1

PROPOSED LAW NO. 157 /X

Exhibition of Motives

This proposed law institutes the integrated system of management and evaluation of the

performance in the Public Administration (SIADAP), applying to the performance of the

public services, the respective leaders and too many workers, concretizing a

integrated design of the management and evaluation systems and allowing to align, of a

coherent form, the performances of the services and the ones in them work.

The system, with its three subsystems that now propose itself, has a vocation of

universal application to state, regional and local government administration. However, it provides

mechanisms of very broad flexibility and adaptation that allows it to frame the

specificities of the various administrations, public services, careers and the

functional areas of your staff and management requirements.

The system is based on a conception of management of public services focusing on

objectives. Hence, in the assessment of services, leaders and too many employees

take a central role the results obtained in the face of the objectives beforehand

fixed, specifically objectives of effectiveness, efficiency and quality. The results

are measured by previously set indicators that allow transparency and

impartiality, prevention of discretization and, where possible,

comparability with national and international standards.

The public services assessment system that is now intended to introduce constitutes

a minimum standard, aiming to strengthen in the Public Administration a culture of assessment

and accountability, vinced by the publicitation of the objectives of the services and of the

results obtained, in close articulation with the management cycle and based on a

fundamental instrument: the performance indicators.

Addressing an innovation, which is intended from wide range for the improvement of the

quality of public services, it is anticipated that in its introduction and development

have a relevant role the services that, in the context of the Restructuring Programme

of the Central State Administration (PRACE), have been institutionalized in all

ministries, with assignments in planning, strategy and evaluation.

2

Also provides for a relevant role for the Coordinating Board of the System of

Internal control of the Financial Administration of the State. These instances will have a

important role in self-assessment and hetero-evaluation processes of services

public, involving, in particular, technical support, monitoring and validation

of the performance indicators and the evaluation mechanisms.

The effects resulting from the processes of evaluation of services, with impact, are expected

in the management and evaluation of its leaders and employees.

The assessment system of senior leaders is based on the letters of mission-already

existing for those of 1. degree and now created for those of 2. degree-in the results obtained

and also in the assessment of skills that are reputable to be essential for a good

performance in the highest offices of the Public Administration. In the matter of results

will take particular relevance to the options adopted in the field of resource management

humans-thus relating to fundamental aspects of the new system of

linkage, careers and remuneration of Public Administration workers-and of

application of the evaluation systems themselves.

The evaluation of intermediate leaders is also focused on the obtained 'Results'

by the respective organic unit which, in the final assessment of each leader, collect

a much higher weighting that the "Competencies" demonstrated in the

performance.

The choice of the "Competencies" that are relevant for the assessment of the leaders

intermediate has adopted a flexible solution: the one of choice, on list approved in

would pore, in accordance with the specificities of services and functions. Identical solution

has been adopted for the choice of "Competencies" for the evaluation of the remaining

workers, while not developing an appropriate analysis and qualification of

functions.

The workers ' evaluation system was redesigned by emphasizing the following

options:

-Privileging the fixation of individual objectives, in line with those of the services and

the achievement of results;

-Allow the identification of the potential for the evolution of workers;

-Allow the diagnosis of training and improvement needs of posts and

work processes;

-Supporting the dynamics of careers in a perspective of distinction of merit and

excellence of performances;

3

-Strengthening the intervention of employees in the process of setting objectives

and evaluation of the services and consecration of the existence of a Commission

Parity, as an advisory body with competence to appreciate proposals of

assessment on the requirement of the employees assessed;

-Simplify the current system and clarify interpretative doubts that have

raised.

The intended simplification concretizes fundamentally in the following solutions:

-Adoption of two evaluation parameters: "Results" and "Competencies";

-Dispensation, as a rule, of weights by each "Objective/Result" and

"Competence";

-The fixation of three levels of final assessment: "Inadequate Performance",

"Adequate Performance" and "Relevant Performance" and, from this, the

possibility of the recognition of performance excellence.

It is also adopted a transitional regime for three years for certain groups of

personnel, the evaluation of which is based exclusively on "Competencies" revealed in the

performance. Such consecration rests on the recognition that, in the application of the current

system, the Administration has shown particular difficulties in the definition of

realistic goals for such groups of personnel. Thus, a period is granted to the

Public Administration to develop its evaluative capacities centered on

objectives and results in the professional groups of emitational levels less

high. Finite the transitional period, all employees will be set results

to achieve, fully concreting the principle underlying the SIADAP that the whole

type of work contributes to the results of the organizations. The transitional arrangements do not

completely divorces of such concern, hence determining that a

"Competence" is compulsorily the subject of assessment: that of capacity of

achievement and guidance for results.

It remains the fixation of a percentage system for the differentiation of

performances, now also extended to leaders. Such a solution seems to be still

indispensable, by imperatives of balance, in the face of the prevailing culture in certain

sectors of the Public Administration and having present the system of forecasted effects that if

acknowledges the performance evaluation.

4

The plasticity of the system involves the rigid non-consecration of the number of objectives and

competencies: such will depend on the choices made in each service and, it should be emphasized, of the

needs for differentiation of performances that must be carefully

weighted in advance by the leaders.

The evaluative process has different levels of detailing: in that of the services and

top leaders set out fundamental principles and general rules by consideration

by the numerous existing specificities concerning the services that are reflected in the

exercise of duties of the respective senior leaders; in that of the leaders

intermediate and too many workers the detailing is further developed, having in

account for the need for greater prevention of evaluative subjectivisms.

Being a matter of the utmost delicacy and scope, the Government intends, with the present

proposed law, which the Public Administration will take further steps in the development of

a culture of assessment, accountability and accountability, of involvement of

all those who work in the execution of the public policies that citizens

suffused, of improvement of provision of services to citizens and society, of

reward for the work carried out and motivation for the future.

The governing bodies of the Autonomous Regions, the Association, were heard

National of Portuguese Municipalities and the National Association of Freguestics.

The procedures stemming from Law No. 23/98 of May 26 were observed.

Thus:

Under the terms of the paragraph d) of Article 197 (1) of the Constitution, the Government presents to the

Assembly of the Republic the following proposal for a law:

Title I

General and common provisions

Chapter I

Object and scope

5

Article 1.

Subject

1-A This Law institutes the integrated system of management and evaluation of performance in

Public Administration, hereinafter referred to as SIADAP.

