2.80
Contract administration 1.00 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.50
Audit 1.00 0.88 1.25 2.00 2.60
Appeals and review 2.00 1.67 2.67 2.67 2.67
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 2.33 2.20 2.60 2.60 2.80 fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 72 Gjilan/Gnjilane
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning and Budgeting 3.00
Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.00
0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit
Gjilan/Gnjilane 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 2.33 2.00 2.50 2.83 2.83
Staff capacity 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.67 2.90
Contract administration 1.00 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.50
Audit 2.00 1.88 2.60 2.60 2.85
Appeals and review 2.33 2.00 2.17 2.33 2.67
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti-fraud 2.20 1.50 2.60 3.00 2.90
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 73 Gjakova/Dakovica
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, 2.00 anti-corruption, anti- 1.50 Staff capacity fraud 1.00 0.50 0.00
Contract Appeals and review administration
Audit
Gjakova/Dakovica 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 2.33 2.00 2.50 2.83 2.90
Staff capacity 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.67 2.80
Contract administration 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Audit 1.00 1.50 1.85 2.40 2.75
Appeals and review 2.33 2.00 2.17 2.67 2.67
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti-fraud 1.80 1.10 2.60 3.00 2.90
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 74 Vushtrri/Vucitrn
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, 2.00 anti-corruption, anti- 1.50 Staff capacity fraud 1.00 0.50 0.00
Contract Appeals and review administration
Audit
Vushtrri/Vucitrn 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 2.33 2.00 2.50 2.83 2.90
Staff capacity 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.67 2.90
Contract administration 0.50 1.00 1.75 2.25 2.50
Audit 2.00 1.88 2.50 2.60 2.60
Appeals and review 2.33 2.00 2.17 2.33 2.67
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 2.00 1.10 2.60 3.00 2.90 fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 75 Peja/Pec
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, 2.00 anti-corruption, anti- 1.50 Staff capacity fraud 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit
Peja/Pec 201 201 201 201 202 6 7 8 9 0
Planning and Budgeting 2.33 2.00 2.50 2.83 2.90
Staff capacity 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.67 2.90
Contract administration 1.00 1.50 1.75 2.25 2.50
Audit 2.00 1.50 2.50 2.75 2.80
Appeals and review 2.67 2.33 2.33 2.67 2.67
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 2.00 1.10 2.60 3.00 2.90 fraud
INDICATOR 17(B): CHANGE IN MUNICIPAL PROCUREMENT EFFECTIVENESS AND CORRUPTION VULNERABILITY IN 10 NEW FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 64 Actual: 73.52 Target exceeded. This indicator tracks the improvement/decrease of corruption risks identified in the project Needs Gap Analysis and draft Corruption Vulnerability Assessment. The index allows USAID TEAM to identify priority areas for technical assessment and where to expand or reduce focus over time.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 76 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY
Change in Baseline N/A N/A Baseline 64 73.52 70 Annually Municipal 2019: 60 2019: 60 Procurement Decan 55 Effectiveness Ferizaj 65 and Hani i Corruption Elezit 48 Vulnerability Istog 64 in ten new Junik 50 focus Lipjan 69 municipalities Podujevë 65 Prizren 67 Rahovec 53 Suharekë 65 Average 2019: 60
Indicator17(b): Change in Municipal Procurement Effectiveness and Corruption Vulnerability in new focus municipalities.
Ten new 2017 2018 2019 2020 focus Municipalities - - 60.10 73.52
Lipjan/Lipljan
Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit 2017 2018 2019 2020
Lipjan/Lipljan 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 2.00 2.17 2.50 2.60
Staff capacity 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 77 Contract administration 2.00 1.75 1.85 2.25
Audit 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.70
Appeals and review 1.67 1.67 2.00 2.00
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.70 anti-fraud
Ferizaj/Uroševac
Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit
2017 2018 2019 2020
Ferizaj/Uroševac 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 1.83 2.17 2.50 2.60
Staff capacity 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50
Contract administration 1.00 1.75 1.80 2.00
Audit 1.50 2.00 2.25 2.60
Appeals and review 1.67 2.00 2.00 2.33
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, 1.10 1.80 2.10 2.60 anti-fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 78 Istog/Istok Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit 2017 2018 2019 2020
Istog/k 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 2.17 1.83 2.33 2.40
Staff capacity 1.00 1.50 1.70 2.00
Contract administration 2.00 1.00 1.80 2.25
Audit 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.35
Appeals and review 1.67 1.67 1.67 2.00
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 1.70 1.10 2.02 2.40 fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 79 Podujevë/Podujevo Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit 2017 2018 2019 2020
Podujevë/Podujevo 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 2.33 2.00 2.33 2.40
Staff capacity 2.00 1.50 1.70 2.40
Contract administration 2.50 1.75 1.80 2.00
Audit 1.63 2.00 2.00 2.25
Appeals and review 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.23
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 1.20 1.80 1.86 2.40 fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 80 Suharekë/Suva Reka
Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit 2017 2018 2019 2020
Suharekë/Suva Reka 2017 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 1.83 2.17 2.50 2.60
Staff capacity 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.00
Contract administration 2.00 1.75 2.00 2.25
Audit 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.50
Appeals and review 1.67 1.67 2.00 2.33
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, 1.00 1.60 1.70 2.70 anti-fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 81 Prizren Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit 2018 2019 2020
Prizren 2018 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 2.17 2.33 2.40
Staff capacity 1.50 2.00 2.20
Contract administration 1.75 1.80 2.00
Audit 1.75 2.00 2.40
Appeals and review 2.17 2.17 2.33
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 1.80 1.76 2.70 fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 82 Hani i Elezit/Elez Han Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit 2019 2020
Hani i Elezit/Elez Han 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 1.50 2.33
Staff capacity 1.50 2.00
Contract administration 1.50 1.75
Audit 1.25 1.25
Appeals and review 1.67 2.00
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 1.20 2.70 fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 83 Rahovec/Orahovac Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit 2019 2020
Rahovec/Orahovac 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 2.00 2.33
Staff capacity 1.50 2.00
Contract administration 1.75 2.25
Audit 1.50 1.90
Appeals and review 1.33 1.67
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 1.50 2.70 fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 84 Deçan/Decane Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit 2019 2020
Deçan/Decane 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 1.33 1.50
Staff capacity 2.00 2.00
Contract administration 2.00 2.00
Audit 1.75 1.85
Appeals and review 1.67 2.17
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 1.20 1.80 fraud
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 85 Junik
Planning and Budgeting 3.00 2.50 Transparency, ethics, anti- 2.00 Staff capacity corruption, anti-fraud 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Appeals and review Contract administration
Audit
2019 2020
Junik 2019 2020
Planning and Budgeting 1.33 2.00
Staff capacity 1.00 1.80
Contract administration 2.00 2.00
Audit 1.85 2.15
Appeals and review 1.67 2.00
Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, anti- 1.20 2.30 fraud
INDICATOR 18: TRANSPARENT, EFFECTIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE INDEX INDICATOR IN ALL MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 63 Actual: 64 Target exceeded.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 86 The project will collect and compare data across all 38 municipalities in Kosovo, across three main areas (procurement, transparency, and audit), to show the impact of USAID TEAM activities on 9 sub-indicators:
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTI TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET NG T T T T FREQUE NCY Transparent, Baseline for N/A 52 55 57 63 64 70 Annually effective, and all accountable municipalities index 2018: 52 indictor in all municipalities Baseline for five original focus municipalities 2018: 71
Baseline for 10 new municipalities 2019: 57
INDICATOR 19: # OF MODULES IMPLEMENTED ON E-PROCUREMENT PLATFORM
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 12 Actual: 13
The e-procurement platform consists of 12 individual modules. When USAID TEAM started its implementation in 2017, three out of 12 modules were operational. During Year 1, the project supported the activation of the e-Appeals module, and in Year 2, supported the implementation of three additional modules on the e-Procurement platform: Audit Trail Module, Central Procurement Module, and Online Help Module. In Year 3, the project supported the PPRC IT Team to activate a further four modules: the e- PMIS (reports module), the Framework Agreements Module, the e-Auction Module and the e- Reverse Auction Module. The twelfth, Contract Management Module, was developed during Year 4 and is planned to be operationalized in early Year 5. Additionally, the project worked with the PPRC to develop an additional module for the e-Procurement platform, the Contract Past Performance Module. This indicator measures the number of modules implemented on the e-Procurement platform and will be reported on annual basis.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 87 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUA Y2 ACTUA Y3 ACTUA Y4 ACTUA LOP REPORTIN TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGE L TARGET G T T T T FREQUEN CY # of modules 3 4 +1=4 7 7 11 11 12 13 12 Annually implemented on e- procurement platform
INDICATOR 20: % OF ENTRIES MADE IN CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE DATABASE (AGAINST TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTRACTS) IN THE 15 FOCUS MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 25% Actual: 0% Target not reached.
This indicator measures the percentage of contracts for which 15 focus municipalities entered past performance information in the system against the total number of contracts. This indicator measures entries for high and medium value contracts only. The Contract Past Performing module is planned to be operationalized in early Year 5. Based on the issued regulation of PPRC, all the contracts must be entered and evaluated through this module, and the project expects to achieve the LOP target in Year 5.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP TARGET REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY % of entries 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 50% Quarterly/ made in Annually Contractor Past Performance Database (against total number of contracts) in 15 focus municipalities INDICATOR 21: # OF FRAUD CASES DETECTED BY THE NAO FRAUD UNIT AND HANDED OVER TO PROSECUTOR
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 50 Actual: 54 Target exceeded.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 88 In Year 4, USAID TEAM worked with NAO to monitor and strengthen the role of the NAO Anti-Fraud Unit. The Anti-Fraud Unit has reviewed all audit reports, identified 54 overall fraud cases and submitted them to the State Prosecutor for further action, with 27 of them specifically relating to public procurement. This indicator measures the number of municipal procurement fraud cases detected by the Kosovo NAO Fraud Unit and handed over to the prosecutor for action.
INDICAT BASELI Y1 ACTU Y2 ACTU Y3 ACTU Y4 ACTU LOP REPORTIN OR NE TARG AL TARG AL TARG AL TARG AL TARG G ET ET ET ET ET FREQUEN CY # of fraud 0 0 38 38 43 49 50 54 186 Quarterly/ cases Annually detected by the National Audit Office Fraud Unit and handed over to prosecutor INDICATOR 22: # OF CORRECTION LETTERS SENT BY PPRC MONITORING UNIT REGARDING PUBLIC PROCUREMENT WITH IRREGULARITIES OR RED FLAGS
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 58 Actual: 79 Target exceeded. This indicator measures the number of correction letters sent by PPRC Monitoring Unit to institutions (central, municipal, and publicly owned enterprise). During Year 4, USAID TEAM worked with the monitoring unit of the PPRC to develop a risk-based approach, for the selection of procurement cases for monitoring. This will enable the establishment of a basis for evaluating the performance of procurement officers.
INDICATOR BASELINE YEAR 1 ACTUAL YEAR 2 ACTUAL YEAR 3 ACTUAL YEAR 4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY # of Baseline N/A N/A Baseline 58 79 75 Annually correction 2019: 42 2019: 42 letters sent by Public Procurement Regulatory Commission monitoring unit regarding public procurements with irregularities or red flags?
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 89 INDICATOR 23: # OF HITS ON THE PROCUREMENT TRANSPARENCY PORTAL Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 30,000 Actual: 43,768 Target exceeded.
INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP TARGET REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY # of hits on 0 0 0 4,924 6,000 21,354 30,000 43,768 35,000 Monthly the (20,735 procurement in 2020) transparency portal
Note: Considering the increase of hits in OPTP, USAID TEAM in the revised Adaptive Management Plan increased the annual targets for Y4 and Y5, from 7000 in Y4 to 30.000 and from 10.000 in Y5 to 35.000.
By the end of Year 4, there have been 43,768 cumulative visitors, to the prokurimihapur.org portal, well above the original life of project target of 35,000 hits. CSOs, investigative journalists, businesses, and even government officials reported using the OPTP as a starting point for investigations and for business intelligence. Due to an aggressive promotion campaign, OPTP exceeded the initial targets set for this indicator. USAID TEAM, through its CSO partner Lëvizja FOL, developed and launched a transparency portal www.prokurimihapur.org that facilitates watchdog activities by CSOs, investigative journalists, the private sector, and the public. This transparency portal automatically pulls data from the electronic procurement system. The life-of-projects target is at least 35,000 hits on the public procurement transparency portal. This indicator measures the number of unique and non-unique visits or “hits” on the site. This indicator is reported monthly.
