Establishes The Integrated Management System And Performance Evaluation In Public Administration

Original Language Title: Estabelece o sistema integrado de gestão e avaliação do desempenho na Administração Pública

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now

Read the untranslated law here: http://app.parlamento.pt/webutils/docs/doc.pdf?path=6148523063446f764c3246795a5868774d546f334e7a67774c336470626d6c7561574e7059585270646d467a4c316776644756346447397a4c334277624445314e7931594c6d527659773d3d&fich=ppl157-X.doc&Inline=false

1 PROPOSAL of law No. 157/X explanatory memorandum this proposal of law establishing the integrated management system and performance evaluation in public administration (the STORY), applying to the performance of public services, of their leaders and other workers, establishing an integrated design management and evaluation systems and allowing align, in a coherent, the performance of services and of those who work in them. The system has three subsystems now propose, has a vocation for universal application to State, regional and municipal administration. However, provides flexibility and adaptation mechanisms very large which allows you to fit the specifics of the various administrations, public services, careers and the functional areas of your personnel and management requirements. The system is based on a conception of public services-centric management objectives. Hence, in the evaluation of services, managers and other workers assume a central role the results obtained with regard to the objectives set, namely objectives of effectiveness, efficiency and quality. The results are measured through previously established indicators to allow transparency and impartiality, prevention of discretion and, whenever possible, comparability with national and international standards.

The evaluation system of public services that now if you want to enter is a minimum standard, to strengthen public administration a culture of evaluation and accountability, marked by the publication of the objectives of the services and of the results obtained, in close coordination with the management cycle and based on a fundamental instrument: the performance indicators. In the case of an innovation, to be wide scope for improving the quality of public services, in your introduction and development have a relevant role services that, in the context of the program of Restructuring the State's Central Administration (PRACE), were institutionalized in all ministries, with assignments in planning, strategy and evaluation. 2 also foresees an important role for the Coordinating Council of the internal control system of Financial Administration of the State. These instances will have an important role in the processes of self-evaluation and hetero-evaluation of public services, involving in particular the technical assistance, monitoring and validation of performance indicators and evaluation mechanisms. Predict the effects resulting from the evaluation of services, processes that have an impact on the management and evaluation of their leaders and workers. The evaluation system of top leaders is based on already existing for the mission – first degree and now created for 2nd degree – in the results obtained and skills assessment that are essential to a good performance in the highest offices of the public administration. In terms of results assume particular relevance options adopted in the field of human resource management – so if relating to key aspects of the new system of binding, careers and salaries of Public servants-and their own evaluation systems application. The interim leaders review focuses also on the "Results" obtained by the respective organic unit that, in the final evaluation of each collect leader a well higher than the "skills" demonstrated in the performance. As for the choice of "Competence" relevant to the assessment of the interim leaders adopted a flexible solution: the choice on the approved list in the lobby, according to the specificities of services and functions. The same solution was adopted for the choice of "skills" for the evaluation of other workers, while not develop adequate analysis and qualification of functions. The workers ' evaluation system was redesigned by highlighting the following:-the fixing of individual objectives, in line with the services and the achievement of results; -Identification of the potential for evolution of workers; -Allow the diagnosis of training needs and improvement of jobs and work processes; – Support the dynamics of careers in the distinction of merit and excellence of the performances; 3 – enhancing the involvement of workers in the process of setting targets and evaluation of services and consecration of the existence of a Joint Commission, as a consultative body with the competence to assess proposals for evaluation at the request of workers evaluated; -Simplify the current system and clarify questions which have given rise to interpretive. The desired simplification is fundamentally in the following solutions:


– Adoption of two parameters: "Results" and "skills"; -Exemption, as a rule, of weights for each "objective/Result" and "jurisdiction"; – The establishment of three levels of final assessment: "poor performance", "Appropriate" and "Performance Relevant Performance" and, from this, the possibility of recognition of performance excellence. Also adopted a transitional regime for three years for certain groups of people, whose evaluation is based solely on "skills" revealed in the performance. Such dedication is based on the recognition that, in the implementation of the current system, the Administration has demonstrated particular difficulties in defining realistic objectives for such groups of people. So, is granted a period to the Public Administration to develop their evaluative skills focusing on objectives and results in professional groups of qualifications levels lower. After the transitional period, all workers shall be established to achieve results, implementing fully the principle underlying the SIADAP that all kind of work contributes to the results of the organizations. The transitional regime won't divorce him completely from this concern, determining that a "competence" be evaluated: the ability to conduct and results orientation. The setting of a percentage system for differentiation of performances, now also extended to leaders. Such a solution seems to be indispensable, on imperative grounds of balance, given the prevailing culture in certain sectors of the public administration and taking into account the anticipated effects system that recognizes performance evaluation.

4 system plasticity involves no rigid consecration number of objectives and competencies: this will depend on the choices made at each service and, it should be noted, of the need for differentiation of performances that should be carefully considered by the leaders in advance. The evaluation process has different levels of detail: the services and superior leaders secure fundamental principles and general rules for consideration by the numerous existing specificities relating to services that are reflected in the performance of functions of the respective top leaders; in the intermediate managers and other workers to detail is more developed, taking into account the need for increased prevention evaluation subjectivismos. Being a matter of the utmost delicacy and reach, the Government intends, with this draft law, that the Government take further steps in the development of a culture of evaluation, accountability and accountability, involvement of all who work in the implementation of public policies that sufragaram citizens, of improvement of the provision of services to citizens and society of reward for work and motivation for the future. Were heard the Government organs of the autonomous regions, the National Association of Portuguese municipalities and the National Association of Parishes. The procedures were observed as a result of law No. 23/98 of 26 May.

So: under d) of paragraph 1 of article 197 of the Constitution, the Government presents to the Assembly of the Republic the following Bill: title I General provisions and common chapter I subject-matter and scope Article 1 – 5 1 subject-matter this law establishes the integrated management system and performance evaluation in public administration, hereinafter referred to as the STORY. 2 – the SIADAP aims to contribute to improving performance and service quality of public administration, for the coherence and harmony of action of services, managers and other employees and to promote your professional motivation and skills development.

Article 2 scope 1 – this Act applies to the services of direct and indirect State administration, as well as, with the necessary adaptations, in particular with regard to the competences of the corresponding organs, regional autonomous administration services and the municipal administration. 2-this law is also applicable, with the adaptations imposed by compliance with the responsibilities of the corresponding holders, bodies and services in support of the President of the Republic, the Parliament, the courts and the public prosecutor and their respective management agencies and other independent bodies. 3-Notwithstanding the provisions of article 83, the present law does not apply to public bodies, nor to the business support offices and the holders of the organs referred to in the preceding paragraphs, the members of the Government. 4-this Act applies to the performance: the) services; (b)) of the directors; c) workers of the public administration, irrespective of the mode of formation of the legal relationship of public employment.

Article 3 6 1 Adjustments – the SIADAP applies the principles, objectives and rules defined in this law. 2-alternative systems may be adopted to SIADAP adapted to the specificities of the regional and municipal administrations, through regional legislative decree and implementing decree, respectively. 3-by order of the Government members of guardianship and responsible for the areas of finance and public administration, can be carried out adjustments to the arrangements provided for in this Act on the basis of the tasks and organization of services, of your personal careers or the needs of your business. 4-in the case of public institutions, the adjustment referred to in the preceding paragraph was adopted in rules of procedure approved by the members of the Government referred to above. 5-In case of legal relations of public employment by contract, the adaptation to the system provided for in this law may appear on collective labour agreement. 6-The adaptations to SIADAP provided for in the preceding paragraphs are made in compliance with the provisions of this law in respect of: the objectives and Principles) SIADAP subsystems; b) performance evaluation based on confrontation between objectives and results obtained and, in the case of managers and workers, also demonstrated skills and develop; c) Differentiation of performances, respecting the minimum number of entries and the value of the maximum percentages laid down in this law.

Chapter II definitions, principles and objectives 7 article 4 Definitions


For the purposes of this law: (a)) ' ', the Skills evaluation parameter which reflects the set of knowledge, skills and behaviors needed for the efficient and effective performance, suitable to the exercise of functions by the leader or worker; b) «maximum» service Leaders, holders of top management positions of first degree or legally equated, other leaders responsible for the dependent service as a member of the Government or the Presidents of collegiate management body under your guardianship or supervision; c) ' top Leaders ' maximum leaders of the services, holders of Office of superior direction of 2nd degree or legally assimilated and the Vice-Presidents or vowels of collegiate management body; d) ' intermediate ' Leadership, the Office-holders of intermediate direction of 1st and 2nd degrees or legally assimilated, integrated staff in career, while in pursuit of management or equivalent functions inherent in the functional content of the career, the heads of multidisciplinary teams whose exercise continues for a period exceeding six months in the year under evaluation, and other offices and managers of organic units; and ' Objectives ') the assessment that reflects the forecast of the results to be achieved in time, in quantifiable rule; f) effective service», the work really provided by the employee in the services; g) ' services ' means the services of direct and indirect State administration, regional autonomous administration and municipal administration, including its decentralised services or public establishment and, with the exception of public business entities; h) employees, Public servants who are not in leadership positions or similar, regardless of the legal employment relationship, since their is binding for a period of not less than six months, including integrated career staff that is not in service management or equivalent functions inherent in the functional content of this career; 8 i) ' homogeneous Units», from focusing on services or peripherals of direct and indirect State administration to develop the same type of activities or provide the same kind of goods and or provide the same kind of services; j) ' organic units ', the structural elements of the internal organization of a service wants to obey the model of hierarchical structure, dot matrix or mixed; l) ' external Users ', citizens, businesses and civil society; m) ' internal ', Users and services of direct and indirect State administration and municipal and regional administrations, with the exception of public business entities.