2-SIADAP aims to contribute to the improvement of performance and quality of service

of the Public Administration, for the coherence and harmony of the action of services, leaders

and too many employees and for the promotion of their professional motivation and

development of competences.

Article 2.

Scope of application

1-A This Law applies to the services of the direct and indirect administration of the State,

as well as, with the necessary adaptations, in particular with regard to

skills of the corresponding bodies, the services of the regional administration

autonomous and the municipal administration.

2-A This Law shall also apply, with the adaptations imposed by the observance

of the skills of the corresponding holders, the organs and support services of the

President of the Republic, the Assembly of the Republic, the Courts and the Ministry

Public and their respective bodies of management and other independent bodies.

3-Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 83, this Law shall not apply to entities

business public, neither the support offices or the holders of the bodies

referred to in the preceding paragraphs, either from the members of the Government.

4-A This Law applies to performance:

a) Of the services;

b) Of the leaders;

c) Of the employees of the Public Administration, regardless of modality

of constitution of the legal public employment relationship.

6

Article 3.

Adaptations

1-SIADAP concretizes itself in the principles, objectives and rules set out in the present

law.

2-Alternative systems for SIADAP adapted to the specifics can be approved

of regional and municipal administrations, through regional legislative decree and

regulatory decree, respectively.

3-By joint portionery of the members of the Government of guardianship and responsible for the areas

of Finance and Public Administration, adaptations to the regime may be carried out

provided for in this Law on the grounds of the tasks and organization of the services, of the

careers of your staff or the needs of your management.

4-In the case of public institutes, the adaptation referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be approved

in internal regulation approved by the members of the Government referred to in the number

previous.

5-In the case of public employment legal relations constituted by contract, the

adaptation to the scheme provided for in this Law may appear in the collective agreement of

work.

6-The adaptations to the SIADAP provided for in the preceding paragraphs are made respecting the

provisions of this Law in respect of:

a) Principles, objectives and subsystems of SIADAP;

b) Evaluation of performance based on the confrontation between set objectives and

results obtained and, in the case of leaders and workers, also the

demonstrated skills and to develop;

c) Differentiation of performances, respecting the minimum number of mentions of

assessment and the value of the maximum percentages provided for in this Law.

Chapter II

Definitions, principles and objectives

7

Article 4.

Definitions

For the purposes of the provisions of this Law, it shall be understood by:

a) "Competencies", the evaluation parameter that translates the set of

knowledge, skills of action and behaviours required for the

efficient and effective performance, appropriate to the exercise of functions by leader or

worker;

b) "Maximum Service Leaders", the holders of senior management positions of 1.

degree or legally equated, other leaders responsible for the service

dependent on a member of the Government or the chairpersons of the governing body

high school under your tutelage or superintendency;

c) "Senior Leaders", the maximum leaders of the services, the holders of office

of the upper direction of 2. degree or legally equipped and the Vice-Presidents

or vowels of collegial steering organ;

d) "Intermediate leaders", the holders of intermediate management positions of 1. and of

2. degrees or legally equiped, career integrated personnel, while

find in exercise of direction functions or equiparades inherent in the

functional content of the career , the heads of multidisciplinary teams whose

exercise extends by a maturity of more than six months in the year in evaluation, and

other posts and chefias of organic units;

e) "Objectives", the evaluation parameter that translates the prediction of the results that

if they intend to achieve in time, in quantifiable rule;

f) "actual service", the work actually provided by the employee in the services;

g) "Services", the services of the direct and indirect administration of the State, of the

autonomous regional administration and the municipal administration, including the

respective devolved services or peripherals and public establishment,

with the exception of business public entities;

h) "Workers", the workers of the Public Administration who do not exercise

leading or equal positions, regardless of the legal title of the relationship

of work, provided that the respective linking is by term equal to or greater than

six months, including career integrated personnel who do not find themselves in service

of steering functions or equiparades inherent in the functional content of that

career;

8

i) "homogeneous units", the deconconcentrated or peripheral services of the

direct and indirect administration of the State which develop the same type of

activities or provide the same type of goods and or provide the same type of

services;

j) "Organic units", the structural elements of the internal organisation of a

service wants to comply with the hierarchized, matrix or mixed structure model;

l) "External users", citizens, businesses and civil society;

m) "Internal users", the organs and services of direct and indirect administration

of the State and of the regional and municipal administrations, with the exception of entities

business public.

Article 5.

Principles

SIADAP subordinates itself to the following principles:

a) Coherence and integration, aligning the action of services, leaders and

workers in the pursuit of the objectives and implementation of policies

public;

b) Accountability and development, strengthening the sense of responsibility

of leaders and workers for the results of the services, articulating improvements

of the organizational systems and processes of work and the development of the

skills of leaders and employees;

c) Universality and flexibility, aiming at the application of the management systems of the

performance to all services, leaders and employees, but by predicting their

adaptation to specific situations;

d) Transparency and impartiality, ensuring the use of objective criteria

and public in the management of the performance of services, leaders and employees,

based on performance indicators;

e) Effectiveness, guiding the management and action of services, leaders and the

workers for the achievement of the anticipated results;

f) Efficiency, relating the goods produced and the services provided with the

better use of resources;

g) Guidance for quality in public services;

9

h) Comparability of the performances of the services, through the use of

indicators that allow for comparison with national and international standards,

where possible;

i) Publicity of the results of the evaluation of services, promoting visibility

of their performance before the users;

j) Publicity in the assessment of leaders and employees, in the terms provided for

in this Law;

l) Participation of leaders and employees in the setting of 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.

Objectives

They constitute global objectives of the SIADAP:

a) Contribute to the improvement of the management of the Public Administration on the grounds of

needs of users and to align the activity of services with the

objectives of public policies;

b) Develop and consolidate assessment and self-regulatory practices of the

Public Administration;

c) Identify the needs for training and professional development

appropriate to the improvement of the performance of services, leaders and the

workers;

d) To promote the motivation and development of skills and qualifications

of the leaders and workers, favoring the formation throughout the life;

e) Recognizing and distinguishing services, leaders and employees by their

performance and the results obtained and stimulating the development of a

culture of excellence and quality;

f) Improving the architecture of processes, generating added value for the

users, in an optics of time, cost and quality;

g) To improve the provision of information and transparency of the action of the services of the

Public Administration;

10

h) Supporting the process of strategic decisions through information relating to

results and costs, specifically in relation to the relevance of the existence of

services, of their attributions, organisation and activities.