INDICATOR 24: # OF CASES OF MUNICIPAL PROCUREMENT MALFEASANCE REPORTED BY CSOS AND MEDIA SUPPORTED BY USAID TEAM Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 18 Actual: 12 Target not fully reached.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 90 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTUAL LOP REPORTING TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET FREQUENCY # of cases of 8 (2016) 8 8 9 10 12 17 18 12 80 Annually municipal procurement malfeasance reported by CSOs and media supported by USAID TEAM This indicator measures the number of cases of alleged municipal procurement fraud or other irregularities detected and reported by CSOs through reports, websites, newspapers, social media, television programs, or other forms of media. This indicator is reported annually. The actuals for this indicator were affected by COVID-19. Several investigations were delayed and will be published in Year 5. On December 13, BIRN Kosovo published its first investigative analysis looking at the implementation of a tender awarded by the municipality of Malisheva. https://kallxo.com/gjate/skema-qe-garantoi-tenderin-rreth-400-mije-eurosh-per-vellane-e-ministrit-te- tregtise-dhe-industrise/ Led by the Social Democrat Initiative, the Municipality of Malisheva awarded the company “Themeli” a 400,000-euro tender to build a school in the village of Gurbardh. BIRN however found that the company owned by Isuf Krasniqi, the brother of the Minister for Trade, who also belongs to his political party. Additionally, a staff member of the company who was awarded with the tender was Ahmet Morina, the Director of Urban Planning Directorate in the Municipality of Malisheva. This information was found on tender dossier documentation that BIRN’s staff requested access to. Additionally, while Ahmet Morina was a staff member at “Themeli” company and the Director of the Urban Planning Directorate in the Municipality of Malisheva, he was also assigned to be the Chairman of the Evaluation Commission of offers received for the tender on building a school in the village of Gurbardh. Meaning that Mr. Morina awarded his own company the contract. Morina’s response to BIRN was that he was allowed to be member of the Evaluation Commission and at the same time exercise the duty of a municipal official, however, the Chairman of the PPRC, Osman Vishaj has stated that “it is impossible for one to evaluate oneself”. Unfortunately, although the school is already built and expected to be opened, none of the responsible parties involved in the tendering process agreed to publicly speak about the tender. Meanwhile, during November of 2020, the Municipality of Malisheva awarded another contract to the same company for additional work to be done at the school in the village of Gurbardh, worth 22,000 EUR.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 91 On January 14, BIRN Kosovo published its second investigative analysis planned for Milestone 3, exposing violations on an open tender in July of 2020, in the Municipality of Dragash. https://kallxo.com/gjate/shkeljet-ne-tenderin-e-komunes-se-dragashit-per-ambulance/ According to the Public Procurement Review Body, the Municipality of Dragash violated the Law on Public Procurement regarding the “Building of the Family Medical Center in the village of Krusheva” tender. Firstly, the Municipality of Dragash was requested to reassess tender offers, after a complaint submitted by one of the applicant companies, “Puna” to the Tender Court asserted that the municipality did not do the reassessment as recommended by the PPRB. Additionally, the PPRB stated that the Municipality of Dragash did not make an effort to address the problem of insufficient documentation provided by companies that were awarded contracts. “Puna” submitted a complaint asserting that the awarded company – EBK – was not operating in accordance with tender dossier requirements, specifically that over the past three years they have not employed the minimum number of individuals required by the tender for the past three years. The other complaint about the awarded company was that it does not fulfill the requirement of having a certified mechanical engineer in its employ (5 years of undergraduate studies or master studies). Conclusively, the PPRB stated that the Municipality of Dragash violated the law of procurement as the examination, evaluation and comparison among tenders did not comply with Procurement Laws in force. On June 29, NGO COHU sent a legal submission to the Basic Prosecution in Peja as well as the State Prosecution. During monitoring of a tender at the municipality of Istog, COHU uncovered that a company participated in a tender despite its owner having been convicted of a criminal offence. Signature of contracts under these circumstances is in violation of the law. On June 29, COHU sent a legal submission to the Basic Prosecution in Pristina and to the State Prosecutor. COHU had uncovered that a company owned by an individual previously convicted of a criminal offence had taken part in the tender. Signature of contracts under such circumstances is prohibited by the law. On June 30, Democracy Plus (D+) submitted a legal submission to the Basic Prosecution in Prishtina and the State Prosecutor on suspicions that a tender carried out by the Cadastral Agency on scanning documents was done through fraud in public procurement, as it is alleged that one of the companies submitted falsified documents for the tender. On June 30, D+ sent a legal submission to the Basic Prosecution in Pristina and to the State Prosecutor on suspicions that in a tender of the municipality of Lipjan on drafting projects, falsified documents were submitted. The legal submission provides the Prosecution with information on how one of the companies is suspected of having presented falsified material for the tender. On June 30, D+ submitted a legal submission to the Basic Prosecution in Pristina and the State Prosecution on suspicions related to KEK tender on functionalization of the existing building as
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 92 a new canteen for the workers of TC-A, namely the mechanics segment, which if verified could lead to annulment the tender. On June 30, D+ submitted a legal submission to the Basic Prosecution in Pristina and the State Prosecution regarding the tender on wood supply for the needs of education and healthcare institutions in the municipality of Drenas. During the monitoring of this tender, D+ had observed that one of the companies alleged that falsified documents had submitted for the tender. However, these allegations had been investigated. On June 30, D+ submitted a legal submission to the Basic Prosecution in Pristina and the State Prosecution regarding a tender announced by the Privatization Agency, which had opened a tender for servicing and maintenance of cars. D+ uncovered that it was alleged that some companies had falsified employment contracts and dossiers which helped them to win the tender. On June 30, D+ submitted a legal submission to the Prosecution in Gjakova and to the State Prosecutor related to a tender of the municipality of Gjakova for the supply of GPS instruments. During monitoring of this tender, D+ uncovered that it was alleged that the materials in the tendering process were falsified. On June 30, D+ submitted a legal submission to the Basic Prosecution in Ferizaj and to the State Prosecutor. During monitoring of public procurement in the municipality of Shterpce, D+ had uncovered that this municipality signed a contract with a company, whose owner had been convicted of a criminal offence. According to existing legislation, companies whose owners have been convicted cannot benefit from public tenders. On June 30, a legal submission was sent by FOL to the Special Prosecution and to the State Prosecution. FOL uncovered that in the tender for construction of the Pristina – Gjilan highway, four annex contracts were signed outside of the plan and in a dubious manner. FOL also raised suspicions on the expropriation process and irregularities encountered for the highway to Gjilan. INDICATOR 25: # OF CSO AND MEDIA RECOMMENDATIONS ON CORRUPTION RED FLAGS AND IRREGULARITIES IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ADDRESSED BY MUNICIPALITIES
Indicator status: Target for Year 4: 75% Actual: 82%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 93 INDICATOR BASELINE Y1 ACTUAL Y2 ACTUAL Y3 ACTUAL Y4 ACTU LOP REPO TARGET TARGET TARGET TARGET AL TARGET RTING FREQ UENC Y % of Civil society In 2018 there N/A N/A 72% 75% 82% 80% Annual organizations were 57 ly and media recommenda recommendation tions s on corruption provided by red flags and CSOs. irregularities in public 41 out of 57 procurement (72%) addressed by recommenda municipalities tions are addressed in 2019.
Indicator 25: % of Civil society organizations and media recommendations on corruption red flags and irregularities in public procurement addressed by municipalities *Recommend Recommenda Not ations tions targeting Address # Institution address % targeting non- partner ed ed partner institutions institutions CSOs mtgs 1 recommendations 4 4 0 100% ALW Pristina 2 Region 1 1 0 100% 3 ALW Peja Region 4 4 0 100% 4 ALW Gjilan Region 5 5 0 100% ALW Ferizaj 5 Region 6 5 1 83% ALW Prizren 6 Region 7 2 5 29% 1 ALW Mitrovica 7 Region 7 PRB Monitoring report 8 Recommendations 11 9 2 82% KDI Transparency 9 Index 7 7 0 100% 3 TOTAL 45 37 8 82% 11 *Note: Civil society organizations and the media supported by USAID TEAM provided a total of 56 recommendations. However, some recommendations also cover TEAM non-partner institutions, such are recommendations for Mitrovica Region with a total of 7recommendations, as well as recommendations that are not within the TEAM SoW, that is 1 recommendation for Prizren region and 3 recommendations from the KDI and will are calculated in the given percentage for the Indicator 25.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 94 ANNEX 1: AMP INDICATORS TABLE
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year Cross cutting indicators # of people USAID TEAM A count of officials from local and central Data will be Participant Quarter 0 900 1,076 995 1,702 1,045 1,489 1,095 1,195 645 4,680 trained from events are effective institutions, civil society, private sector and collected from data will be ly and local and in spurring media who participated in USAID TEAM participant sign-in disaggregated Annuall central desirable change. events (trainings, workshops, focus groups, sheets from each by sector y institutions, The project will round tables and launching events). conducted activity. (private sector 1 civil society, adjust its approach and civil private sector as needed to society), and media in promote greatest institution USAID TEAM positive change. (central and events local level), and gender. Transparency USAID TEAM will Based on expert opinion from around the https://www.transp NA Annuall 36 (2016) – N/A 39 37 36 36 Attribution is weak or non- International’s collect data from world, the Corruption Perceptions Index arency.org/research y global average existent for this indicator; the Corruption the TI CPI and measures the perceived levels of public /cpi/overview was 43 project will track and report on Perception report on it to sector corruption worldwide. No country country performance in this area 2 Index influence positive comes close to top marks, while over 120 but will not be able to directly actions at the local countries score below 50 on the scale of 0 impact the score. Therefore, we and national level. (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). This have not set annual project means less than a third of countries are targets. above the midpoint.
World Bank USAID TEAM will Control of Corruption captures World bank NA Annuall 36.5 N/A -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 0.6 N/A Attribution is weak or non- Control of collect data from perceptions to the extent of which public (Worldwide y (percentile (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) existent for this indicator; the Corruption the World Bank power is exercised for private gain. This Governance rank) (2015) project will track and report on Indicator and report on it to includes both petty and grand forms of Indicator) country performance in this area influence positive corruption, as well as "capture" of the http://databank.wor but will not be able to directly actions at the local state by elites and private interests. ldbank.org/data/rep impact the score. Therefore, we 3 and national level. Estimate gives the country's score on the orts.aspx?source=w have not set annual project aggregate indicator, in units of a standard orldwide- targets. normal distribution, i.e. ranging from governance- approximately -2.5 to 2.5. See indicators http://databank.worldbank.org/data/glossar ymetadata/1181/series/CC.EST Component One Municipal USAID TEAM will Through this index indicator, USAID Project evaluation USAID TEAM Annuall 51 (2017) N/A 61 61 72 76 77 74 82 82 graduation monitor the TEAM will track municipal progress in is based on defined will present y Pristina 44 index indicator progress of focus addressing corruption vulnerabilities and graduation criteria disaggregated Gjilan 44 for five original municipalities enhancing transparency in public and analysis of data for each Gjakovë 51 4(a) focus against graduation procurement to “graduate” from project overall USAID of the five Pejë 60 municipalities criteria and adjust assistance. Indicator data will be collected, TEAM data, original focus Vushtrri 57 technical analyzed and reported separately for each particularly the municipalities. Average 51 interventions to municipality. The detailed definition MPECV Index and description is found in PIRS.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 95
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year promote greatest other sources of positive change. municipal data. Municipal Same as 4(a) Same as 4(a) Same as 4(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline N/A N/A Baseli 62 68 72 72 Baseline and targets for this graduation will present y 2019: 55 ne indicator were included in June index indicator disaggregated Decan 52 2019: 2020. for ten new data for each Ferizaj 48, 55 focus of the ten new Hani i Elezit 46 municipalities focus Istog 64 4(b) municipalities. Junik 42 Lipjan 71 Podujevë 60 Prizren 50 Rahovec 56 Suharekë 65 Average 2019: 55 % of USAID TEAM will The methodology for measuring this Municipal USAID TEAM Annuall 21.5% (PPRC 16.5% 8.5% 13 % 15.42 10.5% 6.4% 3.5% 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% In June 2020, Y4 and Y5 targets procurement monitor the indicator is the same as in the graduation procurement data, will present y report 2016) % were modified since the Y3 actual activities cancellation of plan. Public procurements are cancelled PPRC data disaggregated was 4% which exceeded original canceled due procurement for many reasons, such as: inadequate regarding municipal data for each target set which was 7% for Y4 to activities and adjust budget/investment planning, lack of procurements, of the five and 5% for Y5. irregularities in interventions as capacity to draft precise requirements, lack research and original focus five original needed. of capacity to draft tender dossiers which interviews by municipalities. focus contain all relevant information. Article USAID TEAM 5(a) municipalities. 62.2.1 of the Public Procurement Law Municipal outlines the cases in which a contracting Implementation authority may legitimately cancel a Specialists procurement. This indicator measures the percent in bid cancellations for irregularities that are not covered by article 62.2.1. Indicators data will be collected, analyzed and reported separately for each municipality. % of Same as 5 (a) Same as 5 (a) Same as 5 (a) USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 4.5% 4.5% 3.5% 3.5% Baseline and targets for this procurement will present y 5.5 ne indicator were included in June activities disaggregated Decan 8% 2019 2020. canceled due data for each Ferizaj 9% 5.5% to of the ten new Hani i Elezit irregularities in focus 10% ten new focus municipalities. Istog 9% 5(b) municipalities. Junik 9% Lipjan 6% Podujevë 0% Prizren 3% Rahovec 6% Suharekë 3% Average 2019: 5.5%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 96
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year % of municipal USAID TEAM will A municipality implements procurement Municipal USAID TEAM Annuall 60% 63% 75.53 68% 71.% 74% 82.1% 82% 74% 92% 92% procurement monitor the plans by carrying out procurement actions procurement plans, will present y % plans implementation of included in their plan. This indicator municipal disaggregated implemented municipal measures the percent of procurement plan procurement data, data for each 6(a) in five original procurement plans activities implemented by focus PPRC data on of the five focus and adjust technical municipalities, expressed as an average. procurements in original focus municipalities. approach to Indicator data will be collected, analyzed focus municipalities municipalities. promote fuller and reported separately for each implementation of municipality. the plans. % of municipal Same as 6(a). Same as 6(a). Same as 6(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A 68% 72% 75% 80% 80% Baseline and targets for this procurement will present y 68% indicator were included in June plans disaggregated Decan 82% 2020. implemented data for each Ferizaj 63% in ten new of the ten new Hani i Elezit focus focus 39% municipalities. municipalities. Istog 88% 6(b) Junik 53% Lipjan 84% Podujevë 60% Prizren 57% Rahovec 77% Suharekë 83% Average 2019: 68% % of USAID TEAM will The methodology for measurement of this Municipal USAID TEAM Annuall 33% (2018) N/A 33% 29% 16% 14% 16% 12% 12% In June 2020, Y4 and Y5 targets implementatio monitor the indicator is the same as in the graduation procurement plans, will present y were modified since the Y3 actual n of implementation of plan. municipal disaggregated was 16% which exceeded the procurement planned This indicator will measure the procurement data, data for each original target set which was 23%