Article 5 Principles the SIADAP subordinate to the following principles: a) Coherence and integration, aligning the action of services, managers and workers in its pursuance of the objectives and implementation of public policies; b) Accountability and development, strengthening the sense of responsibility of leaders and workers by the results of services, linking organizational systems improvements and work processes and the development of the skills of leaders and workers; c) Universality and flexibility, with a view to the application of the performance management systems to all services, managers and workers, but providing for your adaptation to specific situations; d) Transparency and fairness, ensuring the use of objective criteria and performance management of public services, managers and workers, based on performance indicators; e) Effectiveness, guiding the management and operations of the services, the managers and workers to obtain the expected results; f) efficiency, relating the goods produced and services rendered with the best use of resources; g) guidance for quality public services; 9:00) comparability of performance of services, through the use of indicators to allow comparison with national and international standards, where possible; I) Publicity of the results of the evaluation of services, promoting the visibility of the action before your users; j) advertising in the evaluation of managers and workers, pursuant to the present law; l) participation of leaders and employees in setting the objectives of the services, in the management of performance and improvement of work processes, and in the evaluation of services; m) participation of users in the evaluation of services.

Article 6 Constitute Objectives overall objectives the SIADAP: a) contribute to the improvement of the management of public administration on the basis of users ' needs and align the activities of the services with the goals of public policy; b) Develop and strengthen evaluation practice and self-regulation of public administration; c) identify needs for training and appropriate professional development to improve the performance of services, managers and workers; d) to promote the motivation and development of competences and qualifications of managers and workers, encouraging life-long learning; and) recognize and distinguish services, managers and workers for your performance and the results obtained and stimulating the development of a culture of excellence and quality; f) Improve the architecture of processes, generating added value for users, in time, cost and quality; g) Improve the provision of information and the transparency of the action of public administration services; 10:00) support the process of strategic decisions through information on the results and costs, in particular with regard to the relevance of the existence of services, its tasks, organisation and activities.

Chapter III framework and the SIADAP subsystems article 7 1 planning system – the SIADAP articulates with the planning system of each Ministry, being an instrument of evaluation of the multi-annual strategic objectives determined superiorly and annual objectives and business plans, based on indicators of measurement of results to obtain the services. 2-the articulation with the planning system requires permanent coordination between all the services and one that, in every Ministry, exercises powers regarding planning, strategy and evaluation.

Article 8 management Cycle


1 – the SIADAP articulates with the management cycle of each public administration service that integrates the following phases: the establishment of service objectives) for the following year, having regard to your mission, its mission, the multi-annual strategic objectives determined superiorly, the commitments made in the letter of assignment by the maximum leader, the results of the evaluation of the performance and the budgetary availability; b) budget approval and approval, maintenance or modification of the map of their staff, in accordance with applicable law; (c) Elaboration and approval of the plan) of service activities for the following year, including the objectives, activities, and service performance indicators of each organic unit; 11 d) monitoring and revision of the objectives of the service and of each organic unit, due to unforeseen contingencies to political or administrative level; e) reporting of activities, with qualitative and quantitative demonstration of the results achieved, integrating the social balance and the self-evaluation report provided for in this law. 2 – it is incumbent, in every Ministry, in service with powers regarding planning, strategy and evaluation, to ensure coherence, coordination and monitoring of the management cycle of the services with the overall objectives of the Ministry and your connection with the SIADAP.

Article 9 1 SIADAP subsystems-the SIADAP integrates the following subsystems: a) the performance assessment subsystem of public administration Services, abbreviated called SIADAP 1; b) performance assessment subsystem of Heads of public administration, abbreviated called SIADAP 2; c) subsystem performance assessment of civil servants, as designated by the STORY 3. 2-the subsystems referred to in the preceding paragraph operate seamlessly through coherence between objectives under the system of planning, objectives of service management cycle, goals set on top leaders and mission objectives to the other managers and employees.

TITLE II Performance Assessment subsystem of public administration Services (SIADAP 1) Chapter I General provisions article 10 12 evaluation and Accountability Framework 1-performance evaluation of each service is based on a evaluation and Accountability Framework (QUAR), subject to permanent and updated assessment from the service information systems, where evident: a) the Mission of the service; b) multiannual strategic objectives determined superiorly; (c)) the objectives set annually and, in hierarchical rule; d) performance indicators and sources of verification; and) the means available, synthetically; f) the degree of achievement of results obtained in pursuit of objectives; g) identification of deviations and, briefly, their causes; h) the final evaluation of the performance of the service. 2 – the QUAR is related to the service management cycle and is fixed and kept updated in conjunction with the competent service planning, strategies and evaluation of each Ministry. 3 – The projected documents and legally provided for accountability must be fully consistent with the QUAR. 4-dynamic update of QUAR must underpin the analysis of external surroundings, in identifying the installed capacity and the development opportunities of the service, as well as the degree of user satisfaction. 5-the QUAR is published on the website of the service. 6 – the services must draw on methodologies and evaluation tools already enshrined in national or international plan in order to operationalize the provisions of this title.

Article 11 evaluation Parameters 1-the assessment of the performance of services is based on the following parameters: the ' effectiveness ' objectives), understood as the extent to which a service reaches its objectives and gets or exceeds expected results; 13 b) «efficiency goals ' relationship between the goods produced and services provided and the resources used; c) ' quality objectives ' means, translated as the set of properties and characteristics of goods or services, which give them the ability to meet needs expressed or implied. 2-the objectives are proposed by the Government member of service that depend on or under whose supervision lies and are approved. 3-For evaluation of the results obtained in each objective are established the following levels: a) surpassed the goal; b) Reached the goal; c) didn't hit the target. 4-on each service are defined: a) the performance indicators for each objective and its sources; b) operationalizing mechanisms that underpin the undergraduate levels indicated in the preceding paragraph, may be laid down various weights to each parameter and objective, according to the nature of the services.

Article 12 1 – performance indicators the performance indicators to be established in the QUAR shall comply with the following principles: a) Relevance vis-à-vis the objectives that are intended to measure; b) credibility; c) ease of collection; d) Clarity; e) Comparability. 2-The indicators should allow the measurability of the performances. 3-in the definition of performance indicators should be ensured the participation of the various organic units of the service.

14 article 13 monitoring of QUAR the service with powers regarding planning, strategy and evaluation, in each Ministry: a) to support the identification of performance indicators and mechanisms for operationalization of the assessment parameters referred to in article 11; b) Support Services, in particular through scripts and instruments for the dissemination of good practice; c) Validate the performance indicators and implementation mechanisms referred to in article 11; d) Monitor information systems and performance indicators and, in particular, the QUAR, as to the reliability and integrity of data; and) promote the creation of result and impact indicators at the level of programmes and projects undertaken by one or more services in order to facilitate national and international comparisons.

Chapter II Procedures, procedures and assessment bodies article 14 modalities and periodicity


1-the evaluation of services is carried out through self-assessment and hetero-evaluation. 2 – self-assessment services is held annually, in conjunction with the management cycle. 3 – the frequency referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not prejudice the implementation of multi-annual evaluation if the budget Act this temporal dimension and justification of decisions on the relevance of the existence of the service, its tasks, organisation and activities.

15 article 15 1 self-assessment-self-assessment is required and should clearly show the results achieved and the differences according to the QUAR, service in particular vis-à-vis the objectives set annually. 2 – self-assessment is an integral part of the annual activity report and must be accompanied by information on:) was referred to by the users, the quantity and quality of the services provided, with particular emphasis in the case of units providing services to external users; b) evaluation of the internal control system; c) the causes of failure of actions or projects not carried or with insufficient results; d) measures should be taken to a positive reinforcement of your performance, highlighting the constraints affecting the results to be achieved; and the comparison with the performance) of identical services, at both national and international, that might constitute standard of comparison.

Article 16 Comparison of homogeneous units 1-in the case of homogeneous units integrate service that holds the power steering, the maximum leader to ensure the design and monitoring of a system of performance indicators that allow your comparability. 2-the system of indicators referred to in the preceding paragraph should reflect all the activities pursued and enable the ordering of these units in relative efficiency for each homogeneous group, in each service. 3-the quality of this monitoring must be considered in the evaluation of the service in the parameter provided for in subparagraph (c)) of paragraph 1 of article 11 4 – every homogeneous unit must be assigned a final performance evaluation in accordance with article 18 or, Alternatively, hierarchical list must be drawn up of homogeneous units in order of evaluation. 16 5-the preceding paragraphs shall also apply mutatis mutandis to central services that develop the same type of activities, provide the same type of goods or provide the same type of services that are provided by homogeneous units. 6-in the case of homogeneous units constitute peripheral services of Ministry, it is for the service with powers regarding planning, strategy and assessment to ensure compliance with the provisions of this article.