Chapter III

Framework and subsystems of SIADAP

Article 7.

Planning system

1-SIADAP articulates itself with the planning system of each ministry,

constituting an instrument for assessing the fulfilment of the strategic objectives

multi-annual certain superiorly and the annual objectives and activities plans,

based on measure indicators of the results to be obtained by the services.

2-A The articulation with the planning system presupposes the permanent coordination

between all services and the one who, in each ministry, exercises assignments in matter

of planning, strategy and evaluation.

Article 8.

Cycle of management

1-SIADAP articulates itself with the management cycle of each Administration's service

Public that integrates the following phases:

a) Setting the objectives of the service for the following year, taking into account

mission, its assignments, the determined multiannual strategic objectives

superiorly, the commitments made in the letter of mission by the leader

maximum, the results of the performance evaluation and availabilities

budgetary;

b) Approval of the budget and approval, maintenance or alteration of the map of the

respective staff, under the applicable law;

c) Drafting and approval of the service plan of the service for the following year,

including the objectives, activities, performance indicators of the service and of

each organic unit;

11

d) Monitoring and eventual review of the objectives of the service and of each unit

organic, in function of unforeseeable contingencies at the political level or

administrative;

e) Elaboration of the activity report, with qualitative demonstration and

quantitative of the results achieved, in it integrating the social balance sheet and the

self-assessment report provided for in this Law.

2-Compete, in each ministry, in the service with assignments in respect of

planning, strategy and evaluation, ensuring coherence, coordination and

monitoring of the management cycle of services with the overall objectives of the

ministry and its articulation with SIADAP.

Article 9.

SIADAP Subsystems

1-SIADAP integrates the following subsystems:

a) The Subsystem of Evaluation of the Performance of Administration Services

Public, abbreviately designated by SIADAP 1;

b) The Subsystem of Evaluation of the Performance of the Administration Leaders

Public, abbreviately designated by SIADAP 2;

c) The Subsystem of Evaluation of the Performance of Workers of the

Public Administration, abbreviately designated by SIADAP 3.

2-The subsystems referred to in the preceding paragraph work in an integrated manner by the

consistency between targets set in the framework of the planning system, objectives of the

service management cycle, objectives set in the mission letter of the leaders

superiors and objectives set by the remaining leaders and employees.

Title II

Subsystem of Performance Evaluation

of the Services of Public Administration (SIADAP 1)

Chapter I

General provisions

12

Article 10.

Evaluation and Accountability Framework

1-A performance evaluation of each service is based on a Framework for Evaluation and

Accountability (QUAR), subject to permanent assessment and updated from the

service information systems, where they are evidenced:

a) The mission of the service;

b) The multiannual strategic objectives determined superiorly;

c) The targets set out annually and, in hierarchized rule;

d) The performance indicators and their sources of verification;

e) The means available, synthetically referred to;

f) The degree of achievement of results achieved in the pursuit of objectives;

g) The identification of deviations and, synthetically, the respective causes;

h) The final assessment of the performance of the service.

2-QUAR relates to the service cycle of the service and is fixed and maintained

updated in conjunction with the competent planning department,

strategy and evaluation of each ministry.

3-The predictive and legally anticipated documents and accountability documents shall

be fully coherent with the QUAR.

4-A QUAR update dynamics should sustain itself in the analysis of the entation

external, in the identification of installed capacities and the opportunities of

development of the service as well as the degree of satisfaction of the users.

5-The QUAR is the subject of publication on the electronic page of the service.

6-Services should make use of methodologies and evaluation tools already

enshrined, in the national or international plan, that allow to operationalize the

provisions of this title.

Article 11.

Parameters of evaluation

1-A The evaluation of the performance of the services takes place on the basis of the following

parameters:

a) "Effectiveness objectives", understood as a measure in which a service reaches the

its objectives and obtains or exceeds the expected results;

13

b) "Efficiency Targets", while relationship between goods produced and services

provided and the resources used;

c) "Quality objectives", translated as the set of properties and

characteristics of goods or services, which give them an aptitude to meet

explicit or implicit needs of users.

2-The objectives are proposed by the service to the member of the Government that it depends on or

under whose superintendence meet and are by this approved.

3-For evaluation of the results obtained in each objective are established the

following levels of graduation:

a) Overcame the objective;

b) Achieved the objective;

c) It did not achieve the goal.

4-In each service are defined:

a) The performance indicators for each purpose and their sources of

verification;

b) The mechanisms of operationalization that support the undergraduate levels

indicated in the preceding paragraph, various weights may be fixed to each

parameter and purpose, according to the nature of the services.

Article 12.

Performance indicators

1-Performance indicators to be established in the QUAR must comply with the

following principles:

a) Relevance in the face of the objectives they want to measure;

b) Credibility;

c) Ease of collection;

d) Clarity;

e) Comparability.

2-Indicators should allow for the measurability of performances.

3-In the definition of the performance indicators must be ensured the participation of the

various organic units of the service.

14

Article 13.

Follow-up of the QUAR

It is incumbent on the service with assignments in planning, strategy and evaluation,

in each ministry:

a) Support the identification of performance indicators and the mechanisms of

operationalisation of the evaluation parameters referred to in Article 11;

b) Support the services, specifically through guide and guide trucks

instruments for dissemination of good practice;

c) Validate the performance indicators and operationalization mechanisms

referred to in Article 11;

d) Monitor the information systems and performance indicators and, in

special, the QUAR, as to the reliability and integrity of the data;

e) Promoting the creation of outcome and impact indicators at the level of

programs and projects developed by one or more services, so as to

viabilize national and international comparisons.

Chapter II

Modalities, procedures and evaluation bodies

Article 14.

Modalities and periodicity

1-A The evaluation of services takes place through self-assessment and hetero-evaluation.

2-A self-assessment of services is carried out annually, in articulation with the cycle of

management.

3-A periodicity referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be without prejudice to the achievement of assessment

multiannual if the budget behade such a temporal dimension and to state reasons for

decisions relating to the relevance of the existence of the service, its assignments,

organization and activities.

15

Article 15.