activities not procurement implementation of procurement activities PPRC data on of the five for Y4 and 17% for Y5. planned in five activities and adjust that were not in municipal procurement procurements in original focus 7(a) original focus technical approach plans. Activities that are the result of the focus municipalities. municipalities. municipalities. to implement municipal budget review and activities that procurement are supported by ministries or potential activities as donor will not be counted as unplanned planned. procurement activities. Indicators data will be collected, analyzed and reported separately for each municipality. % of Same as 7(a). Same as 7(a). Same as 7(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 29% 28% 20% 20% Baseline and targets for this implementatio will present y 34% ne indicator were included in June n of disaggregated Decan 32% 2019: 2020. procurement data for each Ferizaj 40 % 34% 7(b) activities not of the ten new Hani i Elezit planned in ten focus 50% new focus municipalities. Istog 15% municipalities. Junik 39% Lipjan 12% Podujevë 37 %
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 97
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year Prizren 56% Rahovec 36% Suharekë 12% Average 2019: 34% % of Economic USAID TEAM will Municipal procurement officials should Data on EO appeals USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline (2017) 11% 8.17% 9% 9.5% 7% 15.2% 6% 27% 5% 5% Note: this indicator tracks that # Operator monitor the prepare tender dossiers, design evaluation are extracted from will present y 11.5% of EO protests to PRB. USAID protests to process of criteria, and evaluate offers in compliance PRB disaggregated TEAM noticed that number of Public preparing tender with the legal requirements so report/database. data for each protests sent by the EO do not Procurement dossiers and adjust procurements do not come under appeal of the five measure municipal performance. 8(a) Review Body technical approach to PRB. This indicator will track original focus in five original to complete this percentage of the EOs protests submitted municipalities. Until the PRB starts applying fees focus process according to PRB for municipal procurement as per the legal base, the EOs can municipalities. to the legal activities. Indicators data will be collected, protest in procurement activities requirements. analyzed and reported separately for each that they are not selected by municipality. municipality. % of Economic Same as 8(a). Same as 8(a). Same as 8(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 12% 19% 10% 10% Baseline and targets for this Operator will present y 14% ne indicator were included in June protests to disaggregated Decan 12% 2019: 2020. Procurement data for each 14% Ferizaj 13% Review Body of the ten new in ten new focus Hani i Elezit 0% focus municipalities. Istog 11% Junik 15% 8(b) municipalities. Lipjan 18% Podujevë 7% Prizren 17% Rahovec 22% Suharekë 20% Average 2019: 14% % of USAID TEAM will The measurement methodology for this PRB USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline (2018) - - 37% 17% 45% 29% 52% 52% This is a new indicator which was Procurement monitor the tender indicator will be the same as in the report/database will present y 33% included in AMP in June 2020. Review Body dossier process municipal graduation plan. disaggregated Nonetheless, the project was decisions in including tender The improved tender dossier including data for each able to collect insert baseline for favor of specifications and technical specifications and evaluation of the five this indicator starting in 2018. 9(a) Contracting evaluation criteria criteria will increase the percentage of focus Authorities in and adjust its decisions made by PRB in favor of the municipalities. five original approach if needed. Contracting Authority. focus Indicator data will be collected, analyzed municipalities. and reported separately for each municipality. % of Same as 9(a). Same as 9(a). Same as 9(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 43% 35% 52% 52% Baseline and targets for this 9(b) Procurement will present y 35% ne indicator were included in June Review body disaggregated Decan 40% 2019: 2020. decisions in data for each Ferizaj 33% 35%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 98
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year favor of of the ten new Hani i Elezit Note: Municipality of Hani i Elezit Contracting focus 100% has no complaints and as a result authority in municipalities. Istog 46% of this there are no PRB ten new focus Junik 0% decisions, therefore received municipalities. Lipjan 31% 100%. Podujevë 63% Prizren37 % Rahovec 20% Suharekë 30% Average 2019: 35% % of contracts USAID TEAM will The methodology for measuring this USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline (2018) NA - 52% 43% 59% 49% 65% 65% This is a new indicator which was completed monitor the indicator will be the same as in the will present y 47% included in AMP in June 2020. within the time completion of the municipal graduation plan. disaggregated Nonetheless, the project was limit according contracts within This indicator measures whether the data for each able to collect insert baseline for to the contract the time limit and municipality is following the time limits to of the five this indicator starting in 2018. conditions in adjust approach to implement the contract as planned. original focus five original increase the According to contract conditions, contract municipalities. focus completion of the managers have the authority to extend the municipalities. contracts as deadline of contract implementation with planned with valid justification (atmospheric conditions, 10(a) municipal certain land/building disputes, etc.), and procurement plans. therefore contracts may have valid contract extension deadlines. However, not all justifications for extending the contract are valid such as some land/building disputes, budget issues, etc. Therefore, USAID TEAM will measure the start and end-dates of the contract and the actual completion date of the contract. Indicator data will be collected, analyzed and reported separately for each municipality. % of contracts Same as 10(a). Same as 10(a). Same as 10(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 45% 68% 52% 52% Baseline and targets for this completed will present y 40% ne indicator were included in June within the time disaggregated Decan 56% 2019: 2020. limit according data for each Ferizaj 30% 40% to the contract of the ten new Hani i Elezit conditions in focus 73% ten new focus municipalities. Istog 34% 10(b) municipalities. Junik 79% Lipjan 57% Podujevë 22% Prizren 25% Rahovec 69% Suharekë 35% Average 2019: 40%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 99
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year % of executed USAID TEAM will The methodology for measuring this USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline (2018) N/A - 73% 81% 85% 81% 89% 89% This is a new indicator which was payments monitor the indicator will be the same as in the will present y 69% included in AMP in June 2020. within the process of municipal graduation plan. disaggregated Nonetheless, the project was time-limit execution of This indicator will measure the extent to data for each able to collect insert baseline for according to payments and which a municipality applies time limits for of the five this indicator starting in 2018. 11(a) the financial adjust its approach the execution of payments (allowed up to original focus rules in five to increase 30 days after the receipt of the invoice). municipalities. In June 2020, Y4 and Y5 targets original focus payment within the Indicator data will be collected, analyzed were modified since the Y3 municipalities. time limit. and reported separately for each actuals was 81% which exceeded municipality. the original target set which was 78% for Y4 and 83% for Y5.
% of executed Same as 11(a). Same as 11(a). Same as 11(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 82% 71% 87% 87% Baseline and targets for this payments will present y 74% ne indicator were included in June within the disaggregated Decan 75% 2019: 2020. time-limit data for each Ferizaj 39% 74% according to of the ten new Hani i Elezit the financial focus 71% rules in ten municipalities. Istog 82% 11(b) new focus Junik 70% municipalities. Lipjan 72% Podujevë 70% Prizren 82% Rahovec 78% Suharekë 85% Average 2019: 74% % use of “price USAID TEAM will This indicator measures the percent use of Municipal USAID TEAM Annuall 22.5% 20% 14.5% 17% 17.5% 13% 15.09 9% 11% 6% 6% quotations low adjust technical the price quotations low value contracts. procurement data, will present y % value” assistance, The project will track procurement PPRC data on disaggregated contracts mentoring, and activities from 1000 – 10.000E. municipal data for each 12(a) conducted by coaching in the Indicator data will be collected, analyzed procurements, of the five municipal municipalities to and reported separately for each interviews with original focus departments in reduce the municipality. municipal municipalities. five original unfounded use of procurement focus these procedures. officials municipalities.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 100
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year % use of “price Same as 12(a). Same as 12(a). Same as 12(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 20% 19% 12% 12% Baseline and targets for this quotations low will present y 25% ne indicator were included in June value” disaggregated Decan 24% 2019: 2020. contracts data for each Ferizaj 20% 25% conducted by of the ten new Hani i Elezit municipal focus 62% departments in municipalities. Istog 12% 12(b) ten new focus Junik 52% municipalities. Lipjan 31% Podujevë 25 % Prizren 24% Rahovec 33% Suharekë 7% Average 2019: 25% % of USAID TEAM will The methodology for measuring this USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline (2018) - - 92% 95% 95% 98% 97% 97% This is a new indicator which was procurement monitor indicator will be the same as in the will present y 90% included in AMP in June 2020. financial and publications of municipal graduation plan. disaggregated Nonetheless, the project was able audit required This indicator will measure the percentage data for each Pristina 98% to collect insert baseline for this documents documents. of documents that should be published of the five Gjilan 91% indicator starting in 2018. publicized in including approved budget (1 document), original focus Gjakovë 78% five original periodic financial reports (3 documents), municipalities. Pejë 77% 13(a) focus annual financial reports (1 document), mid- Vushtrri 97% municipalities. term budget framework, mayor’s plan, mayor’s reports (2 'documents), monthly financial time series (12 documents), NAO report, and all procurement activities. Indicator data will be collected, analyzed and reported separately for each municipality. % of Same as 13(a). Same as 13(a). Same as 13(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 70% 87% 85% 85% Baseline and targets for this procurement will present y 57% ne indicator were included in June financial and disaggregated Decan 26% 57% 2020. audit data for each Ferizaj 23% documents of the ten new Hani i Elezit publicized in focus 69% ten new focus municipalities. Istog 49% 13(b) municipalities. Junik 3% Lipjan 83% Podujevë 62% Prizren 49% Rahovec 87% Suharekë 82% Average 2019: 57%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 101
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year % of all USAID TEAM will This indicator measures the extent to NAO reports, USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline - - 30% 32% 42% 37% 55% 55% Note: This indicator is modified, National Audit monitor the which municipalities follow-up and address municipal audit will present y percentage is from measuring only procurement Office findings percentage of NAO NAO audit findings. A finding listed in a reports, interviews disaggregated 26% addressed NAO findings to measuring all that are fully recommendations NAO audit report will be considered with NAO and data for each recommendati NAO findings. Following this addressed by implemented in all addressed when the municipality has acted municipal officials municipality ons for all change, indicator targets are all municipalities and on NAO recommendations by removing and also the Kosovo revised. 14 municipalities adjust its coaching obstacles or by putting in place sufficient average municipalities This is a mission indicator, and mentoring to controls or other administrative measures during 2017. reported on annual basis. ensure that audit to ensure such findings will not arise in The data is findings are follow-up audits. extracted from addressed NAO report effectively. published in 2018. % of USAID TEAM will The methodology for measuring this Municipal Internal USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline (2018) - - 45% 41% 49% 61% 54% 54% This is a new indicator in AMP The implementatio monitor the indicator will be the same as in the audit unit report will present y 42% project will measure this indicator n of internal implementation of municipal graduation plan. disaggregated starting in Year Three. audit the internal audit This indicator will measure the percentage data for each recommendati recommendations of implemented internal audit of the five 15(a) ons in five and adjust its recommendations with the aim to increase original focus original focus approach to this percentage Indicator data will be municipalities. municipalities. increase the collected, analyzed and reported percentage separately for each municipality. implemented. % of Same as 15(a). Same as 15(a). Same as 15(a.) USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 50% 47% 54% 54% Baseline and targets for this implementatio will present y 47% ne indicator were included in June n of internal disaggregated Decan 52% 47% 2020. audit data for each Ferizaj 41% recommendati of the ten new Hani i Elezit ons in ten new focus 0% focus municipalities. Istog 40% 15(b) municipalities. Junik 35% Lipjan 55% Podujevë 70% Prizren 39% Rahovec 53% Suharekë 40% Average 2019: 47% % of citizen USAID TEAM will USAID TEAM will conduct a focused Citizen perception USAID TEAM Baseline (2016) 21.5% 17.45 21% 26.78 20.5% 21.9% 20% 18.5% 19% 19% perception of monitor the perception survey on an annual basis to survey report will present 22% % % corruption and citizens’ perception measure citizens’ perception of corruption. disaggregated Pristina 31%, transparency in on corruption USAID TEAM identified survey questions data for each Pejë 15%, 16(a) public through an annual on “perception of the presence of large- of the five Gjakovë 25%, procurement survey conducted scale corruption in municipalities,” as a original focus Gjilan 30%, and public by the project. measure of citizen’s perception of municipalities. Vushtrri 9% finance at the corruption in the focus municipalities. Average 22% municipal level Indicator data will be collected, analyzed
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 102
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year in five original and reported separately for each focus municipality. municipalities % of citizen Same as 16(a). Same as 16(a). Same as 16(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 14.5% 14.7% 14% 14% Baseline and targets for this perception of will present y 15% ne indicator were included in June corruption and disaggregated Decan 9% 2019: 2020. transparency in data for each Ferizaj 15% 15% public of the ten new Hani i Elezit procurement focus 8% and public municipalities. Istog 16% 16(b) finance at the Junik 3% municipal level Lipjan 10% in ten new Podujevë 18% focus Prizren 20% municipalities Rahovec 34% Suharekë 17% Average 2019: 15% Change in USAID TEAM will The change in MPECV Index measures USAID TEAM USAID TEAM Annuall Average 60.94 66 56.81 67 75.78 75 86.26 84 91.67 91 91 Note: this is a mission indicator, Municipal identify priority improvement in municipal capacity to municipal advisors will present y reported on annual basis. Procurement areas for technical address the corruption vulnerabilities deployed in disaggregated Pristina 54.68 Effectiveness assistance and across six dimensions: (1) planning and municipalities will data for each Peja 66.67 and where to expand budgeting, (2) staff capacity, (3) contract collect data on an of the five Gjakovë 55.37 Corruption or reduce focus administration, (4) audit, (5) appeals and annual basis based original focus Gjilan 65.93 Vulnerability in over time. review, and (6) transparency, ethics, anti- on the OECD municipalities Vushtrri 62.04 17(a) five original corruption, and anti-fraud. Each dimension Methodology for focus is scored from 0-3, for a maximum Assessing municipalities possible score of 18, expressed in terms of Procurement 100. Exact methodology for the MPECV Systems (2009) Index is outlined in the PIIRS http://www.unpcdc. org/media/334159/ maps_bli_2009.pdf Change in Same as 17(a). Same as 17(a). Same as 17(a). USAID TEAM Annuall Baseline 2019: N/A N/A Baseli 64 73.52 70 70 Baseline and targets for this Municipal will present y 60 ne indicator were included in June Procurement disaggregated Decan 55 2019: 2020. Effectiveness data for each Ferizaj 65 60 and of the ten new Hani i Elezit 48 Corruption focus Istog 64 Vulnerability in municipalities. Junik 50 17(b) ten new focus Lipjan 69 municipalities Podujevë 65 Prizren 67 Rahovec 53 Suharekë 65 Average 2019: 60
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 103