Article 17 critical analysis of self-evaluation 1 – In each Ministry for the service with powers regarding planning, strategy and assessment, issue an opinion with critical analysis of self-evaluations of activities reports prepared by other services. 2-the result of this analysis is communicated to each of the services and the respective Member of the Government. 3 – The services referred to in paragraph 1 shall carry out a comparative analysis of all the services of the Ministry in order to: a) to identify, on an annual basis, the services that have distinguished themselves positively to your performance level and propose to the Government the list of worthy of the distinction of merit, upon detailed justification; b) Identify annually the services with greater deviations, not justified, between objectives and results or who, for other reasons considered relevant, must be the subject of hetero-evaluation and that give knowledge to the Coordinating Council of the internal control system of Financial Administration of the State (SCI) for the purposes set out in this Act.

Article 18 qualitative Expression 1 evaluation – final evaluation of the performance of services shall be expressed qualitatively through the following: a) «good», achieved all Performance objectives, overcoming some; b) «satisfactory performance», reached all the objectives or the most relevant; 17 c) ' Insufficient ' Performance, not hit the most relevant objectives. 2-In each Ministry can still be attributed to the services with "Good" Performance evaluation, a distinction of merit recognizing "excellent performance", which means overcoming the global objectives. 3-the words referred to in paragraph 1 are proposed by maximum leader of the service as a result of the self-assessment and, after the opinion provided for in paragraph 1 of the preceding article, approved or amended by the respective Member of the Government.

Article 19 Distinction 1 merit – In each Ministry can be selected the most distinguished services in your performance for the award of distinction of merit, recognizing the "excellent performance", up to 20% of the services that integrate with or are under your supervision. 2 – the award of distinction of merit is based on detailed justification, in particular, on grounds relating to: the positive and significant Developments in) results obtained by the service in comparison with previous years; b) excellence of results, demonstrated in particular by comparison with national or international standards, taking into account also efficiency improvements; c) maintaining the level of excellence before reached, if possible with the proof referred to in (a). 3 – it is incumbent, in every Ministry, its Minister select services and assign the distinction of merit, subject to the provisions of subparagraph (a)) of paragraph 3 of article 17 and paragraph 1.

Article 20 Hetero-evaluation


1-the hetero-evaluation aims to obtain a thorough understanding of the causes of deviations evidenced in self-assessment or otherwise detected and make proposals for the improvement of processes and future results. 18 2 – hetero-evaluation is the responsibility of the Coordinating Council of the SCI, and can be performed by internal operators, namely general inspections, or external, in particular consumer associations or other external users, since the functional independence in the face of the entities to be evaluated. 3-the hetero-evaluation of services with planning assignments, and evaluation strategy proposed by the Minister. 4-On hetero-assessment referred to in the preceding paragraphs, there is no place for name referred to in article 18 5 – hetero-evaluation can also be requested by the service, as an alternative to self-evaluation, acting on a proposal submitted to the Coordinating Council of the SCI, at the beginning of the year to which it relates performance to evaluate.

Article 21 section for the Coordinating Council of the SCI 1-is created, within the framework of the Coordinating Council of the SCI, a section to streamline and coordinate the hetero-evaluations. 2-section is referred to in the preceding paragraph to propose to the Government the hetero-policy reviews, define the terms of reference of the assessment and validate the quality of the work carried out by the various operators.

Article 22 annual straight-1 reviews – the Coordinating Council of the SCI proposes to the Government annually, through the members of the Government responsible for the areas of finance and public administration, an annual programme of hetero-evaluations. 2-the annual programme takes into account the proposals made in accordance with subparagraph (b)) of paragraph 3 of article 17, as well as other situations that may signal greater dissatisfaction on the part of external users and proposals made pursuant to paragraph 3 of article 20 that are relevant. 3-the annual programme shall contain the following elements: the Identification of the services to assess) the year and their justification; 19 b) Indication of the reasons governing the selection of external operators if this is the case; c) deadline for your achievement; d) selection criteria, in the case of the assessment be carried out by external operators, and forecast of costs. 4-If the proposal pursuant to paragraph 1 be approved by resolution of the Council of Ministers, the Coordinating Council of the SCI promote your implementation, particularly through technical assistance to the process of selection of external operators.

Article 23 hiring external operators 1-the process of selecting and hiring external operators for service evaluation is developed by the Secretariat-General of the Ministry in the service to assess if integrate. 2-Administrative and financial burdens inherent in the hetero-evaluation are borne by the Secretariat referred to in paragraph 1, except as provided in paragraph 3 of article 20 in that are supported by the service.

Article 24 submission of results 1-valued services is notified of the draft report of the hetero-evaluation to pronounce. 2 – the Coordinating Council of the SCI opinion within a period not exceeding thirty days after service rated pronunciation, on the quality of the hetero-evaluation reports and makes recommendations to understand relevant, emphasizing the positives and susceptible of improvement. 3 – the Coordinating Council of the SCI shall send the opinion referred to in the preceding paragraph to members of the Government responsible for the areas of finance and public administration and the Minister under whose direction or supervision is the rated service.

20 Chapter III article 25 Disclosure evaluation results 1-each service the outreach, on your website, the self-assessment with indication of the respective parameters. 2-in the case of the opinion drawn up pursuant to paragraph 1 of article 17 the disagreement concerning the assessment carried out by the service of self assessment, or by the unreliability of the system of performance indicators, should the same be made public together with the items referred to in the preceding paragraph. 3-each Ministry shall disseminate, on your website, services to which was attributed a distinction of merit pursuant to article 19, specifying the main fundamentals.

Article 26 effects of assessment 1-the results of the evaluation of services shall produce effects on: a) The budgetary choices have an impact on the service; b) options and priorities of the management cycle; c) performance assessment of the top leaders. 2-Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, the allocation of "Inadequate Performance" on the self-evaluation process is considered by the Member of Government responsible for the implementation of a set of measures, which may include the celebration of new mission, in which expressly be consecrated the recovery plan or correction of deviations detected. 3-hetero-evaluation results, held on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of article 20, produce the effects referred to in the preceding paragraph. 4 – the assignment of consecutive mentions of "Inadequate Performance" or the overcoming of deviations not evidenced and analyzed in the hetero-assessment can substantiate the decisions on the relevance of the existence of the service, your mission, 21 assignments, organization and activities, without prejudice to the establishment of any responsibilities.

Article 27 the purposes of distinction of merit the award of distinction of merit determines, for one year, the following effects: a) the increase to 35% and 10% of the maximum percentages provided for in paragraph 5 of article 37 to the interim leaders in SIADAP 2, and in paragraph 1 of article 75 for the remaining workers at 3 to SIADAP differentiation of "Relevant Performance" and "excellent performance"; (b)) the assignment by the competent official of the strengthening of budgetary appropriations in order to change workers ' compensation positions or prizes; c) the possibility of consecration of reinforcements to support budget and dynamization of new service improvement projects.

Chapter IV coordination of evaluation systems article 28 Coordinating Council of evaluation of services


1-in order to ensure coordination and cooperation between the various services with expertise in strategy, planning and evaluation, and to promote the exchange of experiences and dissemination of good practice in the areas of evaluation, the Coordinating Council of Public Services assessment, hereinafter abbreviated by Council. 2 – the Board is chaired by a member of the Government that has your position the area of public administration and made up of the Directors-General of services with expertise in planning, strategy and evaluation, by the Inspector-General of finance, the Director-General of administration and public employment and the President of the Governing Board of the Agency for the administrative modernization. 3-the Council: 22 a) monitor the process of technical assistance referred to in article 13; b) Propose initiatives towards improving the performance of the services referred to in the preceding paragraph, with regard to evaluation of services; c) ensure consistency and quality of the methodology used in all ministries; d) promote research and training services in the area of performance evaluation; and) promote the dissemination of experience national or international evaluation and assessment systems across the public administration; f) Stimulate the improvement of the quality of the systems of performance indicators and self-assessment processes; g) promote articulation between departments with competence in planning, strategy and evaluation and the Coordinating Council of the SCI; h) comment on questions that are submitted by the Member of Government responsible for public administration, in particular the scope of other subsystems of the STORY. 4 – the Board can create, in your addiction, working groups made up of resources allocated for services whose maximum leaders participating in it, to develop projects or the dynamic monitoring for the evaluation of services. 5-the Directorate-General for Administration and public employment provides the technical and administrative support necessary for the functioning of the Council. 6 – the regulation of operation of the Council, including the rules of participation of other structures or entities, is approved by order of the Government referred to in paragraph 2. 7 – the regulation referred to in the preceding paragraph shall lay down the rules for the participation of representatives of trade unions when, in meetings of the Council are covered SIADAP1 issues that have impact on the evaluation of the performance of workers or, in accordance with paragraph (h)) of paragraph 3, questions related to other subsystems.

TITLE III Performance Assessment subsystem of Heads of public administration (the STORY of 2) 23 Chapter I General provisions article 29 1 Periodicity – the overall evaluation of the performance of higher and intermediate managers is made at the end of the respective committees, service as its status, or at the end of the period for which they were appointed. 2-Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the upper and intermediate managers performance is subject to mid-term evaluation carried out annually in accordance with this law. 3-interim review period corresponds to the calendar year, assuming the performance as a Manager for a period of not less than six months. 4-the evaluation of the performance of higher and intermediate leaders held under this title does not produce any effects on their career. 5-performance evaluation, with effects on career, origin of workers who exercise leadership roles is held annually in accordance with paragraphs 5 to 7 of article 42 and article 43-6 evaluation of the performance of the integrated staff in career, in pursuit of management or equivalent functions inherent in the functional content of the career When such an exercise is not created in service, is made annually, in accordance with the provisions of this title are not applicable the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5.