Self-assessment

1-A self-assessment has a mandatory character and should highlight the results

achieved and the deviations verified in accordance with the QUAR of the service, in particular

in the face of the targets set annually.

2-A self-assessment is an integral part of the annual activity report and should be

accompanied by relative information:

a) To the appreciation, on the part of users, of the quantity and quality of services

provided, with special relief when it deals with the prescarmakers of

services to external users;

b) To the evaluation of the internal control system;

c) To causes of non-compliance with actions or projects not implemented or with

insufficient results;

d) To the measures that should be taken for a positive reinforcement of your

performance, evidencing the conditioners that affect the results to be achieved;

e) Compared with the performance of identical services, on the national level and

international, which can constitute standard of comparison.

Article 16.

Comparison of homogeneous units

1-In the event that the service integrins homogeneous units on which it detains power

of steering, it is incumbent upon the maximum leader to ensure the design and monitoring of

a system of performance indicators that allows for their comparability.

2-The system of indicators referred to in the preceding paragraph shall reflect the set of

activities pursued and to enable the ordering of these units in an optics of

relative efficiency, for each homogeneous group, in each service.

3-A The quality of this monitoring is mandatorily considered in the evaluation of

service in the parameter set out in the paragraph c) of Article 11 (1)

4-A each homogeneous unit shall be assigned a final performance evaluation

under Article 18 or, alternatively, a hierarchical list of the

homogeneous units by order of evaluation.

16

5-The provisions of the preceding paragraphs shall also apply with due

adaptations, to central services that develop the same type of activities, provide

the same type of goods or provide the same type of services as those secured by

homogeneous units.

6-In the case of the homogeneous units constituting peripheral services of ministry,

compete in the service with assignments in planning, strategy and evaluation

ensure compliance with the provisions of this Article.

Article 17.

Critical analysis of self-assessment

1-In each ministry competes in the service with assignments in planning matters,

strategy and evaluation, issue opinion with critical analysis of constant self-assessments

of the reports of activities drawn up by the remaining services.

2-The result of this analysis is communicated to each of the services and to the respective

member of the Government.

3-The services referred to in paragraph 1 shall still carry out a comparative analysis of all

the services of the ministry, with a view to:

a) To identify, annually, the services that have positively distinguished themselves at the level

of your performance and to propose to the respective member of the Government the list of the

deserving of the distinction of merit, upon circumstantial justification;

b) To identify, annually, services with larger deviations, not justified, between

objectives and results or that, for other reasons deemed to be relevant,

should be the subject of hetero-evaluation and of this to give knowledge to the Council

Coordinator of the Internal Control System of the Financial Administration of the

State (SCI) for the purposes set out in this Law.

Article 18.

Qualitative expression of assessment

1-A The final assessment of the performance of the services is expressed qualitatively by the

following mentions:

a) "Good Performance", achieved all the objectives, overcoming some;

b) "Satisfactory performance", has achieved all the objectives or the most relevant;

17

c) "Insufficient performance", did not achieve the most relevant objectives.

2-In each ministry can still be attributed to the services with evaluation of

"Good Performance", a distinction of merit recognizing "Excellent Performance",

to which it means global overcoming of the objectives.

3-The particulars provided for in paragraph 1 are proposed by the maximum manager of the service as

result of the self-assessment and, after the opinion provided for in paragraph 1 of the previous article,

homologated or amended by the respective member of the Government.

Article 19.

Distinction of merit

1-In each ministry the services that most distinguished themselves can be selected

in its performance for attribution of the distinction of merit, recognizing the

"Excellent Performance", up to 20% of the services that integrate it or are under its

superintendence.

2-A attribution of the distinction of merit is based on circumstantial justification,

specifically, for reasons relating to:

a) Positive and significant developments in the results obtained by the service in

comparison with previous years;

b) Excellence of obtained results, demonstrated specifically by comparison

with national or international standards, taking into account also improvements

of efficiency;

c) Maintenance of the level of excellence before achieved, if possible with the

demonstration referred to in the preceding paragraph.

3-Compete, in each ministry, the respective minister will select the services and

assign the distinction of merit, noted the provisions of the paragraph a) of Article 17 (3) and

in the previous number.

Article 20.

Hetero-evaluation

1-A hetero-assessment aims to obtain an in-depth knowledge of the causes of deviations

evidenced in the self-assessment or otherwise detected and present proposals

for the improvement of future processes and results.

18

2-A hetero-assessment is the responsibility of the SCI Coordinating Board,

may be carried out by internal operators, specifically inspectorates-general, or

external, particularly consumer associations or other external users,

provided that it is guaranteed functional independence in the face of the entities to be assessed.

3-A hetero-evaluation of services with planning assignments,

strategy and evaluation is proposed by the respective minister.

4-In the hetero-assessment referred to in the previous figures there is no place for the assignment of

mention provided for in Article 18 para.

5-A hetero-evaluation may also be requested by the service, in alternative to

self-assessment, upon proposal submitted to the SCI Coordinating Board, in the

beginning of the year with regard to the performance to be assessed.

Article 21.

Specialized Section of the SCI Coordinating Board

1-It is created, within the framework of the SCI Coordinating Council, a specialized section

with the function of dynamising and coordinating the hetero-evaluations.

2-Compete to the specialized section referred to in the preceding paragraph to propose to the Government

policy of hetero-assessments, define the terms of reference of the assessments and validate the

quality of work carried out by the various operators.

Article 22.

Annual program of hetero-evaluations

1-The Coordinating Council of the SCI proposes to the Government annually, through the

members of the Government responsible for the areas of Finance and Administration

Public, an annual program of hetero-evaluations.

2-The annual programme takes into account the proposals made under the terms of the b) from the

n Article 17 (3), as well as other situations that indict greater dissatisfaction by

part of the external users and still the proposals made pursuant to Article 3 (3)

20. that they prove to be relevant.

3-The annual program shall contain the following elements:

a) Identification of services to be assessed in the year and respective justification;

19

b) Indication of the reasons for presiding over the selection of external operators if it is

this the case;

c) Deadline for their realization;

d) Selection criteria, in the event that the assessment is carried out by operators

external, and forecast costs.

4-Case the proposal made pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be approved by deliberation of the

Council of Ministers, it is up to the Coordinating Board of the SCI to promote its

implementation, specifically through technical support for the selection process of the

external operators.