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year Transparent, USAID TEAM will The project will collect and compare data Municipal By Annuall Baseline for all N/A Baseli 55 57 63 64 70 70 USAID TEAM will collect, analyze effective, and track progress across all 38 municipalities in three main procurement plans, municipality, y – this municipalities ne 52 and report data for all 38 accountable made and adjust its areas (procurement, transparency and municipal and grouped indicato 2018: 52 municipalities. index indictor approach as audit), to show the impact of USAID procurement data, by five original r will be in all needed. TEAM activities through 9 sub indicators: PPRC data including focus reporte Baseline for municipalities •Municipal procurement e-Procurement municipalities, d five original -% implementation of the procurement platform, Open and all other through focus plan Procurement municipalities. Q1 (Ind municipalities -% procurement activities implemented Transparency # 3 2018: 71 that were not in the procurement plan Portal data, within -% of procurement activities canceled Municipal web sites, this Baseline for 10 •% of price quotations procedures used in NAO reports, index new total, of procurement activities municipal audit will municipalities •Municipal transparency reports consist 2019: 57 18 -% of publication of contracts on municipal data web sites from -% of publication of procurement activities the last on municipal web sites available -% of publication of mayors reports and NAO financial documents: MBF, budget, report) quarterly financial reports, annual financial report, monthly financial information’s, mayors annual plan, mayor reports and Municipal KNAO report •Municipal audit -% of NAO recommendations implemented -% of internal audit recommendations implemented. Component Two # of modules USAID TEAM will The e-Procurement platform consists of PPRC e- NA Annuall 3 4 +1=4 7 7 11 11 12 13 0 12 The activation of the final 12th implemented adapt its technical 12 individual modules; however, only 3 are procurement y module, which includes the on e- approach at the currently operational. This indicator implementation Contract Management Module, procurement PPRC to ensure measures the roll-out of additional reports, Infodom was developed during 2020 but platform timely modules. A module will be considered reports, USAID activated in the beginning of 2021. implementation of “implemented” once it is online, TEAM IT STTA additional modules. operational, and used by relevant assessment reports, The Project has been able to 19 government officials and economic interviews with develop one more module, the operators and is not duplicated by a PPRC officials 13th module, which was not manual process. planned to consist the e- procurement platform, the Contract Past Performance Module., which is also activated on the beginning of 2021.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 104
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year % of entries USAID TEAM will USAID TEAM plans to develop a Site host, PPRC USAID TEAM Quarter 0 0 0 0% 25% 0% 50% 50% The Contract Past Performance made in modify its approach Contractor Past Performance Database to annual report, will collect ly/ module is activated in the Contractor through coaching enable municipal contracting authorities to municipal reports disaggregated Annual beginning of Year 5. Based on the Past and mentoring capture the quality of goods and services data for each issued regulation of PPRC, all the Performance focus municipalities received. This indicator measures the of the 38 contracts will be entered and Database in Year Four and 5 percentage of contracts for which 15 focus municipalities. evaluated through this module 20 (against total to ensure municipal municipalities entered past performance which is expected to be achieved number of procurement information in the system against the total during Year 5. contracts) in officers are using number of contracts. This indicator 15 focus and benefitting measures entries for high and medium municipalities from the system. value contracts only.
# of fraud USAID TEAM will This indicator measures the number of NAO reports, NA Quarter 0 0 38 38 43 49 50 54 55 186 cases detected adapt our training fraud cases detected by the NAO Fraud interviews with ly/ by the technical assistance Unit and handed over to the prosecutor NAO officials Annual National Audit at the NAO based for action. 21 Office Fraud on results under Unit and this indicator to handed over to ensure NAO staff prosecutor are able to effectively detect fraud. # of USAID TEAM will This indicator will measure correction PPRC monitoring Annual Baseline 2019: N/A N/A 42 58 79 75 75 correction monitor the PPRC letters sent by the PPRC Monitoring Unit unit 42 letters sent by monitoring unit and and will be reported disaggregated by Public adjust its approach contracting authority type (central, Procurement to decrease the municipal, or publicly owned enterprises). Regulatory number of USAID TEAM will specifically report and Commission correction letters disaggregate findings for 15 focus 22 monitoring with irregularities municipalities. unit regarding and red flags. public procurements with irregularities or red flags
Component Three
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 105
Annual Targets
Relation to Data Data
t t t t t t
Indicators Adaptive Definition of Indicator Source/Collectio Disaggregati ne Comments
ting
LOP LOP
ency
Baseli
Frequ Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe Targe
Repor
Actual 2 Year Actual 3 Year Actual 4 Year Actual 5 Year Management n Method on 1 Year # of hits on USAID TEAM will USAID TEAM will develop a municipal Data automatically NA Monthly 0 0 0 4,924 6,000 21,35 30,00 43,78 35,00 35,00 the adjust the procurement transparency portal that will generated by the 4 0 6 0 0 procurement transparency portal automatically mine data from the portal site host transparency user interface to electronic procurement system. This portal maximize the user indicator measures the number of unique 23 experience, and and non-unique visits or “hits” on the site. adjust our communications and outreach based on feedback users. # of cases of USAID TEAM will This indicator will measure the number of CSO reports as NA Annual 2016: 8 8 8 9 10 12 17 18 12 25 80 This is a mission indicator, municipal modify its approach cases of alleged municipal procurement tracked by the reported on annual basis. procurement to training CSOs to fraud or other irregularities detected and project malfeasance ensure they are reported by civil society organizations communications 24 reported by able to identify and through reports, web-sites, newspapers, expert CSOs and effectively report social media, television programs, or other media on cases of forms of media. supported by procurement USAID TEAM malfeasance.
% of Civil USAID TEAM will This indicator will measure the number of N/A Annual In 2018 there N/A Baseli 75% 82% 80% 80% A red flag is defined here as an society monitor the recommendations deriving from reports were 57 ne indication of a behavior pattern, organization percentage of published by CSO and media that are recommendati 2019: as evidenced through data s and media recommendations supported by USAID TEAM, as well as ons provided 72% analyses or expert observation, recommend derived from CSOs number of addressed recommendations. by CSOs. reflecting corruption or fraud – ations on and media USAID TEAM will help municipalities, to but in and of itself, is not proof of corruption addressed by the address those recommendations. 41 out of 57 fraud or corruption. Patterns red flags and municipality and (72%) that have been red flagged irregularities adjust its approach recommendati warrant further investigation by in public to maximize the ons are researchers to determine if 25 procuremen percentage. addressed in malfeasance has, in fact occurred. t addressed 2019. by Irregularities are here defined as municipalitie patterns of behavior that are s unusual or deviate from usual practice. Such irregularities may reflect corruption or fraud and warrant further investigation to determine if malfeasance has, in fact, taken place.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 106 ANNEX 2: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEETS (PIRS)
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 1 Name of Indicator: # of people trained from local and central institutions, civil society, private sector and media in USAID TEAM events DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the number of people trained from local and central institutions, civil society, the private sector, media in procurement, public finance, fraud detection, HR, auditing, and ethics. USAID TEAM will report this information to USAID disaggregated by category of trainee, training topic, people trained from local and central institutions, participants in USAID TEAM events, as well as, representatives from CSOs, economic operators and media who were the participants in trainings supported and organized by USAID TEAM. Participants will be provided with skills such as: procurement, auditing, public finance control, contract management, transparency, HR, and ethics aiming to improve municipal performance related to the public procurement, auditing and public finance processes. Additionally, through this indicator, the project will report on the number of participants in other events such as, workshops, focus groups, round tables and launching events. Unit of Measure: Number Disaggregated by: Central and local level institutions, CSOs, economic operators and gender Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track number of officials trained to contribute to a more transparent and effective procurement process. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: USAID TEAM project records data will be collected from participants signing sheets for each conducted activity. This data will be entered regularly in the project excel database. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Quarterly and annual reports Data Source(s): USAID TEAM Database Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected from participants signing sheets on an ongoing basis (after each activity conducted) Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component leads DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): none Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID TEAM will develop an excel database to gather data from the respective institutions. The indicator will collect information on participants from all trainings including central and local level, civil society, private sector economic operators and media representatives, supported by USAID TEAM. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Quarterly and annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 0 Year Target Actual Notes
2017 (baseline) 0 900 1,076 4680 trainees or participants in USAID TEAM sponsored events 2018 995 1,702
2019 1,045 1,489
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 107 2020 1,095 1,195
2021 645
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 108 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Indicator # 2 Name of Indicator: Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Based on expert opinion from around the world, the Corruption Perceptions Index measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption worldwide. The findings are less than encouraging. Not a single country comes close to top marks, while over 120 countries score below 50 on the scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). This means less than a third of countries are above the midpoint. Unit of Measure: n/a Disaggregated by: n/a Justification & Management Utility: USAID TEAM will collect data from the TI CPI and report to influence positive actions at the local and national level. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: TEAM will collect data form the TICPI Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): https://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be reported annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: M&E Specialist, Chief of Party DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID TEAM will report this data once the report is made public Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 36 (2016) – global average was 43 Year Target Actual Notes
2017 (baseline) 36 (2016) – N/A Attribution is weak or non-existent for this global average was 43 indicator; the project will track and report on 39 country performance in this area but will not be able to directly impact the score. Therefore, we have not set annual project targets
2018 37
2019 36
2020 36
2021
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 109 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Indicator # 3 Name of Indicator: World Bank Control of Corruption Indicator DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Control of Corruption captures perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as "capture" of the state by elites and private interests. Estimates give the country's score on the aggregate indicator, in units of a standard normal distribution, i.e. ranging from approximately -2.5 to 2.5. See http://databank.worldbank.org/data/glossarymetadata/1181/series/CC.EST Unit of Measure: n/a Disaggregated by: n/a Justification & Management Utility: USAID TEAM will collect data from the World Bank and report to influence positive actions at the local and national level. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: World bank (Worldwide Governance Indicator) http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=worldwide-governance-indicators Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=worldwide-governance-indicators Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be reported annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: M&E Specialist, Chief of Party DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID TEAM will report this data once the report is made public Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 36.5 (percentile rank) (2015) Year Target Actual Notes 2017 (baseline) 36.5 (percentile - Attribution is weak or non-existent for this rank) (2015) indicator. The project will track and report on -0.4 (2016) country performance in this area but will not be able to directly impact the score. Therefore, we have not set annual project targets. 2018 -0.5 (2017) 2019 -0.5 (2018) 2020 -0.6 (2019) 2021 CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 110 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 4(a) Name of Indicator: Municipal graduation index indicator in five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Through this index indicator, USAID TEAM will track municipal progress in addressing corruption vulnerabilities and enhancing transparency in public procurement to “graduate” from project assistance. This index indicator is a measurement tool that includes quantitative and qualitative measures. These measures are linked to the custom work plans for five original focus municipalities so that as USAID TEAM supports municipalities to implement their custom work plans, they will also receive support to advance along the path to graduation. Municipalities will be considered ready for graduation once they achieve a score of 80 or more (out of 100) and maintain that score for a minimum of one-year. USAID TEAM will collect data on a semi-annual basis for internal purposes, such as tailoring activities to support municipalities to achieve maximum results in their graduation indicators. Additionally, in order to graduate, municipalities should achieve a minimum score of 66.67% for each indicator with a maximum score of 9, and 75% for indicators with a maximum score of 8. The graduation index indicator will track the project progress made on procurement planning and budgeting, contract management, PRB decisions, transparency, audit findings (NAO and internal), staff capacity. Implementation of the procurement plan in five focus municipalities ✓ Percentage decrease of canceled municipal procurement activities ✓ Percentage increase of implemented municipal procurement plans ✓ Percentage decrease of unplanned procurement activities implemented PRB appeals ✓ Percentage decrease of EO protests to PRB ✓ Percentage increase of PRB decision in favor of municipality Contract Management Effectiveness ✓ Time limit of the completion of contract ✓ Percentage of liquidated damages applied (penalties) ✓ Time limit of execution of payments ✓ Number of annex contracts Municipal transparency ✓ Publication of financial, procurement, and audit documentation ✓ Percentage increase of citizen perception of corruption and transparency in public procurement and public finance at the municipal level Audit recommendations (NAO and internal) implemented ✓ Percentage increase of implemented National Audit Office (NAO) recommendations related to finance management, public procurement, mayor’s office, and HR ✓ Percentage increase of implemented internal audit recommendations related to finance management, public procurement, mayor’s office, and HR Municipal Procurement Effectiveness ✓ Planning and budgeting ✓ Staff capacity ✓ Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, and anti-fraud Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality and sub indicators Justification & Management Utility: This index indicator will track the progress of focus municipalities against graduation criteria and adjust technical interventions to promote greatest positive change. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: USAID TEAM will collect, analyze and reports data to USAID on annual basis, for internal use in order to track progress for each municipality. The project will collect and analyze data also on semiannual basis. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): USAID TEAM Municipal graduation data Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Semiannual and annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, Component 1 Lead DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 111 Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID TEAM will analyze and compare data gathered from municipalities Presentation of Data: Tables with data Review of Data: Component One, M&E Specialist, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 0 Year Target Actual Notes 2017 (baseline) 51 - Pristina 51 2018 61 61 Gjilan 53 2019 72 76 Gjakovë 64 Pejë 62 2020 77 74 Vushtrri 73 2021 82 Average 61 CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 112 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 4(b) Name of Indicator: Municipal graduation index indicator for ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Through this index indicator, USAID TEAM will track municipal progress in addressing corruption vulnerabilities and enhancing transparency in public procurement to “graduate” from project assistance. This index indicator is a measurement tool that includes quantitative and qualitative measures. These measures are linked to the custom work plans for ten new focus municipalities so that as USAID TEAM supports municipalities to implement their custom work plans, they will also receive support to advance along the path to graduation.