Chapter II evaluation of the performance of the top 24 leaders article 30 evaluation Parameters 1-the assessment of the performance of the top leaders is part of the service management cycle and is based on the following parameters: a) ' degree of fulfilling commitments ' in their respective letters of mission, based on the indicators of measurement set for the evaluation of the results obtained in objectives of effectiveness , efficiency and quality in them and in the management of human, financial and material resources allocated to the service; b) «» Skills of leadership, strategic vision, of external representation and management demonstrated. 2-for the purposes of point (a)) of the preceding paragraph, top leaders of 2nd degree, at the beginning of your service and within the framework of its legal powers, delegated or subdelegated, sign with the maximum leader a letter of mission which is a commitment of management where, explicitly, are defined the objectives, quantified if possible and timed , to be achieved in the course of the exercise of functions, as well as the performance indicators for the evaluation of results. 3-the evaluation of the performance of members of the governing boards of public institutions subject to the public Manager status follows the scheme in this set.

Article 31 interim evaluation


1-for the purposes of the mid-term evaluation provided for in paragraph 2 of article 29 should the maximum leader of the service refer to the Member of the Government until April 15 of each year, the following elements: a) activity report incorporating self-evaluation of the service in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 15; b) synthetic Report explaining the evolution of the results of effectiveness, efficiency and quality achieved with regard to the commitments set out in the letter of the mission leader for the year in question, in relation to previous years and the results obtained in the management of human, financial and material resources. 25 2-synthetic report referred to in point (b)) of the preceding paragraph shall include the main options in the management and qualification of human resources and the overall result of the application of the 2 and 3 SIADAP SIADAP, including equitable distribution of the entries explicitly allocated in total quality and career. 3 – top leaders of 2 degree must present to the maximum leader of the service a synthetic report explaining the results obtained with regard to the commitments made in the letter of mission and your evolution in relation to previous years. 4-By order of the maximum leader of the service can still compete as informants the evaluation of every top leader assessments about him made by leaders who depend on. 5 – the assessment referred to in the preceding paragraph conforms to the following rules: a) is optional; (b)) is not identified; c) has character of qualitative information and is driven by standardized questionnaire, weighing six points on each valuation. 6-Summary justification is required for each valuation chosen the range provided for in subparagraph (c)) of the preceding paragraph, except for the average points three and four. 7-the Mission of the upper leaders and the report provided for in paragraph b) of paragraph 1 may obey the model approved by Decree of the Member of Government responsible for public administration.

Article 32 expression of 1 – evaluation the interim evaluation of the performance of top leaders has been assessed by levels of success obtained in the evaluation parameters, in the verification of global success with overcoming the performance provided for in some areas, in the light of the requirements of the Office of the post translated those parameters, in the fulfilment of such requirements or your failure. 2 – can be attributed to the leaders over qualitative mention "excellent performance", which means recognition of merit, with the overall resilience of the planned performance. 26 3-recognition of merit as provided for in the preceding paragraph and the results of the evaluation for the management awards are subject to publicity in the Ministry, by the means considered most suitable. 4-the performances of the top leaders is guaranteed by setting the maximum percentage of 5% of the total of top leaders for the award of distinction of merit with recognition of "excellent performance". 5-the percentage provided for in the preceding paragraph relates to the number of top leaders of the Ministry placed under the assessment provided for in this chapter. 6-In each Ministry, it is up to the Minister to ensure the harmonization of evaluation processes, aiming to ensure the respect by the percentage laid down in paragraph 4.

Article 33 1 Evaluators – the maximum leader service is assessed by a member of the Government that granted the letter of assignment. 2-top leaders of 2 degree are evaluated by the maximum leader awarded the letter of assignment. 3-the evaluation of the upper leaders of 2 degree is approved by the relevant Member of the Government.

Article 34 1 Effects – the evaluation of the performance of top leaders has the effects provided for in its Statute, including the award of prizes for the management and renewal or termination of their service. 2-the non-application of the STORY for reasons attributable to the maximum leaders of the services, including the members of the governing councils of public institutes, determines the cessation of their functions.

Chapter III intermediate managers performance assessment 27 article 35 assessment Parameters to intermediate managers performance assessment integrates service management cycle and is based on the following parameters: a) «results» obtained organic unit objectives; b) «» Skills, integrating the leadership and technical skills and appropriate behavior to the exercise of power.

Article 36 mid-term review


1 – the interim annual assessment referred to in paragraph 2 of article 29 is based on evaluation of parameters referred to in the previous article, by measuring indicators previously established. 2-the parameter on the "Results" is based on the objectives, in number no less than three, annually negotiated with the leader, in the event of disagreement, the position of the immediate superior. 3-the results obtained in each objective are measured through a range of three levels as follows: a) "Objective overcome", which corresponds to a score of 5; b) "Objective hit", which corresponds to a score of 3; c) "non-hit", which corresponds to a score of 1. 4-the final score to assign to the parameter "Results" is the arithmetic mean of the scores assigned to the results obtained in all the objectives. 5-parameter on the "skills" is based on previously chosen skills to each leader, in number no less than five. 6-the powers referred to in the preceding paragraph are chosen by agreement between appraiser and appraised, the choice of superior officer if there is no agreement among the constants in the list approved by order of the Member of Government responsible for public administration. 7-maximum service leader, heard the Coordinating Council of the evaluation can establish by Decree the responsibilities to which they subordinate the assessment of interim leaders, chosen from among the constants in the list referred to in the preceding paragraph. 28 8 – Each competence is valued through a range of three levels as follows: a) "demonstrated Competence at a high level", which corresponds to a score of 5; b) "demonstrated Competence", which corresponds to a score of 3; c) "not demonstrated Competency or non-existent", which corresponds to a score of 1. 9-the final score to assign in the "skills" is the arithmetic mean of the scores assigned. 10-For fixing the final scores are assigned to the parameter "Results" a minimum of 75% weighting and the parameter "skills" a maximum weighting of 25%. 11-the final classification is the result of the weighted average of the scores obtained in the two parameters of evaluation. 12-The final scores of the parameters and the final evaluation are expressed to the nearest hundredth, and when possible, thousandths. 13-By order of the Member of Government responsible for Public Administration, duly substantiated, weightings may be fixed other than those provided for in paragraph 10:00 pm depending on the specifics of the positions or assignments of the services.

Article 37 1 of the final evaluation Expression-the final evaluation shall be expressed in qualitative terms on the basis of final scores in each parameter, as follows: a) "Relevant Performance", corresponding to a final assessment of 4 to 5; b) "proper performance", corresponding to a final assessment of positive performance of 2 to 3.999; c) "poor performance", corresponding to a final assessment of 1 to 1.999. 2-the role of qualitative Performance Relevant "mention" is, on the initiative of the evaluated or evaluator, subject to assessment by the Coordinating Council of the evaluation for the purpose of eventual recognition of merit, meaning "excellent performance". 29 3-the initiative and the recognition referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be based as a rule, the following assumptions: a) the leader reached and exceeded all objectives; b) the leader demonstrated in permanence, leadership skills and commitment to public service that can serve as example for workers. 4 – recognition of merit as provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 and marked and its quantification of qualitative evaluation that justifies the attribution of performance award are the subject of advertising on the service by means considered most suitable. 5-the performance is guaranteed by setting the maximum percentage of 25% for the indications of Relevant performance "and, of these, 5% of total intermediate service leaders, to the recognition of the" excellent performance ", or at least a leader with such recognition in the case of the application of that percentage result in number lower than the unit.

Article 38 1 Evaluators – intermediate leaders of first degree are evaluated by the top leader who directly rely on. 2-intermediate 2 level leaders are evaluated at higher or intermediate leader of first degree who directly rely on. 3 – where the number of homogeneous units that depend on the same top leader warrants may delegate the evaluation of their respective intermediate leaders in designated for that purpose, evaluators of category or functional than the position evaluated. 4-By order of the maximum leader of the service can still compete as informers of the assessment referred to in the preceding paragraphs: a) the assessment carried out by the remaining intermediate leaders of the same degree, and being the 2nd grade the exercising functions in the same organic unit; (b)) the assessment carried out by the leaders and subordinate workers directly to the Chairman. 30 5-the assessment referred to in the preceding paragraphs follows the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 6 of article 31 article 39 Effects