Article 23.

Hiring of external operators

1-The process of selection and hiring of external operators for evaluation of

services is developed by the general secretariat of the ministry in which the service to evaluate if

integrate.

2-The administrative and financial burdens inherent in the hetero-assessment are

supported by the general secretariat provided for in the preceding paragraph, except in cases

provided for in Article 20 (3) in which they are borne by the service.

Article 24.

Presentation of results

1-To the assessed services is given knowledge of the hetero report project-

evaluation so that they can pronounce.

2-The Coordinating Board of the SCI issues opinion within a period of not more than thirty days

after pronunciation of the assessed service, on the quality of the hetero-assessment reports

and carry out the recommendations that understand relevant, emphasizing the positive points and

the likely improvement.

3-The Coordinating Board of the SCI proceeds to the sending of the opinion referred to in the number

previous to the members of the Government responsible for the areas of Finance and the

Public Administration and the Minister under whose direction or superintendence meet

the evaluated service.

20

Chapter III

Results of the evaluation

Article 25.

Disclosure

1-Each service proceeds to the disclosure, on its electronic page, of the self-assessment

with indication of the respective parameters.

2-In the event that the opinion drawn up in accordance with Article 17 (1) concludes by the

dissent with respect to the valorisation carried out by the service at the headquarters of auto-

assessment, or by the lack of reliability of the performance indicator system, should the

even be compulsorily disclosed together with the elements referred to in the

previous number.

3-Each ministry proceeds to the disclosure, on its electronic page, of the services to the

which was awarded a distinction of merit pursuant to Rule 19, specifying the

main fundamentals.

Article 26.

Effects of evaluation

1-The results of the evaluation of services shall produce effects on:

a) Budget nature options with impact on the service;

b) The options and priorities of the following management cycle;

c) The assessment performed on the performance of senior leaders.

2-Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the allocation of the mention " Performance

Insufficient " in the process of self-assessment is considered by the member of the Government

responsible, for the purposes of applying a set of measures that may include the

celebration of new mission letter, in which expressly it is devoted to the plan of

recovery or correction of the deviations detected.

3-The results of the hetero-assessment, carried out with the fundamentals provided for in paragraph 1

of Article 20, produce the effects referred to in the preceding paragraph.

4-A consecutive attribution of mentions of "Insufficient Performance" or not

overcoming deviations evidenced and analyzed at head office of hetero-assessment can

to substantiate the decisions regarding the relevance of the existence of the service, its mission,

21

assignments, organisation and activities, without prejudice to the clearance of any

responsibilities.

Article 27.

Effects of the distinction of merit

The award of the 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 the

article 37 for intermediate leaders in SIADAP 2, and in Article 75 (1)

for the remaining workers in SIADAP 3, aiming at the differentiation of

"Relevant Performance" and "Excellent Performance";

b) The allocation by the member of the competent government of the strengthening of appropriations

budget targeting the change of workers ' remunerative positions or

the award of prizes;

c) The possibility of consecration of budgetary reinforcements targeting the support and

dynamisation of new service improvement projects.

Chapter IV

Coordination of evaluation systems

Article 28.

Council Coordinator of the Evaluation of Services

1-With the aim of ensuring coordination and streamlining cooperation between the

various services with skills in planning, strategy and evaluation, and

to promote the exchange of experience and the dissemination of good practice in the fields of

assessment, the Coordinating Council of Public Service Assessment, to be followed, is set up

designated abbreviately by Council.

2-The Council shall be chaired by the member of the Government who has his post the area of

Public Administration and made up of the directors-general of services with

competence in planning, strategy and evaluation, by the Inspector General of

Finance, by the Director-General of the Administration and Public Employment and the

Chairman of the Governing Board of the Agency for Administrative Modernization.

3-Compete to the Council:

22

a) Accompany the process of technical support referred to in Article 13;

b) To propose initiatives towards the improvement of the performance of the services referred to in the

previous number, in relation to the evaluation of services;

c) Ensuring the coherence and quality of the methodology used in all

Ministries;

d) To foster the research and training of services in relation to evaluation of

performance;

e) To promote the diffusion of evaluative, national or international experiences, and of

evaluation systems throughout the Public Administration;

f) To stimulate the improvement of the quality of performance indicator systems and

of the processes of self-evaluation;

g) To promote the articulation between services with competence in the matter of

planning, strategy and evaluation and the Coordinating Board of the SCI;

h) Pronounce on issues submitted to it by the member of the

Government responsible for the area of Public Administration, specifically of the

scope of other subsystems of SIADAP.

4-The Council may create, in its dependence, working groups consisting of

resources allocated by the services whose maximum leaders in it participate, targeting the

development of projects or the monitoring of the evaluation dynamics of the

services.

5-A Directorate-General for Administration and Public Employment provides the technical support and

administrative necessary for the operation of the Council.

6-The working regulation of the Council, including the rules of participation

of other structures or entities, is approved by dispatch of the member of the Government

provided for in paragraph 2.

7-The regulation referred to in the preceding paragraph shall provide for the rules relating to

participation of representatives of trade union organisations when, at the meetings of the

Advice, questions regarding SIADAP1 are addressed that have an impact on the

assessment of the performance of employees or, under the terms of the paragraph h) of paragraph 3,

issues concerning other subsystems.

Title III

Subsystem of Performance Evaluation

Leaders of the Public Administration (SIADAP 2)

23

Chapter I

General provisions

Article 29.

Periodicity

1-A The overall assessment of the performance of senior and intermediate leaders is made in the

term of the respective service commissions, as per the respective status, or in the end

of the deadline for which they were appointed.

2-Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the performance of the leaders

upper and intermediate is the subject of interim evaluation, carried out annually in the

terms of this Law.

3-The interim evaluation period corresponds to the calendar year, presupposing the

performance as a leader for a period of not less than six months.

4-A The assessment of the performance of the senior and intermediate leaders held in the

the terms of this title does not produce any effects on the respective career of origin.

5-A evaluation of performance, with effects on the career of origin, of employees

which carry out leading positions is held annually pursuant to paragraphs 5 a to 7 of the

Article 42 and Article 43 para.

6-A evaluation of the performance of integrated career personnel, who find themselves in

exercise of direction functions or equiparades inherent in the functional content of the

career, when such an exercise is not titled in commission of service, is done

annually, in the terms of this Title, the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 shall not apply.