Municipalities will be considered ready for graduation once they achieve a score of 80 percent or more (out of 100) and maintain that score for a minimum one-year. USAID TEAM will collect data on a semi-annual basis for internal purposes, such as tailoring activities to support municipalities to achieve maximum results in their graduation indicators. Additionally, in order to graduate, municipalities should achieve a minimum score of 66.67% for indicators with a maximum score of 9, and 75% for indicators with a maximum score of 8. The graduation index indicator will track the project progress made on procurement planning and budgeting, contract management, PRB decisions, transparency, audit findings (NAO and internal), staff capacity. Implementation of the procurement plan in five focus municipalities ✓ Percentage decrease of canceled municipal procurement activities ✓ Percentage increase of implemented municipal procurement plans ✓ Percentage decrease of unplanned procurement activities PRB appeals ✓ Percentage decrease of EO protests to PRB ✓ Percentage increase of PRB decision in favor of municipality Contract Management Effectiveness ✓ Time limit of the completion of contract ✓ Percentage of liquidated damages applied (penalties) ✓ Time limit of execution of payments ✓ Number of annex contracts Municipal transparency ✓ Publication of financial, procurement, and audit documentation ✓ Percentage increase of citizen perception of corruption and transparency in public procurement and public finance at the municipal level Audit recommendations (NAO and internal) implemented ✓ Percentage increase of implemented of National Audit Office (NAO) recommendations related to finance management, public procurement, mayor’s office, and HR ✓ Percentage increase of implemented internal audit recommendations related to finance management, public procurement, mayor’s office, and HR Municipal Procurement Effectiveness ✓ Planning and budgeting ✓ Staff capacity ✓ Transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, and anti-fraud Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality and sub indicators Justification & Management Utility: This index indicator will track the progress of focus municipalities against graduation criteria and adjust technical interventions to promote greatest positive change PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: USAID TEAM will collect, analyze and report data to USAID on annual basis, for internal use in order to track progress for each municipality. The project will collect and analyze data also on semiannual basis. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): USAID TEAM Municipal graduation data Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Semiannual and annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 113 Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID TEAM will analyze and compare data gathered from municipalities Presentation of Data: Tables with data Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 55 Year Target Actual Notes 2019 (baseline) 55 Baseline 2019: 55 2020 62 68 Decan 52 Ferizaj 48, 2021 72 Hani i Elezit 46 Istog 64 Junik 42 Lipjan 71 Podujevë 60 Prizren 50 Rahovec 56 Suharekë 65 Average 2019: 55 Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020. CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 114 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 5(a) Name of Indicator: % of procurement activities canceled due to irregularities in the five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Public procurements are cancelled for many reasons, such as: inadequate budget/investment planning, lack of capacity to draft precise requirements, lack of capacity to draft tender dossiers which contain all relevant information. Article 62.2.1 of the Public Procurement Law outlines the cases in which a contracting authority may legitimately cancel a procurement. This indicator measures the percent reduction in bid cancellations for irregularities in the focus municipalities that are not covered by article 62.2.1. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
By reducing the percentage of the cancellation of the procurement activities, the municipalities will receive the works, goods and services on time, human resources will be utilized less, and procurement plans will be implemented. Municipal officials involved in procurement activities, such as the requesting unit and procurement department, will implement procurement procedures, such as: drafting technical specifications, determining quantities, allocating funds, etc. If all procedures are appropriately conducted, the percentage of cancelled procurement activities will be reduced.
This indicator contributes to improvement of the following Corruption Vulnerability Assessment risks: Inadequate budget/investment planning and the Inadequate procurement planning; Lack of capacity to draft precise requirements – design tasks; Inadequate specification – specification of the object (technical documentation) adopted to the characteristics of specific tender. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the cancellation of procurement activities and the reasons that procurement actions are cancelled. The project will adjust its technical approach to minimize the number of cancellations due to irregularities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurements, research and interviews by USAID TEAM Municipal Implementation Specialists Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): Municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurement Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually (final data in January) Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Advisers, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID TEAM will collect, analyze and report this data. The analyzed data will help municipalities identify irregularities on why procurement activities are cancelled. USAID TEAM will support municipalities address irregularities by increasing the skills of municipal procurement officials in order to reduce percentage of bids cancelled. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: M&E Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 2017 – 21.5% Year Target Actual Notes
The percentage of procurements canceled due to 2016 (baseline) 21.5% (PPRC irregularities will drop from 21.5% to 3%. report 2016)
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 115 In June 2020, Y4 and Y5 targets were modified 2017 16.5% 8.5% since Y3 actuals 4% exceeded original target set 13% which was 7% for Y4 and 5% for Y5 including LoP. 2018 15.42% 10.5% 2019 6.4% 3.5% 2020 4.0% 3% 2021
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 116 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 5(b) Name of Indicator: % of procurement activities canceled due to irregularities in the ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Public procurements are cancelled for many reasons, such as: inadequate budget/investment planning, lack of capacity to draft precise requirements, lack of capacity to draft tender dossiers which contain all relevant information. Article 62.2.1 of the Public Procurement Law outlines the cases in which a contracting authority may legitimately cancel a procurement. This indicator measures the percent reduction in bid cancellations for irregularities in the focus municipalities that are not covered by article 62.2.1. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
By reducing the percentage of the cancellation of the procurement activities, the municipalities will receive the works, goods and services on time, human resources will be utilized less, and procurement plans will be implemented. Municipal officials involved in procurement activities, such as the requesting unit and procurement department will implement procurement procedures, such as: drafting technical specifications, determining quantities, allocating funds etc. If all procedures are appropriately conducted, the percentage of cancelled procurement activities will be reduced.
This indicator contributes to improvement of the Corruption Vulnerability Assessment risks: Inadequate budget/investment planning and the Inadequate procurement planning; Lack of capacity to draft precise requirements – design tasks; Inadequate specification – specification of the object (technical documentation) adopted to the characteristics of specific tender. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the cancellation of procurement activities and the reasons that procurement actions are cancelled. The project will adjust its technical approach to minimize the number of cancellations for irregularities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurements, research and interviews by USAID TEAM Municipal Implementation Specialists Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): Municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurement Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually (final data on January) Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Advisers, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID TEAM will collect, analyze and report this data. The analyzed data will help municipalities identify irregularities on why procurement activities are cancelled. USAID TEAM will support municipalities address irregularities by increasing the skills of municipal procurement officials in order to reduce percentage of bids cancelled. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is TBD Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019: 5.5 2019 (baseline) 5.5% Decan 8% Ferizaj 9% 2020 4.5% 4.5% Hani i Elezit 10%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 117 3.5% Istog 9% 2021 Junik 9% Lipjan 6% Podujevë 0% Prizren 3% Rahovec 6% Suharekë 3% Average 2019: 5.5% Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020. CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 118 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 6(a) Name of Indicator: % of municipal procurement plans implemented in five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will track the percentage implemented procurement plans in five original focus municipalities. After approval of the municipal budget, each municipality must draft a procurement plan and submit it to the mayor and the Central Procurement Agency. A municipality implements its procurement plan by carrying out procurement actions included in the plan. This indicator measures the percent of municipal procurement plans implemented by focus municipalities, expressed as an average of the five municipalities. Zero percent (0%) means there was no implementation while 100% means the plan is fully implemented. According to the rules and operational guidelines on public procurement, article 5.3, procurement planning is a process undertaken by contracting authorities to plan purchasing activities for a 12 month of period of time. Production of the annual procurement plan: a) Eliminates the necessity of emergency procurements or waivers; b) Aggregates the requirements, wherever possible, to obtain value for money and reduce procurement costs; c) Enables the identification of framework contracts to provide an efficient, cost effective and flexible means to procure works, services or supplies that are required continuously or repeatedly over a set period of time; and d) Avoids splitting up procurement requirements which are broadly similar or related. Failure to undertake procurement planning is considered bad management and may: a) Have a detrimental impact on the entire CA and the attainment of its objectives; b) Result in emergency procurement or waivers, in which case punitive action shall be taken against such offenders; and c) Result in splitting procurement requirements which are broadly similar or related. USAID TEAM will track the implementation progress of the municipal procurement plan by evaluating the performance of the municipal departments so that the goods, services, or works are in place at the time needed and to avoid emergency procurements or waivers.
Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the implementation of municipal procurement plans and adjust its technical approach to promote more complete implementation. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Municipal procurement plans, municipal procurement data, PPRC data on procurements in focus municipalities Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): Municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurements. Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually (preliminary data in October, final data in January) Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Advisers, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 60% Year Target Actual Notes
Currently, municipal procurement plans by focus 2016 (baseline) 60% municipalities are very general.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 119 USAID TEAM will support focus municipalities to 2017 63% 75.53% develop comprehensive procurement plans and encourage these municipalities to be transparent 2018 68% 71% toward their citizens by posting procurement plans in municipal websites. 2019 74% 82.1% It is expected that by the end of the project, focus municipalities will implement an average of 92% of their procurement plans. 2020 82% 74%
2021 92%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 120 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 6(b) Name of Indicator: % of municipal procurement plans implemented in the ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will track the percentage of implemented procurement plans in ten new focus municipalities. After approval of the municipal budget, each municipality must draft a procurement plan and submit it to the mayor and the Central Procurement Agency. A municipality implements its procurement plan by carrying out procurement actions that are included in the plan. This indicator measures the percent of municipal procurement plans implemented by focus municipalities, expressed as an average of the five municipalities. Zero percent (0%) means there was no implementation while 100% means the plan is fully implemented.