1-the assessment of the performance of interim leaders have the purposes set out in its Statute, including performance awards and renewal, non-renewal or termination of their service. 2 – the recognition of "excellent performance" in three consecutive years gives the interim leader, Alternatively, the right to: a) sabbatical with the maximum duration of three months to conduct thematic study to be agreed with the respective maximum service leader, whose final text should be the subject of advertising; b) training course in foreign or public administration body in international organization, and shall report the same to the maximum leader; c) internship in other public service, non-governmental organization or business entity, with activity and management methods relevant to public administration and shall report the same to the maximum leader of the service. 3 – the recognition of "excellent performance" in three consecutive years gives the intermediate leader the right to five days of vacation, the following year, or, at the option of the Chairman, to the corresponding remuneration. 4-the recognition of "Relevant Performance" in three consecutive years gives the leader through the three days off, the following year, or, at the option of the Chairman, to the corresponding remuneration. 5-the mention of "poor performance" is grounds for termination of their service. 6 – Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11, the words "poor performance" in two consecutive years or the non-application of the STORY 3 intermediate leader dependent workers he maketh the service or prevents your renewal. 7-the years in which the leader receives award for performance are for the purposes set out in paragraphs 3 and 4. 31 8-Without prejudice to paragraphs 2 to 4, the rights in them are conferred to the leader has accumulated 10 points in your performance assessments, numbered as follows: a) Three points for every mention of "excellent performance"; b) Two points for every mention of "Relevant Performance". 9-regulatory decree the Government can establish the conditions for the award of incentives for professional or academic training as Relevant performance award "and" excellent performance ". 10-Without prejudice to the provisions of the following paragraph, the non-application of the STORY 3 by reason imputable to the interim leader determines the termination of their service and to observe the guidelines given by the unreasoned Coordinating Council of the evaluation should be taken into account in their performance evaluation, in the parameter that is considered more appropriate. 11-the role of level of "poor performance" personnel integrated into career in Office management or equivalent inherent to the functional content of the career, when such an exercise is not created in service, as well as the non-application of the STORY 3 to her is directly assigned, have the effects provided for in article 53 article 40 in the assessment process which is not provided for in this title mid-term evaluation process of intermediate leaders applies, with any necessary adaptations, the provisions of title IV of this law.

TITLE IV Performance Assessment subsystem of Public servants (SIADAP 3) chapter I section I 32 Structure and Periodicity requirements for evaluation article 41 1 Periodicity – the evaluation of the performance of workers is annual in nature, without prejudice to the provisions of this law for the assessment to be carried out on models adapted from the STORY. 2-performance evaluation of the preceding calendar year.

Article 42 functional requirements for evaluation 1-in the case of a worker who, in the preceding calendar year, has constituted legal relationship of public job for less than six months, the relative performance in this period is evaluated with the following year. 2-in the case of a worker who, in the previous calendar year, have legal relationship of public job with at least six months and the corresponding actual service, regardless of where the service has provided, performance is assessed in accordance with the provisions of this title. 3-effective service must be rendered in functional contact with respective functional or evaluator who, despite not having allowed direct contact by the time period referred to in the preceding paragraph, face it, for a favorable decision of the Coordinating Council of the evaluation, evaluation. 4-in the case referred to in paragraph 2, if in the course of the previous calendar year and, or, temporal period of actual service if cycled through several evaluators, which have the competence to assess at the time of carrying out the assessment shall collect from the others the written contributions to an effective and fair evaluation. 5-in the case of who, in the previous calendar year, have legal relationship of public job with at least six months, but do not have the corresponding effective service as defined in this Act or in the situation referred to in paragraph 3 has not obtained a favorable decision of the Coordinating Council of the evaluation, evaluation is not performed pursuant to this title. 33 6-in the case referred to in the preceding paragraph is, for the purposes of their career, the latest assessment assigned pursuant to this law or its adaptations. 7-in the case referred to in paragraph 5 the holder of the legal relationship of public employment don't have that assessment pursuant to paragraph 1 within, or if you want to change your annual review is made by the Coordinating Council of the evaluation, upon a proposal by specifically appointed by the evaluator maximum leader of the service.

Article 43 curricular Weighting


1-the assessment referred to in paragraph 7 of the previous article is reflected in the weighting of the curriculum of the holder of the legal relationship of public employment, which are considered, among others, the following elements: a) The academic and professional qualifications; b) professional experience and curriculum; c) the exercise of leadership positions or other positions or functions of recognized public interest or relevant social interest, namely activity of union leader. 2-for the purposes of curriculum, weighting can be delivered statement passed by the entity where they are or have been exercised functions and other relevant documentation allowing the evaluator appointed base proposal for evaluation in accordance with the preceding paragraph. 3-the curriculum is expressed through weighting of a valuation that complies with the qualitative and quantitative evaluation scale and differentiation rules of performances provided for in this law. 4-the curriculum and its assessment weighting are determined according to criteria previously laid down by the Council, Assessment Coordinator listed in the record that is made public, ensuring balanced weighting of curricular elements provided for in paragraph 1, and consideration of public interest recognized social interest or relevant to the exercise of positions and functions in it. 5-the criteria referred to in the preceding paragraph may be laid down uniformly to all services by order of the legislative member of the Government responsible for Public Administration.

34 article 44 1 Advertising-qualitative indications and their quantification when founded in the year in which they are assigned, the change of remuneration position in career or assignment of prize performance, are subject to publicity, as well as the qualitative terms which have been allocated earlier and contributing to such reasoning. 2-Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph and other publicity cases provided for in this law, the procedures relating to the STORY of 3 have confidential, and the evaluation tools of each worker be archived in their personal file. 3-with the exception of the evaluated, all stakeholders in the evaluation process as well as those who, by virtue of the exercise of their functions have knowledge thereof, shall be subject to the duty of confidentiality. 4-access to documents relating to the SIADAP 3 subordinate to the provisions of the administrative procedure Code and the legislation on access to administrative documents.

Section II article 45 evaluation methodology evaluation parameters of the performance evaluation of employees is part of the management cycle of each service and focuses on the following parameters: a) "Results" obtained in the pursuit of individual goals in conjunction with the objectives of the respective organic unit; b) "Competencies" aimed at assessing the knowledge, technical and behavioural skills appropriate to the exercise of a function.

35 article 46 Results 1-parameter "Results" was due to the verification of the degree of compliance with the pre-established objectives that must be drawn up clearly and accurately, according to the main results to obtain, having regard to the objectives of the service and of the organic unit, the proportionality between the targeted results and the means available and the time in which they are pursued. 2-the objectives are, inter alia: a) Of production of goods and provision of services, or acts aimed at efficiency in user satisfaction; b) quality, innovation-driven, service improvement and satisfaction of users ' needs; c) efficiency, towards the simplification and streamlining of procedures and procedural management and reduction of operational costs; d) for improvement and development of individual skills, and behavioral techniques. 3-can be targets of shared responsibility always involving the development of teamwork or convergent effort for a given purpose. 4 – each year shall be at least 3 objectives for each worker who, as a rule, fit in several of the areas referred to in paragraph 2 and have particularly in mind the position of the worker. 5-For the results to be obtained in each objective are previously established performance measurement indicators.

Article 47 evaluation of results achieved 1 – having regard to the measurement of the degree of compliance of each objective, in accordance with their previously established indicators, evaluation of the results obtained in each objective is expressed in three levels: a) "Objective overcome", which corresponds to a score of 5; 36 b) "Objective hit", which corresponds to a score of 3; c) "non-hit", which corresponds to a score of 1. 2-the final score to assign to the parameter "Results" is the arithmetic mean of the scores assigned to the results obtained in all the objectives. 3 – albeit with actual performance, where the inability to pursue certain objectives previously fixed, due to weird restrictions to control the players, and it has not been possible to renegotiate new objectives, the assessment must take place for other objectives that have not been affected by those conditions. 4-the evaluation of the results obtained in objectives of shared responsibility referred to in paragraph 3 of the preceding article, as a rule, is identical for all workers involved in them, and, upon reasoned option of the evaluator, be differentiated according to the evaluation made contribution of each worker.

Article 48 1 Skills – the parameter on the "skills" is based on skills previously chosen for each worker in number not less than five. 2-the powers referred to in the preceding paragraph are chosen in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 7 of article 36 Article 49 1 skills assessment – the assessment of each competency is expressed in three levels: a) "demonstrated Competence at a high level", which corresponds to a score of 5; b) "demonstrated Competence", which corresponds to a score of 3; c) "not demonstrated Competency or non-existent", which corresponds to a score of 1. 2-the final score to assign to the parameter "skills" is the arithmetic mean of the scores assigned to the skills chosen for each worker.