Chapter II

Evaluation of the performance of senior leaders

24

Article 30.

Parameters of evaluation

1-A The assessment of the performance of senior leaders integrates into the management cycle

of the service and takes place on the basis of the following parameters:

a) "Degree of fulfilment of the commitments" set out in the respective letters of

mission, on the basis of the measurement indicators set for the evaluation of the

results achieved in objectives of effectiveness, efficiency and quality in them

assumed and in the management of human resources, financial and material allocated to the

service;

b) "Competences" of leadership, of strategic vision, of external representation and of

demonstrated management.

2-For the purposes of the provisions of the a) of the previous number, the senior leaders of

2. degree, at the beginning of your service committee and in the frame of your legal competences,

delegated or subdelegated, sign with the maximum leader a letter of mission to

what constitutes a management commitment where, in an explicit way, the

objectives, if possible quantified and calendarized, to be achieved in the course of the financial year

of functions, as well as the performance indicators applicable to the evaluation of the

results.

3-A performance evaluation of the members of the governing boards of the institutes

public subjects subject to the status of public manager follows the scheme in this established.

Article 31.

Interim evaluation

1-For the purposes of the interim evaluation provided for in Article 29 (2) shall the leader

maximum of the service remit to the respective member of the Government, until April 15 of each

year, the following elements:

a) Report of activities that integrates the self-assessment of the service in the terms

provided for in Article 15 (2);

b) Synthetic report explaining the evolution of efficacy results, efficiency

and quality obtained in the face of the commitments set out in the mission letter of the

leader for the year in appreciation, in relation to previous years and the results

obtained in the management of human, financial and material resources.

25

2-The synthetic report referred to in para. b) of the previous number must include the

main options followed in the management and qualification of human resources and

the overall result of the application of SIADAP 2 and SIADAP 3, including expressly

the equitable distribution of the qualitative mentions awarded, in total and by career.

3-Top leaders of 2. degree must present to the maximum leader of the

service a synthetic report explaining the results obtained in the face of the commitments

assumed in the letter of mission and its evolution relatively to previous years.

4-By dispatching the maximum service leader may still run as

informer elements of the assessment of each senior leader the evaluations on it

carried out by the leaders whom it is dependent on.

5-A The assessment provided for in the preceding paragraph shall comply with the following rules:

a) It is optional;

b) It is not identified;

c) It has qualitative information character and is questionnaire-oriented

standardized, weighing six points of scale at each valuation.

6-It is mandatory for summary justification for each chosen valorisation of the planned scale

in point (c) of the preceding paragraph, except for medium points three and four.

7-The letters of mission of the senior leaders and the report provided for in the b) from the

n. 1 may obey the model approved by dispatch of the member of the Government

responsible for the area of Public Administration.

Article 32.

Expression of assessment

1-A The interim assessment of the performance of senior leaders is afflicted by the levels

of success obtained in the evaluation parameters, translating into the verification of success

global with overcoming performance predicted in some domains, in the face of requirements

of the exercise of the post translated into those parameters, in the fulfilment of such

requirements or in their default.

2-Can be attributed to the senior leaders the qualitative mention of " Performance

Excellent ", to which means recognition of merit, with the global overcoming of the

predicted performance.

26

3-The recognition of merit provided for in the preceding paragraph and the results of the

assessment that substantiates the allocation of management awards are the subject of

publicitation in the ministry, by the means deemed most appropriate.

4-A differentiation of performances from senior leaders is guaranteed by the fixation

of the maximum percentage of 5% of the total senior leaders for assignment of

distinction of merit with recognition of "Excellent Performance".

5-A The percentage predicted in the previous figure focuses on the number of leaders

higher than the Ministry subject to the evaluation regime provided for in this Chapter.

6-In each Ministry, it is incumbent upon the respective Minister to ensure the harmonisation of the

evaluation processes, aiming to ensure respect for the percentage set out in paragraph 4.

Article 33.

Evaluators

1-The maximum officer of the service is assessed by the member of the Government who has bestoed the

letter of mission.

2-The top leaders of 2. degree are assessed by the maximum leader who

outored the mission letter.

3-A assessment of senior leaders of 2. degree is approved by the competent

member of the Government.

Article 34.

Effects

1-A The assessment of the performance of senior leaders has the effects set out in the

their respective status, specifically in relation to the allocation of management awards and

renewal or termination of the respective service commission.

2-A non-application of SIADAP for reasons attributable to the maximum leaders of the

services, including the members of the governing boards of public institutes,

determines the cessation of the respective functions.

Chapter III

Evaluation of the performance of intermediate leaders

27

Article 35.

Parameters of evaluation

The evaluation of the performance of intermediate leaders integrates in the management cycle of the

service and carry out on the basis of the following parameters:

a) "Results" obtained in the objectives of the organic unit that drives;

b) "Competencies" by integrating the capacity of leadership and technical skills and

appropriate behavioural for the exercise of the office.

Article 36.

Interim evaluation

1-A The interim annual assessment provided for in Article 29 (2) is founded on the

evaluation of the parameters referred to in the previous article by means of measurement indicators

previously established.

2-The parameter relating to "Results" is based on the objectives, in non-lower number

to three, annually negotiated with the leader, prevailing, in the event of disagreement,

the position of the hierarchical superior.

3-The results obtained in each objective are valued through a scale of three

levels on the following terms:

a) "Target overs", the one that corresponds to a score of 5;

b) "Objective achieved", the one which corresponds to a score of 3;

c) "Objective not reached", the one that corresponds to a score of 1.

4-A Final score to be assigned to the parameter "Results" is the arithmetic mean of the

scores attributed to the results achieved in all objectives.

5-The parameter relating to "Competences" rests on competences beforehand

chosen, for each leader, in number not less than five.

6-The skills referred to in the preceding paragraph are chosen, upon agreement between

evaluator and evaluated, prevailing the choice of the hierarchical superior if it does not exist

agreement, from among the constants in list approved by porterie of the member of the Government

responsible for the area of Public Administration.

7-The maximum leader of the service, heard the Coordinating Council of the Assessment, may

establish by dispatching the skills to which the assessment of leaders is to be suborded

intermediate, chosen from among the constants in the list referred to in the preceding paragraph.