According to the rules and operational guidelines on public procurement, article 5.3, procurement planning is a process undertaken by contracting authorities to plan purchasing activities for a 12 month of period of time. Production of the annual procurement plan: e) Eliminates the necessity of emergency procurements or waivers, f) Aggregates the requirements, wherever possible, to obtain value for money and reduce procurement costs, g) Enables the identification of framework contracts to provide an efficient, cost effective and flexible means to procure works, services or supplies that are required continuously or repeatedly over a set period of time, and h) Avoids splitting up procurement requirements which are broadly similar or related. Failure to undertake procurement planning is considered bad management and may: d) Have a detrimental impact on the entire CA and the attainment of its objectives, e) Result in emergency procurement or waivers, in which case punitive action shall be taken against such offenders, and f) Result in splitting procurement requirements which are broadly similar or related. USAID TEAM will track the implementation progress of the municipal procurement plan by evaluating performance of the municipal departments so that the goods, services, or works are in place at the time needed and to avoid emergency procurements or waivers. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the implementation of municipal procurement plans and adjust its technical approach to promote fuller implementation. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Municipal procurement plans, municipal procurement data, PPRC data on procurements in focus municipalities Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): Municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurements. Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually (preliminary data in October, final data in January) Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019: 68% 2019 (baseline) 68% Decan 82%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 121 75% Ferizaj 63% 2020 72% Hani i Elezit 39% Istog 88% 2021 80% Junik 53% Lipjan 84% Podujevë 60% Prizren 57% Rahovec 77% Suharekë 83% Average 2019: 68%
Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020. CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 122 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 7(a) Name of Indicator: % of implementation of procurement activities not planned in five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the implementation of procurement activities that are not part of the municipal procurement plan. This indicator will not take into consideration procurement activities implemented but not in the procurement plan as a result of the budget review or activities supported by ministries and potential donors. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the implementation of municipal procurement activities that are not part of the procurement plans. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Municipal procurement plans, municipal procurement data, PPRC data on procurements in focus municipalities Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): Municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurements. Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 60* Year Target Actual Notes
Focus municipalities will decrease the percentage 2018 (baseline) 33% - of the implemented unplanned activities to 12%. On June 2020, Y4 and Y5 targets were modified 2019 29% 16% since Y3 actuals 16% exceeded original target set which was 23% for Y4 and 17% for Y5 2020 14% 16% including LoP.
2021 12%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 123 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 7(b) Name of Indicator: % of implementation of procurement activities not planned in ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the implementation of procurement activities that are not part of the municipal procurement plan. This indicator will not take into consideration procurement activities implemented but not in the procurement plan as a result of the budget review or activities supported by ministries and potential donors. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the implementation of municipal procurement activities that are not part of the procurement plans. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Municipal procurement plans, municipal procurement data, PPRC data on procurements in focus municipalities Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): Municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurements. Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Advisers, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019: 34% 2019(baseline) 34% Decan 32% Ferizaj 40 % Hani i Elezit 50% Istog 15% Junik 39% Lipjan 12% Podujevë 37 % Prizren 56% Rahovec 36% Suharekë 12% Average 2019: 34%
2020 29% 28% Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020. 2021 20%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 124 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 8(a) Name of Indicator: % of Economic Operators protests to Procurement Review Body in the five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Municipal procurement officials should prepare tender dossiers, design evaluation criteria, and evaluate offers in compliance with the legal requirements so that procurements do not come under appeal to PRB. This indicator will track number of EOs protests submitted to PRB. The project will track the progress in five original focus municipalities. The data collected will be reported separately for each municipality; Total result will be reported separately for five original focus municipalities. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the EO protests submitted to PRB. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on EO appeals are extracted from PRB reports. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report. Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 11.5% Year Target Actual Notes
This indicator tracks that # of EO protests to 2016 (baseline) 11.5% PRB. USAID TEAM noticed that number of 8.17% protests sent by the EO do not measure 2017 11% municipal performance. Until the PRB starts applying fees as per the legal 2018 9% 9.5% base, the EOs can protest procurement activities that they are not selected by municipality. 2019 7% 15.2%
2020 6% 27%
2021 5%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 125 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 8(b) Name of Indicator: % of Economic Operators protests to Procurement Review Body in the ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Municipal procurement officials should prepare tender dossiers, design evaluation criteria, and evaluate offers in compliance with the legal requirements so that procurements do not come under appeal to PRB. This indicator will track number of EOs protests submitted to PRB. The project will track the progress in ten new focus municipalities. The data collected will be reported separately for each municipality; Total result will be reported separately for ten new focus municipalities. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the EO protests submitted to PRB. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on EO appeals are extracted from PRB reports. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component 1 Lead DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019 14% 2019 (baseline) 14% Decan 12% 19% Ferizaj 13% 2020 12% Hani i Elezit 0% Istog 11% 2021 10% Junik 15% Lipjan 18% Podujevë 7% Prizren 17% Rahovec 22% Suharekë 20% Average 2019: 14% Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020.
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 126 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 9(a) Name of Indicator: % of Procurement Review Body decisions in favor of the Contracting Authority in the five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): The improved tender dossier, including technical specifications and evaluation criteria, will increase the percentage of the Procurement Review Body decisions made in favor of Contraction Authority. The project will track the progress in five original focus municipalities. Total result will be reported separately for the five original focus municipalities. The data collected will be reported separately for each municipality. Total result will be reported separately for five focus municipalities. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the PRB decisions in favor of CAs. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on PRB decisions are extracted from PRB reports. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 33% Year Target Actual Notes
2018 (baseline) 33% -
2019 37% 17%
2020 45% 29%
2021 52%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 127 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 9(b) Name of Indicator: % increase of Procurement Review Body decisions in favor of the Contracting Authority in the ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): The improved tender dossier including technical specifications and evaluation criteria will increase the percentage of the Procurement Review Body decisions made in favor of Contraction Authority. The project will track the progress in ten new focus municipalities. Total result will be reported separately for the ten new focus municipalities. The data collected will be reported separately for each municipality. Total result will be reported separately for ten new focus municipalities. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the PRB decisions in favor of CAs. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on PRB decisions are extracted from PRB reports. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report. Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is Year Target Actual Notes Baseline 2019: 35% 2019 (baseline) 35% Decan 40% 35% Ferizaj 33% 2020 43% Hani i Elezit 100% Istog 46% 2021 52% Junik 0% Lipjan 31% Podujevë 63% Prizren37 % Rahovec 20% Suharekë 30% Average 2019: 35% Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020. Municipality of Hani i Elezit has no complaints and as a result of this there are no PRB decisions, receiving a score of 100%. CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 128
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 10(a) Name of Indicator: % of contracts completed within the time limit according to the contract conditions in the five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures whether the municipality is following the time limits to implement the contract as planned. According to contract conditions, contract managers have the authority to extend the deadline of contract implementation with valid justification (atmospheric conditions, certain land/building disputes, etc.), and therefore contracts may have valid contract extension deadlines. However, not all justifications for extending the contract are valid such as some land/building disputes, budget issues, etc. Therefore, USAID TEAM will measure the start and end-dates of the contract and the actual completion date of the contract. Indicator data will be collected, analyzed and reported separately for each municipality. Total result will be reported separately for five original focus municipalities. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track time limit of competition of contract in the five original focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on the completed contracts will be collected by municipalities Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report. Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 47% Year Target Actual Notes
2018 (baseline) 47% -
2019 52% 43%
2020 59% 49%
2021 65%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 129 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 10(b) Name of Indicator: % of contracts completed within the time limit according to the contract conditions in the ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures whether the municipality is following the time limits to implement the contract as planned. According to contract conditions, contract managers have the authority to extend the deadline of contract implementation with valid justification (atmospheric conditions, certain land/building disputes, etc.), and therefore contracts may have valid contract extension deadlines. However, not all justifications for extending the contract are valid such as some land/building disputes, budget issues, etc. Therefore, USAID TEAM will measure the start and end-dates of the contract and the actual completion date of the contract. Indicator data will be collected, analyzed and reported separately for each municipality. Total result will be reported separately for ten new focus municipalities. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track time limit of competition of contract in the ten new focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on the completed contracts will be collected by municipalities Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019: 40% 2019 (baseline) 40% Decan 56% 68% Ferizaj 30% 2020 45% Hani i Elezit 73% Istog 34% 2021 52% Junik 79% Lipjan 57% Podujevë 22% Prizren 25% Rahovec 69% Suharekë 35% Average 2019: 40% Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 130 CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 131 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 11(a) Name of Indicator: % of payments executed within the time-limit according to the financial rules in the five original focus municipalities. DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the extent to which a municipality applies a time limit for the execution of payments (allowed up to 30 days after the receipt of the invoice). The project will track the progress in five original focus municipalities. Total result will be reported separately for five original focus tier municipalities. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will be the time limit for payment execution in the five original focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on the time limit of execution of payments will be collected by municipalities. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 69% Year Target Actual Notes
In June 2020, Y4 and Y5 targets were modified 2018 (baseline) 69% - since the Y3 actual was 81% which exceeded original target set which was 78% for Y4 and 83% 2019 73% 81% for Y5.
2020 85% 81%
2021 89%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 132 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 11(b) Name of Indicator: % of payments executed within the time-limit according to the financial rules in the ten new focus municipalities. DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the extent to which a municipality applies a time limit for the execution of payments (allowed up to 30 days after the receipt of the invoice). The project will track the progress in ten new focus municipalities. Total result will be reported separately for ten new focus municipalities. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will be the time limit on payment execution in the ten new focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on the time limit of execution of payments will be collected by municipalities. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance procurement plans Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019: 74% 2019 (baseline) 74% Decan 75% Ferizaj 39% 2020 82% 71% Hani i Elezit 71% Istog 82% 2021 87% Junik 70% Lipjan 72% Podujevë 70% Prizren 82% Rahovec 78% Suharekë 85% Average 2019: 74%
Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020.
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 133 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 12(a) Name of Indicator: % use of “price quotations - low value” contracts in the five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percent decrease in the use of the “price quotations - low value” procedures conducted by municipal departments. Low value contracts are those of more than 1,000 Euros and less than 10,000 Euros in value. A contracting authority may use the price quotation procedure if the intended contract concerns: • A minimal or low value contract for works, supplies or services. • Such works consist only of repair and maintenance. • Such supplies or services are readily available; • Such supplies or services do not need to be specially produced or customized; or • There is an established market for such supplies or services. The estimated contract value determines the procedure, the languages, the time-limits, and the standard forms to be used. Splitting a public contract into smaller public contracts is a violation of the law because this is usually done in order to circumvent the procurement regulations and does not obtain value for money. According to the Public Procurement Law there are 4 different types of contracts: 1. Large value contracts 2. Medium value contracts 3. Low value contracts (quotation) 4. Minimal value contracts. Concluding several quotations for the same subject within the same year is a violation of the Public Procurement Law as it is considered splitting up the requirements when it is wildly known that the aggregation of the demands brings value for money. Example: Buying laptops in May, with an estimated value of 6,000 Euros and buying again laptops in June with estimated value of 7,000 is considered a circumvention of the procurement regulations. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipalities Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the decreased of the use of the unfounded procedures. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data will be collected from municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurement, interviews with municipal procurement officials Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): municipal procurement data, PPRC data about procurement activities, interviews with municipal procurement officials, USAID TEAM database Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): n/a Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: TEAM will collect, analyze and report these data. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 22.5% Year Target Actual Notes
The use of “price quotations - low value” should 2015 (baseline) 22.5% 20% 14.5% drop from 22.5% to 6% of procurements.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 134 2018 17% 17.5%
2019 13% 15.9%
2020 9% 11%
2021 6%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 135 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 12(b) Name of Indicator: % use of “price quotations - low value” contracts in the ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percent decrease in the use of the “price quotations - low value” procedures conducted by municipal departments. Low value contracts are those of more than 1,000 Euros and less than 10,000 Euros in value. A contracting authority may use the price quotation procedure if the intended contract concerns: • A minimal or low value contract for works, supplies or services. • Such works consist only of repair and maintenance. • Such supplies or services are readily available; • Such supplies or services do not need to be specially produced or customized; or • There is an established market for such supplies or services. The estimated contract value determines the procedure, the languages, the time-limits, and the standard forms to be used. Splitting a public contract into smaller public contracts is a violation of the law because this is usually done in order to circumvent the procurement regulations and does not obtain value for money. According to the Public Procurement Law there are 4 different types of contracts: 5. Large value contracts 6. Medium value contracts 7. Low value contracts (quotation) 8. Minimal value contracts. Concluding several quotations for the same subject within the same year is a violation of the Public Procurement Law as it is considered splitting up the requirements when it is wildly known that the aggregation of the demands brings value for money. Example: Buying laptops in May, with an estimated value of 6000 Euros and buying again laptops in June with estimated value of 7000 is considered a circumvention of the procurement regulations. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipalities Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the decreased of the use of the unfounded procedures PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data will be collected from municipal procurement data, PPRC data about municipal procurement, interviews with municipal procurement officials Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): municipal procurement data, PPRC data about procurement activities, interviews with municipal procurement officials, USAID TEAM database Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): n/a Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: TEAM will collect, analyze and report these data. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019: 25% 2019 (baseline) 25% Decan 24%
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 136 Ferizaj 20% 2020 20% 19% Hani i Elezit 62% Istog 12% 2021 12% Junik 52% Lipjan 31% Podujevë 25 % Prizren 24% Rahovec 33% Suharekë 7% Average 2019: 25% Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020.