37 article 50 final evaluation


1 – the final evaluation is the result of the weighted average of the scores obtained in the two parameters of evaluation. 2-for the "Results" is assigned a weighting of at least 60% and for the parameter "skills" a maximum weighting of 40%. 3-By order of the Member of Government responsible for public administration can be different limits of fixed in the preceding paragraph in relation to careers and, by joint decree of the Government member of guardianship and that, may also be set different limits for other special or careers because of specific characteristics of the services or your assignments. 4-the final evaluation shall be expressed in qualitative terms on the basis of final scores in each parameter, as follows: a) "Relevant Performance", corresponding to a final assessment of 4 to 5; b) "proper performance", corresponding to a final assessment of positive performance of 2 to 3.999; c) "poor performance", corresponding to a final assessment of 1 to 1.999. 5 – final evaluation of workers shall apply the provisions of paragraph 12 of article 36 Article 51 1 excellence recognition – the role of qualitative Performance Relevant "mention" is the subject of consideration by the Coordinating Council of the evaluation, for the purposes of eventual recognition of merit, meaning "excellent performance", at the initiative of the evaluated or the evaluator. 2 – the initiative referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by the characterization that specify the reasons and analyze the impact of the performance, showing the relevant contributions to the service. 3 – the recognition of merit as provided for in paragraph 1 is subject to publication in the service by internal means considered most suitable. 4-for the purposes of legislation on careers and rewards, the maximum rating on it provided corresponds to qualitative mention "excellent performance". 38 section III effects of article 52 1 Effects assessment – the assessment of individual performance has, inter alia, the following effects: a) identification of personal and professional capabilities of the worker which must be developed; b) Diagnosis of training needs; c) identification of skills and professional behavior deserving of improvement; d) improvement of the workplace and related processes; and remuneration in positioning) the worker's career, and performance awards, in accordance with applicable law. 2 – the recognition of "excellent performance" in three consecutive years gives the worker, Alternatively, the right to: a) sabbatical with the maximum duration of three months to conduct thematic study to be agreed with the respective maximum service leader, whose final text should be the subject of advertising; b) training course in foreign or public administration body in international organization, and shall report the same to the maximum leader; c) internship in other public service, non-governmental organization or business entity, with activity and management methods relevant to public administration and shall report the same to the maximum leader of the service; d) Frequency of training appropriate to the development of professional skills. 3 – the recognition of "excellent performance" in three consecutive years gives the worker, the following year, the right to five days of vacation or, at the option of the worker, to the corresponding remuneration. 39 4 – recognition of "Relevant Performance" in three consecutive years gives the worker, the following year, the three days off or, at the option of the worker, to the corresponding remuneration. 5-effects of the performance evaluation of workers also applies the provisions of paragraphs 7 to 9 of article 39 article 53 mention of Inadequate 1-the role of qualitative mention "poor performance" must be accompanied by characterization that specify the reasons, by parameter, so decisions: a) analyze the fundamentals of performance failure and identify the training needs and the appropriate professional development plan to improve worker performance; b) Substantiate decisions to best use of the capabilities of the worker. 2-The training needs identified should be reflected in actions to include in the professional development plan.

Article 54 1 workers ' development potential – the performance appraisal system should allow the identification of the potential for evolution and development of workers and the diagnosis of their training needs, which should be considered in the annual training plan of each service. 2 – the identification of training needs must associate the priority needs of the workers and the requirement of the job assigned to him, taking into account the resources available for this purpose.

Chapter II assessment process participants 40 article 55 Subject 1-involved in performance assessment process under each service: a) the evaluator; b) evaluated; c) the Coordinating Council of the evaluation; d) the Joint Committee; and maximum leader of the service). 2-the absence or impediment of direct evaluator does not constitute grounds for the lack of evaluation.

Article 56 Evaluator


1-the evaluation is the immediate hierarchical superior or, in your absence or impediment, the immediate superior of next level, and the evaluator: a) negotiate the objectives of the evaluated, in accordance with the objectives and results set for your organic unit or in the execution of their powers, and establish performance measurement indicators, namely the criteria of overcoming objectives in the context of the General guidelines laid down by the Coordinating Council of evaluation; b) regularly review with the rated negotiated annual objectives, adjust them, if necessary, and report to evaluated the evolution of your performance and opportunities for improvement; c) Negotiate the powers belonging to the second parameter of evaluation, in accordance with point (b)) of article 45 and article 48. d) Evaluate annually the directly subordinate workers, ensuring the correct application of the principles of the assessment; and Consider the expectations of workers) in the process of identification of their needs; f) Support Relevant performance assessments "and" Inadequate Performance ", for the purposes set out in the law. 41 2 – the immediate hierarchical superior must collect and record the contributions that it considers appropriate and necessary for an effective and fair evaluation, in particular where there are workers with effective responsibility for coordination and guidance on the work developed by evaluated.

Article 57 Evaluated 1 – In compliance with the principles set out in this Act the evaluated is entitled: a) to be guaranteed the means and conditions necessary for your performance in harmony with the objectives and results that have contratualizado; b) your performance assessment. 2 – obligations of conduct their self-evaluation evaluated to ensure active involvement in accountability and evaluation process and negotiate with the evaluator in the setting of objectives and competences constituting parameters of evaluation and their respective measurement indicators. 3-service leaders are responsible for implementing and disseminating the assessed, in a timely manner, of the assessment system, ensuring compliance with the principles and the differentiation of merit. 4-is guaranteed to evaluate the knowledge of the objectives, content and operation, Fundamentals of assessment system. 5-is guaranteed to evaluated the right to claim, an appeal and jurisdictional disputes.

Article 58 assessment 1 – Coordinating Council with the maximum leader of each service runs a Coordinating Council of the evaluation to which competes:) establish guidelines for objective and the SIADAP 2 harmonic and the SIADAP 3, taking into account the documents that make up the cycle of management referred to in article 8; 42 b) establish general guidelines for setting objectives, competencies and choice of indicators, in particular those relating to the characterization of the overcoming of objectives; c) establish the number of objectives and skills to make the performance evaluation, and may do so for all the workers of the service or, where appropriate, by organic unit or career; d) Ensure the accuracy and the SIADAP 2 performances and the SIADAP 3, and validating the Relevant performance assessments "and" poor performance "as well as to recognition of the" excellent performance "; and) issue an opinion on the applications for consideration of proposals for the evaluation of interim leaders evaluated; f) Exercise any other powers which, by law or regulation, you are committed. 2 – the Coordinating Council of the evaluation shall be chaired by the maximum leader of the service and integrates, in addition to the person responsible for human resources management, three to five directors for that designated. 3-large services, without prejudice to the existence of the Coordinating Council of the evaluation pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, for the purposes of the operation, your operation can be created autonomous sections presided over by the maximum leader of the service, composed of a limited number of officers, exercising the powers provided for in points (a) to (d)) and e) of paragraph 1. 4-in services which, by the nature or conditions of your organic structure, it is not possible the Constitution of the Coordinating Council of the evaluation in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3, can their legal powers be entrusted to an evaluation committee set up by order of the maximum leader of the service, composed of employees with appropriate functional responsibility. 5-the Council Presidency Coordinator of Assessment or of autonomous sections provided for in paragraph 3 may be delegated pursuant to law. 6 – the regulation of operation of the Coordinating Council of the evaluation shall be prepared by each service having regard to your nature and dimension. 7 – the Coordinating Council has restricted composition evaluation the upper leaders and responsible for human resource management when the exercise of its powers relate to the performance of intermediate leaders and, in the case of 43 in the case of the exercise of the powers referred to in subparagraph (e)), paragraph 1 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, the provisions of paragraph 3 and following article 69 article 59 Joint Committee


1-with the maximum leader of each service runs a Joint Committee with consultative competence to assess evaluation proposals made known the workers evaluated prior to approval. 2-the Joint Committee is composed of four vowels, and two representatives of the Administration appointed by the maximum leader of the service, being a member of the Coordinating Council, and two workers ' representatives elected by them. 3-large services can be set up several joint commissions, in which the representatives of the administration are appointed from among the members of the autonomous sections provided for in paragraph 3 of the preceding article and the workers ' representatives elected by the workers ' universes that match the competence of those autonomous sections. 4-The vowels represented by the administration are designated by number four, for a period of two years, two staff, one of which guides the work of the Commission, and two alternates. 5-The vowels workers ' representatives are elected for a period of two years, in number of six, two and four alternates, through secret ballot by the workers which constitute the universe of workers from all over the service or part of it in accordance with paragraph 3. 6-the process of election of workers ' representatives should elapse vowels in December and is organized in terms of order of the maximum leader of the service that is advertised on the website of the service, which shall include, among others, the following points: the) deadline for indication, by the workers, of the members of the Bureau or polling stations, referring expressly to , in the absence of such indication, the same shall be designated by the competent leader until 48 hours before the election; 44 b) number of elements of a table or polling stations, which should not be more than 5 for each table, including alternates; (c)) date of election; d) period and location of operation of polling stations; and) deadline of communication of the results to their leader; f) for members of the tables to the exercise of its functional duties on the day on which the election takes place, being also awarded the remaining facilities workers for the period strictly necessary for the exercise of the right to vote. 7 – the non-participation of workers in the election means the Joint Commission's Constitution not without, however, impede the continuation of the evaluation process being understood as irrelevant any consideration by that organ. 8-The actual vowels are replaced by alternate vowels where they have to interrupt their mandate, or where the Commission is called upon to rule on cases in which those have taken part as assessed or evaluators. 9-when the term of Office of at least half the number of vowels and alternate members, representatives of the Administration, on the one hand, or elected in representation of the assessed the procedures provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 can be repeated, if necessary, by once and within five days. 10-in the case of the preceding paragraph, the vowels designated or elected to fill the vacancies complete the mandate of those who replace, integrate the Commission until the end of the period of operation of this. 11-in the situations provided for in paragraph 9, the proven impossibility of repetition of the procedures referred to is not an impediment to the continuation of the evaluation process being understood as irrelevant any consideration by the Joint Committee.

Article 60 maximum Leader 1 service-it is the maximum leader of the service: a) ensure the adequacy of the performance measurement system to the service-specific realities; 45 b) Coordinate and control the process of annual assessment in accordance with the principles and rules defined in this Act; c) Fix levels of weighting of evaluation parameters, in accordance with this law; d) ensure compliance with the service of the rules laid down in this law in terms of percentages of differentiation of performances; and Approve annual assessments); f) decide on complaints of evaluated; g) Ensure the preparation of the annual performance evaluation report, which incorporates the report on the activities of the service; h) Exercise the other powers are committed by present law. 2-When the maximum leader does not approve the ratings assigned by the evaluators or by the CCA, in the case referred to in paragraph 5 of article 69(2) assigns new qualitative and mention its quantification, with the reasons therefor. 3 – the competence referred to in paragraph e) of paragraph 1 may be delegated in the other top leaders of the service.

