<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>02482nam a22002177a 4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">9774</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">OCLRC</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20260730103752.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">230131t        xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">OCLRC</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="082" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">T 650 2019 350</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Aberasturi, Ma. Cristina C.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Revising procurement process in the mega city by the bay:</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">mitigating impediments on efficient public service/</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">Ma. Cristina C. Aberasturi.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Para&#xF1;aque City:</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Olivarez College,</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">2019.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="502" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Master Thesis</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">This study was endeavored to revisit and asses the procurement process implemented in the City of Para&#xF1;aque. 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 Para&#xF1;aque 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 Para&#xF1;aque 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.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Requisition and processing of paper.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Delivery of service.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Budget appropriation.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">THES</subfield>
    <subfield code="j">T 650 2019 350</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">9774</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">9774</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">LRC</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">GSL</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2026-07-30</subfield>
    <subfield code="l">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">T 650 2019 350</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2026-07-30 10:37:52</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2026-07-30</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">THES</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