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 137 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 13(a) Name of Indicator: % of procurement, financial and audit documents publicized in the five original focus municipalities. DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Municipalities increase their transparency by regularly publishing official documents such as: budget proposals, approved budgets, periodic financial reports, annual financial reports, monthly time-series on revenues and expenditures. Documents that should be published include an approved budget (1 document), periodic financial reports (3 documents), annual financial reports (1 document), mid-term budget framework, mayors’ plan, mayors’ reports (2 documents), monthly financial time series (12 documents), NAO report, and all procurement activities published (procurement plans, contracts, etc.). The project will track the progress in five original focus municipalities. Total result will be reported separately for five original focus municipalities. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track publication of the official above-mentioned documents in the Precise definition, in the five original focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on the published document will be taken in municipal websites. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected on semiannual basis. Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance municipal transparency. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 90% Year Target Actual Notes
2018 (baseline) 90% -
2019 92% 95%
2020 95% 98%
2021 97%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 138 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 13(b) Name of Indicator: % of procurement, financial and audit documents publicized in the ten new focus municipalities. DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Municipalities increase their transparency by regularly publishing official documents such as: budget proposals, approved budgets, periodic financial reports, annual financial reports, monthly time-series on revenues and expenditures. Documents that should be published include an: Approved budget (1 document), periodic financial reports (3 documents), annual financial reports (1 document), mid-term budget framework, mayors plan, mayors’ reports (2 documents), monthly financial time series (12 documents), NAO report, and all procurement activities published (procurement plans, contracts, etc.). The project will track the progress in ten new focus municipalities. Total result will be reported separately for ten new focus municipalities. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track publication of the official above-mentioned documents in the Precise definition, in the ten new focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on the published document will be taken in municipal websites. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report. Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected on semiannual basis. Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance municipal transparency. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019: 57% 2019 (baseline) 57% Decan 26% 87% Ferizaj 23% 2020 70% Hani i Elezit 69% Istog 49% 2021 85% Junik 3% Lipjan 83% Podujevë 62% Prizren 49% Rahovec 87% Suharekë 82% Average 2019: 57% Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020.
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 139 Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 140 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 14 Name of Indicator: % of all NAO audit findings that are fully addressed by all municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the extent to which municipalities follow-up and address NAO audit findings. A finding listed in NAO audit report will be considered addressed when the municipality has acted on NAO recommendations by removing obstacles or by putting in place sufficient controls or other administrative measures to ensure such findings will not arise in follow-up audits. The project will assist all municipalities in developing comprehensive annual action plans that contain NAO recommendations, define the department responsible for corrective action, and set a timeline for implementation of each recommendation. The recommendations given by NAO to municipalities are provided through the municipal individual reports which are posted on the NAO website. The project collects these reports and identifies all technically relevant recommendations to be addressed with project assistance. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: USAID TEAM will present disaggregated data for each municipality and the average. Justification & Management Utility: The data collected for this indicator will enable USAID TEAM to assess its effectiveness in increasing the percentage of NAO recommendation implemented in all municipalities. USAID TEAM will adjust its coaching and mentoring to ensure that audit findings are addressed quickly and effectively. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: NAO reports (they are legally obligated to report every June 30th), municipal audit reports, interviews with NAO and municipal officials. Project staff will extract the findings/recommendations, from the municipal annual audit reports, and identify the percentage of findings addressed by the municipalities in comparison with the previous year’s annual audit report. All mechanisms used such as municipal reports and tables with recommendations identified and recommendations addressed will be saved on DAI’s TAMIS which can be accessed in real time. TAMIS read-only access for this indicator is restricted to USAID TEAM technical staff, while editing privileges are extended to the M&E Specialist, Chief of Party, and Deputy Chief of Party. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): NAO reports, municipal audit reports, DAI’s TAMIS Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: M&E Specialist, Component One staff and Municipal Implementation Advisor. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): n/a Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data for this indicator will be collected, analyzed and reported. Analyzed data will help USAID TEAM and municipalities to identify effective mechanisms for addressing the NAO recommendations. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: M&E Specialist, Component One Lead Reporting of Data: Annually (every July assuming data is available from the NAO) TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 26% of addressed recommendations. These recommendations are provided by NAO in report published in 2016, they are addressed during 2017. This percentage of addressed recommendations is extracted from NAO report published in 2018. Each year, the project will support municipalities to address all recommendations given by NAO. The preliminary data for the addressed recommendations will be reported to USAID every January. The data will be verified with the NAO report which will be published every mid-year. Year Target Actual Notes
The baseline percentage is 26% addressed 2018(baseline) 26% - 0 recommendations for all Kosovo municipalities
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 141 during 2017. This data is extracted from NAO report published in 2018. 2019 30% 32% Addressed in 2018 as reported in NAO 2019 report.
2020 42% 37%
2021 55%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes to this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 142 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 15(a) Name of Indicator: % of implementation of internal audit recommendations in the five original focus municipalities. DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the percentage of implemented internal audit recommendations with the aim to increase this percentage Indicator data will be collected, analyzed and reported separately for each municipality. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the number of internal audit recommendations addressed by the five original focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on the internal audit recommendations addressed will be gathered from municipal internal audit reports, as well as from municipal audit officials. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected on semiannual basis Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance municipal transparency. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 42% Year Target Actual Notes
2018 (baseline) 42% -
2019 45% 41%
2020 49% 61%
2021 54%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 143 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 15(b) Name of Indicator: % of implementation of internal audit recommendations in the ten new focus municipalities. DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the percentage of implemented internal audit recommendations with the aim to increase this percentage Indicator data will be collected, analyzed and reported separately for each municipality. The project will track the progress in ten new focus municipalities. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan.
Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the number of internal audit recommendations addressed by the ten new focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data on the internal audit recommendations addressed will be gathered from municipal internal audit reports, as well as from municipal audit officials. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report. Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected on semiannual basis. Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Municipal Implementation Specialists, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance municipal transparency. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 60* Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019: 47% 2019 (baseline) 47% Decan 52% 47% Ferizaj 41% 2020 50% Hani i Elezit 0% Istog 40% 2021 54% Junik 35% Lipjan 55% Podujevë 70% Prizren 39% Rahovec 53% Suharekë 40% Average 2019: 47% Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020.
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 144 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 16(a) Name of Indicator: % of citizen perception on existence of corruption in the five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): USAID TEAM, on an annual basis, will conduct a focused perception survey to measure the level of satisfaction of citizens with regard to corruption. Increased effectiveness and transparency of the municipal administration, and involvement of citizens in municipal affairs will improve the level of citizen’s satisfactions towards municipalities. USAID TEAM identified survey questions on “perception of the presence of large-scale corruption in municipalities,” as a measure of citizen’s perception of corruption in the focus municipalities. The project will track the progress in five original focus municipalities. The total result will be reported separately for five original focus municipalities. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will monitor the citizens’ perception on corruption through an annual survey conducted by the project, in five original focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Citizen perception survey report. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): PRB report Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected on annual basis Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component One DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance municipal transparency. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 22% Year Target Actual Notes
Pristina 31%, 2016 (baseline) 22% Pejë 15%, 17.45% Gjakovë 25%, 2017 21.5% Gjilan 30%, Vushtrri 9% 26.78% 2018 21% Average 22%
2019 20.5% 21.9%
2020 20% 18.5%
2021 19%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 145 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 16(b) Name of Indicator: % of citizen perception on existence of corruption in ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): USAID TEAM, on an annual basis, will conduct a focused perception survey to measure the level of satisfaction of citizens with regard to corruption. Increased effectiveness and transparency of the municipal administration, and involvement of citizens in municipal affairs will improve the level of citizen’s satisfactions towards municipalities. USAID TEAM identified survey questions on “perception of the presence of large-scale corruption in municipalities,” as a measure of citizen’s perception of corruption in the focus municipalities. The project will track the progress in ten new focus municipalities. The total result will be reported separately for ten new focus municipalities. Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: Municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will monitor the citizens’ perception on corruption through an annual survey conducted by the project, in ten new focus municipalities. in PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Citizen perception survey report. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual survey report Data Source(s): PRB report Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected on annual basis Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: Component One, MELA Specialist DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data will be collected, analyzed and reported. The analyzed data will be used to advance municipal transparency. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator TBD Year Target Actual Notes
Baseline 2019: 15% 2019 (baseline) 15% Decan 9% Ferizaj 15% 2020 14.5% 14.7% Hani i Elezit 8% Istog 16% 2021 14% Junik 3% Lipjan 10% Podujevë 18% Prizren 20% Rahovec 34% Suharekë 17% Average 2019: 15% Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020.
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 146 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 17(a) Name of Indicator: Change in municipal procurement effectiveness and corruption vulnerability in the five original focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): The change to MPECV Index measures municipal improvement in capacity to address corruption vulnerabilities across six dimensions: (1) planning and budgeting, (2) staff capacity, (3) contract administration, (4) audit, (5) appeals and review, and (6) transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, and anti-fraud. Each dimension is scored from 0-3, for a maximum possible score of 18. We then multiply the raw number by 5.55 to express the number in a 0-100 range. Unit of Measure: 0-100 Disaggregated by: dimension and municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the improvement / decrease of corruption risks identified in the project Needs Gap Analysis and draft Corruption Vulnerability Assessment. This index will allow USAID TEAM to identify priority areas for technical assistance and where to expand or reduce focus over time. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: USAID TEAM municipal advisors deployed in municipalities will collect data on an annual basis based on the OECD Methodology for Assessing Procurement Systems (2009) http://www.unpcdc.org/media/334159/maps_bli_2009.pdf . The first assessment was conducted in March 2017. USAID TEAM started its implementation in January 2017 and according to the mobilization plan, USAID TEAM did not conduct this assessment until March. The second assessment was conducted in January 2018 covering the period of time between March 2017- January 2018. This assessment will be conducted annually, with the last assessment to be conducted in November 2021. The data collected from the last assessment will be reported in USAID TEAM’s final report. This data will be reported from the municipal advisors to the project management and component leads as well as to MELA Specialist for analyzing and reporting. The analyzed data will help USAID TEAM not only to measure the decrease of the corruption but also identify and develop new approaches. This data will be reported from the municipal advisors to the project management and component leads as well as to M&E Specialist for analyzing and reporting. The analyzed data will help USAID TEAM not only measure the decrease of the corruption, but also identify and develop new approaches of adaptive management. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual report Data Source(s): USAID TEAM database Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Chief of Party, Component Leads, Municipal Implementation Advisers. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: TEAM will develop the methodology to gather data from municipalities Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: M&E Specialist, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually - every January. Data collected for the last year of the project will be reported with the final project report. TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 60.94 out of 100 Year Target Actual Notes
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 147 Average: 60.94 2017 (baseline) 66 56.81 Five focus municipalities score an average of Pristina 54.68 Peja 66.67 16.55 out of a possible 18 on the index, or 91 out Gjakovë 55.37 of 100 demonstrating a marked increase in Gjilan 65.93 capacity in the six dimensions. Vushtrri 62.04
2018 67 75.78 USAID TEAM will use OECD methodology to assess the procurement system. Analyzed data 2019 75 86.26 will be reported every January.