28

8-Each competency is valued through a three-level scale in the following

terms:

a) "Competence demonstrated at a high level", the one that corresponds to a

scoring of 5;

b) "Demonstrated competency", the one that corresponds to a score of 3;

c) "Competence not demonstrated or non-existent", the one that corresponds to a

score of 1.

9-A Final score to be assigned in the parameter "Competencies" is the arithmetic mean of the

scores assigned.

10-For the fixation of the final classification are assigned to the parameter "Results" a

minimum weighting of 75% and the parameter "Competencies" a maximum weighting

of 25%.

11-A The final ranking 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 assessment are expressed until the

centésimas, and when possible, thousandths.

13-By dispatching the member of the Government responsible for the Public Administration,

duly substantiated, different weights may be fixed from those provided for in the

n. 10 depending on the specificities of the posts or the tasks of the services.

Article 37.

Expression of the final assessment

1-A The final assessment is expressed in qualitative mentions depending on the scores

endings in each parameter, in the following terms:

a) "Relevant Performance", corresponding to a final assessment of 4 a to 5;

b) "Proper Performance", corresponding to a final assessment of

positive performance from 2 a to 3.999;

c) "Inadequate Performance", corresponding to a final assessment from 1 a to 1.999.

2-A attribution of the qualitative mention of "Relevant Performance" is, on the initiative of the

assessed or the evaluator, the subject of appreciation by the Coordinating Board of the

Evaluation for the purpose of possible merit recognition, meaning

"Excellent Performance".

29

3-A The initiative and recognition referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be based on

as a rule, in the following assumptions:

a) The leader has reached and exceeded all the objectives;

b) The leader has demonstrated in permanence capacities of leadership, management and

commitment to the public service that may constitute an example for the

workers.

4-The recognition of merit provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 and the qualitative mention and

respective quantification of assessment that substantiates the award allocation of

performance are the subject of publicitation in the service by the means considered more

suitable.

5-A performance differentiation is guaranteed by the fixation of the maximum percentage

from 25% to the mentions of "Relevant Performance" and, from among these, 5% of the total

intermediate leaders of the service, for the recognition of "Excellent Performance",

there may be at least one leader with such recognition in the case of the application

of the said percentage result in lower number to the unit.

Article 38.

Evaluators

1-Intermedian leaders of 1 degree are assessed by the top leader of whom

directly depend.

2-Intermediated leaders of 2 degree are assessed by the senior leader or

intermediate 1. degree of who they directly depend on.

3 - Where the number of homogeneous units dependent on the same leader

higher the justices, this may delegate the assessment of the respective leaders

intermediate in evaluators for the assigned effect, of category or functional position

superior to the evaluated.

4-By dispatching the maximum service leader may still run as

informer elements of the assessment referred to in the preceding paragraphs:

a) The evaluation carried out by the remaining intermediate leaders of the same degree, and

being of the 2. degree those performing functions in the same organic unit;

b) The assessment carried out by the leaders and subordinate workers

directly to the leader.

30

5-A The assessment provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall comply with the provisions of the n. the

5 and 6 of the

article 31 para.

Article 39.

Effects

1-A The evaluation of the performance of intermediate leaders has the effects provided for in

their respective status, specifically in respect of performance awards and

renewal, non-refurbishment or termination of the respective service commission.

2-The recognition of "Excellent Performance" in three consecutive years confers

to the intermediate leader, alternatively, the right to:

a) Sabbatical period with the maximum duration of three months for study achievement

about subject to waking up with the respective maximum manager of the service, whose

final text should be the subject of advertiser;

b) Internship in a foreign public administration body or in organization

international, and must submit report of the same to the maximum leader;

c) Internship in another public service, nongovernmental organization or entity

business, with activity and management methods relevant to the

Public Administration, and should submit report of the same to the leader

maximum service.

3-The recognition of "Excellent Performance" in three consecutive years confers

still to the intermediate leader the right to five days of vacation, the following year, or, by

option of the leader, the corresponding remuneration.

4-The recognition of "Relevant Performance" in three consecutive years confers

to the intermediate leader the right to three days of vacation, the following year, or, by option of the

leader, the corresponding remuneration.

5-A attribution of the mention of "Inadequate Performance" constitutes grounds for the

cessation of the respective service commission.

6-Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11, the allocation of the mention of " Performance

Inappropriate " in two consecutive years or the non-application of SIADAP 3 to the

dependent workers of the intermediate leader makes cessation of the commission of service or

prevents its renewal.

7-The years in which the leader receives performance award does not relive for the

effects provided for in n. the

3 and 4.

31

8-Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 2 a to 4, the rights in them provided shall be conferred on the

leader when the latter has accumulated ten points in the evaluations of his performance,

counted in the following terms:

a) Three points for each mention of "Excellent Performance";

b) Two points for each mention of "Relevant Performance".

9-By regulatory decree the Government may lay down the conditions for the assignment of

incentives for vocational or academic training as a "Performance" award

Relevant "and of" Excellent Performance ".

10-Without prejudice to the provisions of the following number, the non-application of SIADAP 3 by

reason attributable to the intermediate leader determines the cessation of the respective commission of

service and non-compliance unsubstantiated from the guidelines given by the Council

Coordinator of the Assessment should be taken into account in the respective evaluation of

performance, in the parameter that is deemed to be more suitable.

11-A level allocation of "Inadequate Performance" to the integrated personnel in

career in exercise of steering functions or equates inherent in the content

functional of the career, when such an exercise is not titled in commission of service, well

as the non-application of the SIADAP 3 to the staff directly assigned to it, has the

effects provided for in Article 53.

Article 40.

Process of evaluation

In what is not provided for in this title, to the interim evaluation process of the

intermediate leaders applies, with the necessary adaptations, the provisions of Title IV

of this Law.

Title IV

Subsystem of Performance Evaluation

of the Workers of the Public Administration (SIADAP 3)

Chapter I

Structure

32

Section I

Periodicity and requirements for evaluation

Article 41.

Periodicity

1-A The assessment of the performance of the employees shall be of an annual character, without prejudice to the

provisions of this Act for the evaluation to be carried out in adapted models of the SIADAP.

2-A The assessment respects the performance of the previous calendar year.

Article 42.

Functional requirements for evaluation

1-In the case of worker who, in the previous calendar year, has constituted legal relationship

of public employment less than six months ago, the performance pertaining to this period is

object of joint evaluation with that of the following year.

