02422nam a22001937a 45000010005000000030006000050050017000110080041000280400010000690820019000791000032000982450144001302600048002745020018003225201796003406500041021366500025021776500026022029774OCLRC20260730103752.0230131t        xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aOCLRC  aT 650 2019 350  aAberasturi, Ma. Cristina C.  aRevising procurement process in the mega city by the bay:bmitigating impediments on efficient public service/cMa. Cristina C. Aberasturi.  aParañaque City:bOlivarez College,c2019.  aMaster Thesis  aThis study was endeavored to revisit and asses the procurement process implemented in the City of Parañaque. Further, it sought to determined underlying issues related to the process and significant differences in the assessment of the three groups on procurement process in terms of different aspects. This study utilized quantitative descriptive evaluative method using survey questionnaire among 120 respondents consisted of implementers (n=50), end users (n=50), and suppliers (n=20), respectively. Weighted mean and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were the statistical tools utilized  for the treatment of data.  Results showed that the procurement process in Parañaque City  was found to e efficient (GWH=3.11) as assessed by the three groups of  respondents, namely: the implementers (WH=3.18), end users  (WM=2.89), and suppliers (WM-3.24) in terms of requisition and  processing of papers (WM-3.16), budget appropriation (WM=3.25),  prioritization (WM-3.13), bids and awards (WM-3.03), and delivery of  service (WM=2.99). Some issues were raised related to procurement  process as identified by the respondents, such as pricing aspect  (WM=4.30), inefficient documentation procedures (WM-4.19), and  redundancy in the process (i.e. signatories) (WM-4.18). There is a  significant difference in the assessment of the three groups of  respondents on procurement process in Parañaque City in terms of  requisition and processing of papers (p-value=0.0041), budget  appropriation (p-value=0.0033), prioritization (p-value=0.0269), and bids  and awards (p-value=0.0305). However, there established no significant  difference in terms of delivery of service (p-value=6.6532). A government  procurement tool kit was designed as output of this study that would  address related concerns.  aRequisition and processing of paper.  aDelivery of service.  aBudget appropriation.