2020 84 91.67
2021 91
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 148 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 17(b) Name of Indicator: Change in municipal procurement effectiveness and corruption vulnerability in ten new focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): The change to MPECV Index measures improvement in municipal capacity to address corruption vulnerabilities across six dimensions: (1) planning and budgeting, (2) staff capacity, (3) contract administration, (4) audit, (5) appeals and review, and (6) transparency, ethics, anti-corruption, and anti-fraud. Each dimension is scored from 0-3, for a maximum possible score of 18. We then multiply the raw number by 5.55 to express the number in a 0-100 range. The measuring methodology for this indicator will be the same as in the municipal graduation plan. Unit of Measure: 0-100 Disaggregated by: dimension and municipality Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will track the improvement / decrease of corruption risks identified in the project Needs Gap Analysis and draft Corruption Vulnerability Assessment. This index will allow USAID TEAM to identify priority areas for technical assistance and where to expand or reduce focus over time. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: USAID TEAM municipal advisors deployed in municipalities will collect data on an annual basis based on the OECD Methodology for Assessing Procurement Systems (2009) http://www.unpcdc.org/media/334159/maps_bli_2009.pdf . The first assessment was conducted in March 2017. USAID TEAM started its implementation in January 2017 and according to the mobilization plan, USAID TEAM did not conduct this assessment until March. The second assessment was conducted in January 2018 covering the period of time between March 2017- January 2018. This assessment will be conducted annually, with the last assessment to be conducted in November 2021. The data collected from the last assessment will be reported in USAID TEAM’s final report. This data will be reported from the municipal advisors to the project management and component leads as well as to MELA Specialist for analyzing and reporting. The analyzed data will help USAID TEAM not only to measure the decrease of the corruption but also identify and develop new approaches. Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): USAID TEAM database Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be collected annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Chief of Party, Component Leads, Municipal Implementation Advisers. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: TEAM will develop the methodology to gather data from municipalities Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 60 Year Target Actual Notes
2019 (baseline) 60 Baseline 2019: 60 Decan 55 64 Ferizaj 65 2020 73.52 Hani i Elezit 48
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 149 Istog 64 2021 70 Junik 50 Lipjan 69 Podujevë 65 Prizren 67 Rahovec 53 Suharekë 65 Average 2019: 60 Baseline and targets for this indicator were included in June 2020. CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 150 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project Result: Develop, refine and roll out models for transparent and accountable municipalities Indicator # 18 Name of Indicator: Transparent, effective and accountable index indicator in all municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This index indicator measures the performance of all 38 Kosovo municipalities in three areas of performance, including procurement, transparency and audit. Data will be disaggregated to show performance among 15 original focus municipalities, and all other municipalities thus demonstrating the impact of the project’s activities in focus municipalities compared to all other municipalities. To present the project impact, USAID TEAM will collect, compare, analyze and report the following nine sub-indicators indicators. Data will be collected and reported on an annual basis (January – February). Municipal procurement 1. % implementation of the procurement plan, 2. % of procurement activities implemented that were not in the procurement plan 3. % of procurement activities canceled 4. % of price quotations procedures used against all procurement activities in a year Municipal transparency 5. Publication of contracts on municipal web sites, 6. Publication of procurement activities on municipal web sites, 7. % of publication of mayor’s reports and financial documents: MBF, budget, quarterly financial reports, annual financial report, monthly financial information’s, mayor’s annual plan, mayoral reports, and municipal KNAO report, Audit recommendations 8. % of NAO recommendations implemented 9. % of internal audit recommendations implemented Unit of Measure: Percentage Disaggregated by: USAID TEAM will present disaggregated data for each municipality and the average for all municipalities Justification & Management Utility: The data collected for this indicator will enable USAID TEAM to assess its impact in five original focus municipalities. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data will be collected from municipalities, and other sources mentioned in the Data Source (s). Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): Municipal procurement plans, municipal procurement data, PPRC data including e-Procurement platform, Open Procurement Transparency Portal data, Municipal web sites, NAO reports, municipal audit reports, KDI’s Municipal Procurement Transparency Index Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component One, Municipal Implementation Advisers, Chief of party, Deputy Chief of Party. DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): n/a Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Data for this indicator will be collected, analyzed and reported. Analyzed data will help USAID TEAM and municipalities to identify effective mechanisms to improve municipal performance. Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component One, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline index for this indicator for all municipalities is 52%. Year Target Actual Notes 2018(baseline) 52% - Pristina 63 Gjilan 70
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 151 Baseline for all municipalities Gjakovë 68 2018: 52 Pejë 77 Vushtrri 78 Baseline for five original focus municipalities 2018: 71 USAID TEAM will collect, analyze and report data for all 38 municipalities. Baseline for 10 new municipalities 2019: 57 2018 52 2019 55 57 2020 63 64 2021 70 CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes to this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 152 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project result: Engage the central and local level in addressing municipal corruption with the procurement process Indicator # 19 Name of Indicator: # of modules implemented on the e-Procurement platform DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): The e-Procurement platform consists of 12 individual modules; however, only three are currently operational. This indicator measures the roll-out of additional modules. A module will be considered “implemented” once it is online, operational, and in use by relevant government officials and economic operators and is not duplicated by a manual process. The aim is to fully functionalize the e-procurement platform which enables all procurement activities to be conducted electronically including the tender notification, tender dossier, submission of bids by economic operators, bid opening and evaluation by municipality; appeals and review process, contract management, monitoring and auditing process. Unit of Measure: number Disaggregated by: n/a Justification & Management Utility: The PPRC, with USAID TEAM support, will increase the number of e-procurement modules implemented from the current baseline of 3 to all 12 by the end of Year Five PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: PPRC e-procurement implementation reports, Infodom reports, USAID TEAM IT STTA, assessment reports, interviews with PPRC officials Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: quarterly and annual reports Data Source(s): PPRC, Infodom, TEAM records Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: quarterly Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component Two DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): n/a Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: after the implementation modules, USAID TEAM will focus its support on monitoring system usage (all 12 modules), system stability, and system upgrades/enhancement Presentation of Data: Table with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component Two, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Quarterly and annually TARGETS AND BASELINE: Target is o for this indicator as there is no anti-fraud unit within NAO Baseline/Target: Baseline for this indicator is 3 Year Target Actual Notes
In the remaining years, USAID TEAM will focus 2017 (baseline) 3 4 4 its support on monitoring system usage (all 12 modules), system stability, and system 2018 7 7 upgrades/enhancement.
2019 11 11
2020 12 13
2021 -
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes to this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021 Note: USAID TEAM planned that by the end of Year Three (2019) all modules to be implemented within the e-procurement platform. The last module to be implemented was Contract Management Module. Since this module needs to be upgraded with the Contractor Past Performance module, the completion of the Contract Management Module will take place during Year Four (2020).
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 153
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes Project result: Engage the central and local level in addressing municipal corruption with the procurement process Indicator # 20 Name of Indicator: % of entries made in Contractor Past Performance Database (against total number of contracts) in the 15 focus municipalities DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): USAID TEAM plans to develop a Contractor Past Performance Database to enable municipal contracting authorities to capture the quality of goods and services received. This indicator measures the percentage of contracts for which 15 focus municipalities entered past performance information in the system against the total number of contracts. This indicator measures entries for high and medium value contracts only. Unit of Measure: percentage Disaggregated by: all municipalities Justification & Management Utility: The results from this indicator will help budget organization in making informed decisions before committing to a potential contractor PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Site host, PPRC annual report, municipal reports Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Quarterly and annual reports Data Source(s): USAID TEAM, central and local level institutions, Association of Kosovo Municipalities Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: quarterly Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component Two DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: end of FY18 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): n/a Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: the data entered will bring to an informed decision Presentation of Data: table with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component Two, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Quarterly and annually TARGETS AND BASELINE: The baseline for this indicator is 0 Baseline/Target: N/A Year Target Actual Notes
All municipalities will enter contractor past 2017 (baseline) - 0 performance information for at least 50% of contracts by the end of Year Five. 2018 0% PPRC request was that the Contractor Part 2019 0% Performance database should have legal support in order to be successfully implemented. In 2019 GoK started the process of amending the Public 2020 25% 0% Procurement Law, and as result the USAID TEAM initiated procedures to develop this. 2021 50% CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes to this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 154 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administration, and Election Process Project result: Engage the central and local level in addressing municipal corruption with the procurement process Indicator # 21 Name of Indicator: # of fraud cases detected by the NAO Fraud Unit and handed over to prosecutor DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the number of fraud cases detected by the NAO Fraud Unit and handed over to the prosecutor for action. Unit of Measure: number Disaggregated by: n/a Justification & Management Utility: The NAO Fraud Unit will detect and hand over information to the prosecutor for about 180 cases of potential fraud PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: NAO reports, interviews with NAO officials Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Quarterly and annual reports Data Source(s): USAID TEAM, CSOs Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: quarterly Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component Two DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FYI 18 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): n/a Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Tracking of cases detected and handed over to the prosecutor. Presentation of Data: Data will be presented in number of cases detected and reported. Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component Two, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Quarterly and annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target for this indicator is 0
Year Target Actual Notes
The NAO Fraud Unit will detect and hand over 2017 (baseline) 0 - information to the prosecutor for a minimum of 186 cases of potential fraud 2018 38 38
2019 43 49
2020 50 54
2021 55
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Changes to this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
Note: This indicator is modified, by including potential fraud cases identified including other areas, not only procurement, aiming to report all potential fraud cases identified by NAO Anti-fraud unit. As a result, the targets for this indicator are increased, as described in the PIRS above.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 155 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administration, and Election Process Project result: Engage the central and local level in addressing municipal corruption with the procurement process Indicator # 22 Name of Indicator: # of correction letters sent by PPRC Monitoring Unit regarding public procurement with irregularities or red flags DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the number of correction letters sent by PPRC Monitoring Unit to institutions (central, municipal, publicly-owned enterprise). USAID TEAM will specifically disaggregate findings for the 15 focus municipalities. The PPRC already sends correction letters to contracting authorities but initial attempts to establish a baseline indicate that correction letters are sent in rare circumstances. The PPRC Monitoring Unit more frequently calls contracting authorities on the telephone and provides informal feedback without logging or documenting it. In fact, the PPRC calculates the Monitoring Unit have provided 42 correction letters in 2019. As the process of providing feedback to contracting authorities becomes more formal through technical assistance from USAID TEAM, we expect to see the number of written correction letters increase. Unit of Measure: number Disaggregated by: n/a Justification & Management Utility: The PPRC will increase the number of correction letters submitted to institutions. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: PPRC Monitoring Unit Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): USAID TEAM, CSOs Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component Two DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FYI 18 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): n/a Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: USAID TEAM will employ a Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) process that incorporates continuous and systematic data verification. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Tracking of cases detected and handed over to the prosecutor. Presentation of Data: Data will be presented in number of correction letters submitted to institutions. Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component Two, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target for this indicator is 0
Year Target Actual Notes
2019 (baseline) 42 -
2020 58 79
2021 75
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Changes to this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 156 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured: IR1.4: Civil Society Strengthened to Increasingly Engage Constructively with Government Project result: Enable civil society to track and expose corruption Indicator # 23 Name of Indicator: # of hits on the procurement transparency portal DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): USAID TEAM will develop a municipal procurement transparency portal that will automatically mine data from the electronic procurement system. This indicator measures the number of unique and non-unique visits or “hits” on the site. Unit of Measure: number Disaggregated by: n/a Justification & Management Utility: USAID TEAM will adjust the transparency portal user interface to maximize the user experience, and adjust our communications and outreach based on feedback users. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: Data automatically generated by the portal site host Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Quarterly and annual reports Data Source(s): Data automatically generated by the portal site host Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Monthly Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component Three DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: FY18 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): n/a. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Tracking number of hits on the procurement transparency portal Presentation of Data: Graphs Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component Three, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Quarterly and annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline is not available. Year Target Actual Notes 2017(baseline) 0 - At least 35,000 hits on the public procurement transparency portal 2018 - 4,924
2019 6,000 21,354 2020 30,000 43,786 2021 35,0000 CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: Changes to this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
Note: Considering increase of the hits in the Open Transparency Portal, USAID TEAM increased the annual targets for Year Four and Year Five for this indicator. From 7000 in Y4 to 30.000, from 10.000 in Y5 to 35.000.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 157 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured IR1.4: Civil Society Strengthened to Increasingly Engage Constructively with Government Project result: Enable civil society to track and expose corruption Indicator # 24 Name of Indicator: # of cases of municipal procurement malfeasance reported by CSOs and media supported by USAID TEAM DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the number of cases of alleged municipal procurement fraud or other irregularities detected and reported by civil society organizations and media through reports, web-sites, newspapers, social media, television programs, or other forms of media. Unit of Measure: number Disaggregated by: n/a Justification & Management Utility: This indicator measures the number of cases of irregularities detected and reported by civil society and media PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: CSO and media reports as tracked by the project communications expert Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): CSO report, USAID TEAM database Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be reported annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component Three DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID TEAM will analyze and compare data gathered from the survey with citizens Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component Three, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: Baseline (2016) number is 8 cases. This number is reported to the project by CiviKos, who conducted the CSO Baseline Assessment. Year Target Actual Notes
2016 (baseline) 8 The total number of cases of municipal procurement malfeasance reported by CSOs in 2017 8 8 total is 80. USAID TEAM subcontractor CiviKos conducted the baseline assessment in June 2017. 2018 9 10 The initial target was unknown, until it was reported by the end of the year (December 2019 12 17 2017). The baseline and Year One target match are a coincidence. The life of project target is 80 2020 18 12 cases.
2021 25
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
Note: This indicator is modified in previous version of AMP (which was submitted to USAID on May 2019). The project will identify and report cases as a result of USAID support.
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 158 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
Name of Result Measured IR1.4: Civil Society Strengthened to Increasingly Engage Constructively with Government Project result: Enable civil society to track and expose corruption Indicator # 25 Name of Indicator: % of CSO and media recommendations on corruption red flags and irregularities in public procurement addressed by municipalities. DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the number of recommendations deriving from reports published by CSO and media that are supported by USAID TEAM, as well as number of addressed recommendations. USAID TEAM will help municipalities, to address those recommendations. Unit of Measure: number Disaggregated by: n/a Justification & Management Utility: This indicator measures the percentage addressed recommendations deriving from reports published by CSO and media PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION Data Collection Method: CSO and media reports as tracked by the project communications expert Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual reports Data Source(s): CSO report, USAID TEAM database Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition: Data will be reported annually Responsible Individual(s) at the Program: MELA Specialist, Component Three DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: n/a Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): None Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: n/a Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: n/a PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID TEAM will analyze and compare data gathered from the reports Presentation of Data: Tables with description Review of Data: MELA Specialist, Component Three, Deputy Chief of Party, Chief of Party Reporting of Data: Annually TARGETS AND BASELINE Baseline/Target: During 2018 there were 57 recommendations provided. 41out of 57 (72%) are addressed in 2019. Year Target Actual Notes
2019 (baseline) 72% -
2020 75% 82%
2021 80%
CHANGES TO INDICATOR Changes to Indicator: The changes of this indicator rely on the USAID mission and will be reflected accordingly. THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 2021
USAID.GOV USAID TEAM ACTIVITY – ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPORT, YEAR 4 159