Chapter III evaluation process article 61 Stages the workers ' evaluation process comprises the following phases: the evaluation process planning) and definition of objectives and results to be achieved; b) Realization of self-evaluation and evaluation; c) harmonization of evaluation proposals; d) meeting between evaluator and evaluated for performance evaluation, contractualisation of objectives and related indicators and setting of competences; and Validation of assessments and recognition) of "Great Performances"; f) appraisal of the evaluation process by the Joint Committee; g) approval; 46 h) Complaints and other appeals; (I) monitoring and review of objectives).

Article 62 Planning


1-the evaluation process planning, goal setting and fixing of results to be achieved in compliance with the following rules: a) the process of initiative and responsibility of the maximum leader of the service and should the fundamental guidelines of the documents that make up the management cycle of each organic unit and the management of activities articulated, focused on cross-architecture of the internal processes of production; b) the definition of objectives and results to be achieved by the organic units must involve their managers and workers, ensuring the harmonization of priorities and internal alignment of service activity with the results to be obtained, the identification and satisfaction of the public interest and the needs of users; c) cascade planning, when carried out, should clearly show the contribution of each organic unit for final results intended for the service; d) guidelines to ensure compliance with the percentages relating to the differentiation of performances. 2-the planning of objectives and results to be achieved by the service is considered by the Coordinating Council of the evaluation on the establishment of guidelines for an objective application and harmonica performance evaluation system, to the establishment of indicators, in particular those related to the overrun of objectives, and to validate the Relevant performance assessments "and" Inadequate Performance ", as well as the recognition of" excellent performance ". 3-planning phase the following joints required in the application of various subsystems that constitute the SIADAP, particularly aimed at the alignment of the objectives of the service, the managers and other employees. 4-the planning phase should take place in the last quarter of each calendar year.

47 article 63 self-assessment and evaluation 1-self-evaluation aims to involve the evaluated in the evaluation process and identify professional development opportunities. 2 – self-assessment is mandatory and is through the plug fill analyze by the evaluator, if possible in conjunction with the evaluated, with preparatory nature to evaluation, do not constitute binding component of performance evaluation. 3-the evaluation is carried out by the evaluator in accordance with this law, the guidelines transmitted by the Coordinating Council of the assessment and in the light of the parameters and their performance indicators and is present to that Council for the purpose of harmonisation proposals for allocation of mentions of "Relevant Performance" or "poor performance" or recognition of "excellent performance". 4-self-evaluation and evaluation should, as a rule, during the first two weeks of January. 5 – self-assessment is requested by the evaluator or delivered by initiative of the evaluated.

Article 64 Harmonisation proposals for evaluation in the second fortnight of January, as a general rule, meetings of the Coordinating Council of the evaluation for examining proposals for assessment and harmonisation to ensure your compliance with the percentages relating to broadcasting performances insensitive, if necessary, new approaches to the evaluators, following the laid down in subparagraph (d)) of paragraph 1 and in paragraph 2 of article 62 and start the process that leads to validation the "Relevant" Performances and "Inadequate Performance" and recognition of the "Great Performances".

48 article 65 1-evaluation meeting During the month of February, and after the harmonisation referred to in the previous article, the evaluators ' meetings with each of the respective assessed, in order to inform the evaluation. 2-in the course of the meeting, evaluator and evaluated must analyze the evolution of the employee profile, identify their expectations of development as well as address other purposes provided for in article 52 3-in conjunction with the business plan approved for the new management cycle and considering the objectives set for the respective organic unit during the meeting are contratualizados the evaluation parameters in accordance with the following articles. 4-evaluation meeting is marked by or required by the evaluator reviewed. 5-in the case of the abovementioned requirement get no response, legal deadlines, translated in markup, you can apply to the rated maximum leader that markup. 6-in case of not being marked meeting under the preceding paragraph, the evaluated may require competent Government member that establishes the guidelines necessary for the timely compliance with the provisions of this law. 7 – the situation provided for in the preceding paragraphs is deemed for the purposes of assessment of the leaders involved.

Article 66 Contractualisation of the parameters 1 – at the beginning of each annual period, at the beginning of a new position or function, as well as in all the circumstances in which it is possible the setting of objectives to be attained, is carried out meeting between appraiser and appraised intended to secure and register on the assessment form such objectives and competencies to demonstrate , as well as the related measurement indicators and criteria of resilience. 2 – negotiation meeting referred to in the preceding paragraph should be preceded by a meeting of the leader with all integrating respective unit evaluated 49 organic or team, being the same mandatory when there are shared objectives from documents that integrate the management cycle.

Article 67 Contractualisation of objectives without prejudice to article 46, contractualisation of objectives to be attained shall be carried out according to the following rules: a) the objectives to be achieved by each worker should be defined by the evaluator and evaluated at the beginning of the period of the prevailing assessment, in case of disagreement, the position of the evaluator; b) identification of results of improvement and individual development of the worker is compulsory in one of the objectives when results of diagnosis carried out in the context of assessing the performance rated "poor performance"; c) the objectives of improvement and development of the worker may be relational scope, attitudes or skills and techniques of working methods.

Article 68 Contractualisation of competences


1-Without prejudice to article 48, competencies to be assessed shall be carried out according to the following rules: a) to develop skills by employees are defined and listed in specific profiles, arising from the analysis and qualification of the functions corresponding to the respective career, category, functional area or job, and they come true in specific models of adaptation of the STORY of 3; b) identification of the skills demonstrated in the annual performance of each worker is carried out between the respective career related, category, functional area or workstation, preferably by agreement between those involved in the evaluation. 50 2-the selection of competencies to be assessed is carried out between the constants of the list referred to in paragraph 6 of article 36 where if you don't check the (a)) of the preceding paragraph, translated in the regulatory instruments of adaptation of the STORY.

Article 69 Validations and recognition 1-following the evaluation meetings, the meetings of the Coordinating Council of the evaluation with a view to: a) the validation of the proposed evaluation with mentions of "Relevant Performance" and "Inadequate Performance"; b) analysis of the impact of performance, in particular for the purposes of recognition of "excellent performance". 2-the "Excellent Performance" recognition implies formal declaration of the Coordinating Council of the evaluation. 3-In case of no validation of the proposed assessment, the assessment Coordinating Council shall return the dossier to the evaluator and the grounds for the no validation, so that, within a period that is determined, restate the proposal evaluation. 4-in the case of the evaluator decide to keep the proposal previously formulated appropriate substantiation is required to submit to the Coordinating Council of the evaluation. 5-in the case of the Coordinating Council of evaluation did not welcome the proposal pursuant to paragraph 1, establishes the final proposal of evaluation that transmits the evaluator for this give the knowledge assessed and refer, via hierarchical, for approval.

Article 70 the Commission Joint Assessment 1-the rated worker, after taking note of the proposal of evaluation that will be subject to approval and may require the maximum leader of the service within seven working days, that the process is subjected to your appreciation of the Joint Commission, presenting the justification necessary for such an assessment. 51 2-the application must be accompanied by documentation that supports the grounds on which the application of discretion. 3-the hearing of the Joint Committee cannot, under any circumstances, be refused. 4-the Joint Committee may request the appraiser, evaluated or, where applicable, to the Coordinating Council of the evaluation, the elements it considers convenient for your better clarification, as well as invite evaluator or assessed the exposing your position, for once, on hearing, the duration of which shall not exceed 30 minutes. 5 – the Joint Commission's assessment is made within 10 working days from the date on which it has been requested and is expressed through a reasoned report with proposal for evaluation. 6-the report provided for in paragraph 1 is signed by all the vowels and, if not consensus, must contain the alternative proposals presented and the reasons therefor.

Article 71 approval of evaluations the approval of performance reviews is the maximum leader of the service, should be, as a rule, made up of 30 March and must be notified to the evaluated within five working days.

Article 72 Complaints 1-the deadline for submitting approval Act claim is five working days from the date of your knowledge and the respective decision be made within a maximum period of 15 working days. 2 – in the decision on complaint, the maximum leader takes into account the pleas submitted by the evaluated and by the evaluator, as well as the reports of the Joint Committee or the assessment Coordinating Council on previously submitted assessment applications.

Article 52 73 Other challenges 1-of the Act and the decision on complaint fit challenge using hierarchical administrative or protect, or challenge a court, under the general terms. 2-the administrative or judicial decision in favour of the worker the right to view the magazine your evaluation or to be awarded new assessment. 3 – where this is not possible the assessment review, supervening replacement evaluator in particular, is responsible for the effect the new hierarchical superior or the maximum leader of the service, whose job is it to make another assessment.

Article 74 1 Monitoring – in the course of the evaluation period, are adopted the appropriate means to monitor the performance and made their joint analysis between appraiser and appraised or within the organic unit, in order to enable: the reformulation of the objectives) and the results to be achieved, in the case of occurrence of conditions preventing the planned course of the activity; b) clarification of aspects that may be useful to future assessment Act; c) reported collection of reflections on the performance development effectively, as an act of final assessment basis. 2-the provisions of the preceding paragraph is carried out on the initiative of the evaluator or the rated requirement.

Article 75 1 performance differentiation – Without prejudice to the provisions of article 27 (a)), the performance is guaranteed by setting the maximum percentage of 25% for final qualitative assessments of Relevant performance "and, of these, 5% of the total number of employees for the recognition of" excellent performance ". 53 2-the percentages provided for in paragraph 1 on the number of employees referred to in paragraph

the 2 to 7 of article 42, with excess approach, when necessary, and must, as a rule, be distributed proportionally for all careers. 3-the percentages referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 must be known to all. 4 – the allocation of percentages is the sole responsibility of the maximum leader of the service and shall ensure strict compliance with your still. 5-the number of objectives and competencies to establish the parameters of evaluation, and their weights, must be established in advance, in accordance with the provisions of this law, in particular as referred to in point (c)) of paragraph 1 of article 58, taking into account the need to ensure an adequate differentiation of performances.

Title V information system to support performance management and inspection measures 76 management and monitoring of 2 and the SIADAP SIADAP 3 1-the provisions of this law in the field of evaluation processes and their instruments of support does not prevent your fulfilment in electronic version and, if applicable, with the use of digital signatures. 2 – it shall be the responsibility of the secretariats-General of each Ministry summary reports showing how the SIADAP 2 and the SIADAP 3 were applied within the scope of their services, in particular regarding the planning phase and the results of the final evaluation. 3-the Directorate-General of Public Administration and employment (DGAEP): a) accompany and support the application of the performance evaluation, in particular through the production of normative guidance instruments; b) preparing annual report demonstrating how the SIADAP was applied in Public Administration. 4-for the purposes of the preceding paragraph, DGAEP collects information services with expertise in planning, strategy and evaluation and of the general secretariats. 54 5 – all processes of transmission of information under each Ministry and relevant databases must be supported, and the statistical treatment and connection to the payroll processing systems be carried out progressively. 6-the structure and content of the reports referred to in the preceding paragraphs are subject to standardisation through order of the Member of Government responsible for public administration.

Article 77 1 results Publicity – each year is disclosed in each service the overall result of the application of the STORY, containing the number of qualitative indications yet by career. 2 – the overall results of the application are advertised externally by DGAEP the STORY, particularly on your website.

Article 78 inspection measures the General Inspectorate of Finance conducts audits to assess how the services carrying out the application of performance assessment subsystem.

TITLE VI transitional and final provisions chapter I transitional provisions Article 79 55 website the information relating to the application of the STORY is publicized in accordance with this law, on the website of the service and, if it does not exist, the documents with such information are advertised by posting in appropriate location or are the subject of open access in publicly announced.

Article 80 transitional Regime 1 – in the three calendar years following the entry into force of this law, the evaluation of the performances on them provided can follow a transitional regime pursuant to paragraphs, by decision of the maximum leader of the service, heard the Coordinating Council of the evaluation. 2-the transitional arrangements can be used in the evaluation of employees provided that the following conditions are cumulatively met: a) in the case of workers who, in recruiting for their career, literary license is required at the level of compulsory schooling or Terminal 12 year diploma of secondary education; b) in the case of workers to develop activities or tasks characterized mostly as routine, with character of permanency, standardized, previously determined and executives. 3 – the transitional regime is based on evaluation of "skills" of the employee, pursuant to point (b)) of article 45 4 – The "skills" are chosen in advance for each worker, in number no less than eight. 5-In the "skills" applies the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of article 36 and article 68 being compulsory, however, underline the competence and capacity guidance for results. 6-where, for the performance of their duties, the employee is in contact with other workers or professional users, the evaluator must take into account the perception by they obtained on the performance, as a contribution to the evaluation, and 56 post it in the evaluation process and reflect it in the assessment of "skills". 7 – the assessment of each competency in the transitional regime shall apply the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 49. 8 – each jurisdiction can be assigned different weighting in order to highlight their importance in the exercise of functions and ensure the differentiation of performances. 9-the final assessment is a simple arithmetic average or weighted scores assigned skills chosen for each worker. 10 – transitional regime shall apply, mutatis mutandis, the provisions of titles IV and V.

Article 81 1 application strategy – Until 30 November the services begin or continue the construction of the ROOMS provided for in article 10, and, within the framework of the guidelines laid down by the respective Government members, propose the objectives to pursue in the next year and establish performance indicators and sources of verification. 2 – services that, in the different ministries are responsible for planning, evaluation and strategy, monitor and validate, in accordance with this law, the provisions of the preceding paragraph. 3 – December 15, members of the Government referred to in paragraph 1 approving the annual targets for each service. 4 – Until December 31 are subscribed the Mission of top leaders who at the time still have not received by them not apply the legislation in force.

Article 82 specific evaluation Systems


1-the evaluation of the performance for 2008 in offices, as well as in the special regime careers and special bodies which have a performance appraisal system that has not yet been adapted under paragraph 3 of article 2 or article 21 of law No. 10/2004, of March 22, of 57 according to their specific system until your adaptation in accordance with article 3 and paragraph 2 of article 86. 2-in the case of specific systems referred to in the preceding paragraph does not provide for differentiation of percentages performances enshrined in article 15 of law No. 10/2004, of March 22, the indications and quantification are assigned to its Government presented for ratification, aimed at checking the balance of distribution of the entries by the various levels of evaluation.

Chapter II final provisions article 83 extent of the scope of the provisions of this law relating to SIADAP 3, unless the law or regulation for the adaptation provided for in article 3 provides to the contrary, shall also apply, mutatis mutandis, to the current workers with the quality of an employee or agent of legal persons that are excluded from your scope.

Article 84 tiebreakers When, for the purposes set out in the law, the tiebreaker is necessary between workers or managers who have the same final ranking in the performance evaluation, the evaluation notes consecutively parameter of "Results", the last previous performance evaluation, relevant career and service in the exercise of public functions.

Article 85 previous reviews and conversion of 1 results-in the situations provided for in the law it is necessary to take into account the performance appraisal or classification of service and, in particular, should be taken into account the results of the application of various assessment systems for conversion of 58 quantitative values is used the SIADAP range and must be converted in proportion to this any other scales used with default approach, when necessary. 2-in the situations provided for in the preceding paragraph in which there has been mention of assignment only qualitative or quantitative values assignment subject to percentages of differentiation of performances, the supply of evaluation in accordance with article 3 of law No. 15/2006, of 26 April, by maximum leader's designated evaluator of service. 3-in the case referred to in paragraphs. 5 and 6 of article 42 is still, for the purposes of their career, the last assigned under review: a) The SIADAP approved by law No. 10/2004, 22 March; (b) approved assessment systems) under paragraph 3 of article 2 and article 21 of the law referred to in (a) to establish percentages of differentiation in compliance with the principle of differentiation of performances embodied in article 15 of the same law; c) of paragraph 3 of article 2 of law No. 15/2006, of 26 April. 4-in the case of those who do not have performance assessment carried out in the years 2004 to 2007 inclusive, by reason that it is not attributable, in particular for non-application of applicable law in matters of performance evaluation with regard to your situation, may be required to supply evaluation, in accordance with article 3 of law No. 15/2006, of April 26 for evaluator appointed by the maximum leader of the service.

Article 86 1 evaluation systems review – remain in force evaluation systems adopted under paragraph 3 of article 2 and article 21 of law No. 10/2004, of March 22, until your review for adaptation to the provisions of this law, which shall occur until 31 December 2009, under penalty of forfeiture. 2-specific assessment systems not covered by the preceding paragraph shall remain in effect until your review for adaptation to the provisions of this law, which shall occur until 31 December 2008, under penalty of forfeiture, and your application subject to the rules provided for in article 82 59 3 – during the periods laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be without prejudice to the application of the provisions of this law relating to SIADAP 1 and The STORY of 2 for the top leaders, and the application of the transitional arrangements referred to in article 77 4-considered to be suitable for the corresponding subsystem SIADAP, without prejudice to possible review in accordance with articles 3, 5 and 6 a) the system of evaluation of public establishments of pre-school education and basic and secondary education, as provided for in law No. 31/2002 , 20 December; (b)) the performance appraisal system of teaching staff provided for in the staff regulations of the Career of the kindergartners and teachers in school education, approved by Decree-Law No. 139-A/90 of 28 April and amended by decree-laws No. 1/98, 2 January and no. 15/2007, of 19 January; (c)) the performance appraisal system of the non-teaching staff of public institutions of pre-school education and basic and secondary education, approved by the implementing Decree No. 4/2006, of March 7; d) Other rating systems whose adaptation is recognized by order of Government members of guardianship and responsible for the areas of finance and public administration.

Article 87 regulatory Clearance, the Government shall adopt, by Ordinance, the instruments necessary for the implementation of this law, in particular the models of evaluation sheets within the 2 to SIADAP intermediate leaders and the SIADAP 3.

Article 88 set Standard 1-without prejudice to the provisions of the following paragraph, the following shall be repealed: a) the law No. 10/2004, 22 March; b) Law No. 15/2006, of 26 April; c) the implementing Decree No. 19-A/2004, of 14 May. 60 2-the diplomas referred to in the preceding paragraph shall apply to procedures for the evaluation of performances rendered until December 31 2007 and, pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 86, the performances provided until 31 December 2009 and 31 December 2008, respectively.

Article 89 entry into force this law shall enter into force on the day following your publication.

Seen and approved by the Council of Ministers of 19 July 2007 Prime Minister the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Minister Presidency