2-In the case of worker who, in the previous calendar year, has a legal employment relationship

public with at least six months and the corresponding effective service,

regardless of the service where you have provided it, the performance is the subject of

assessment in the terms of this title.

3-The actual service shall be provided in functional contact with the respective

evaluator or in a functional situation which, despite not having allowed direct contact

by the time period referred to in the preceding paragraph, admits, by favourable decision of the

Board Coordinator of the Assessment, the evaluation realization.

4-In the case provided for in paragraph 2, if in the course of the previous calendar year and, or, period

effective service delivery time if several evaluators succeed, whatever they have

competency to evaluate at the time of the achievement of the assessment must collect from the

too much the written contributions appropriate to an effective and fair assessment.

5-In the case of whom, in the previous calendar year, have a legal employment legal relationship

with at least six months, but do not have the corresponding effective service as per

defined in this Act or being in the situation provided for in paragraph 3 shall not have obtained

favourable decision of the Coordinating Board of the Assessment, no evaluation is carried out in the

terms of this title.

33

6-In the case provided for in the preceding paragraph releva, for the purposes of the respective career, the

last assessment awarded in the terms of this Law or its adaptations.

7-If in the case provided for in paragraph 5, the holder of the public employment legal relationship shall not

have evaluation that releases in the terms of the preceding paragraph, or if you intend to

change, annual assessment is made, by the Coordinating Council of the Assessment, by

proposal of evaluator specifically appointed by the maximum manager of the service.

Article 43.

Curriculum weighting

1-A The assessment provided for in paragraph 7 of the previous article translates into the weighting of the curriculum

of the holder of the public employment legal relationship, in which they are considered, among others,

the following elements:

a) The educational and professional qualifications;

b) Professional experience and curriculum valorisation;

c) The exercise of leading posts or other posts or roles of recognised

public interest or relevant social interest, specifically activity of

sindical leader.

2-For the purposes of curriculum weighting, it can be delivered statement passed by the

entity where they are or have been exercised functions and other relevant documentation that

allow the appointed evaluator to substantiate the evaluation proposal under the

previous number.

3-A curricular weighting is expressed through a valorisation that respects the scale

of qualitative and quantitative assessment and the rules on differentiation of

performances provided for in this Law.

4-A curricular weighting and the respective valorisation are determined second criteria

previously set by the Coordinating Board of the Assessment, constants in minutes that

is made public, which ensure the balanced weighting of the curriculum elements

provided for in paragraph 1 and the consideration of recognized public or relevant interest

social interest of the exercise of the posts and functions referred to therein.

5-The criteria referred to in the preceding paragraph can be established uniformly

for all services by regulatory dispatch of the responsible Government member

by the Public Administration.

34

Article 44.

Advertising

1-The qualitative mentions and their quantification when they substantiate, in the year

in which they are assigned, the change of remunerative position in the career or the assignment

of performance premium, are the subject of advertisements, as well as the mentions

previous qualitatives that have been assigned and that contribute to such

reasons.

2-Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph and other cases of publicitation

provided for in this Law, the procedures relating to SIADAP 3 have character

confidential, and the assessment tools of each employee shall be filed

in the respective individual process.

3-With the exception of the assessed, all actors in the evaluation process well

as those who, by virtue of the exercise of their duties are aware of the

even, they become subject to the duty of secrecy.

4-Access to documentation relating to SIADAP 3 suborders the provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Code and the legislation on access to documents

administrative.

Section II

Methodology of evaluation

Article 45.

Parameters of evaluation

The assessment of employee performance integrates in the management cycle of each

service and focuses on the following parameters:

a) "Results" obtained in the pursuit of individual objectives in articulation

with the objectives of the respective organic unit;

(b) "Competences" that aim to evaluate the knowledge, technical capabilities and

behavioural suited to the exercise of a function.

35

Article 46.

Results

1-The "Results" parameter stems from the verification of the degree of compliance of the

previously defined objectives that must be drawn up in a clear and rigorous manner, of

agreement with the main results to be obtained, taking into account the objectives of the service and

of the organic unit, the proportionality between the target results and the means

available and the time at which they are pursued.

2-The objectives are, specifically:

a) Of production of goods and acts or provision of services, aiming at the effectiveness in

satisfaction of users;

b) Of quality, oriented towards innovation, improvement of service and satisfaction of the

needs of users;

c) Of efficiency, in the direction of simplification and rationalization of deadlines and

procedural management procedures and the decrease in costs of

functioning;

d) From outreach and development of individual skills, techniques and

behavioural of the worker.

3-Shared responsibility targets can be fixed whenever they entail

the development of a teamwork or convergent effort for a

purpose determined.

4-Anually they are set at least 3 goals for each worker who, in

rule, if they enroll in various areas of those provided for in paragraph 2 and have particularly

account for the worker's job.

5-For the results to be achieved in each purpose are set out in advance

measurement indicators of the performance.

Article 47.

Evaluation of the results achieved

1-Having a present measurement of the degree of fulfillment of each objective, according

with the respective previously established indicators, the evaluation of the results

obtained in each purpose is expressed in three levels:

a) "Target overs", the one that corresponds to a score of 5;

36

b) "Objective achieved", the one which corresponds to a score of 3;

c) "Objective not reached", the one that corresponds to a score of 1.

2-A Final score to be assigned to the parameter "Results" is the arithmetic mean of the

scores attributed to the results achieved in all objectives.

3-Although with actual performance, where the impossibility of

pursue some previously fixed targets due to strange conditioners to the

control of the actors, and it has not been possible to renegotiate new targets, the

assessment must take place in respect of other objectives that have not been

impaired by those conditioners.

4-A evaluation of the results achieved in shared responsibility objectives

provided for in paragraph 3 of the preceding Article, as a rule, is identical for all employees

in them involved, and may, upon reasoned choice of the evaluator, be made

differential assessment depending on the contribution of each employee.

Article 48.

Competencies

1-The parameter relating to "Competences" rests on competences beforehand

chosen for each worker in number not less than five.

2-The skills referred to in the preceding paragraph are chosen in the terms of the n. the

6 and

7 of Article 36 para.

Article 49.

Assessment of competences

1-A The assessment of each competence is expressed in three levels:

a) "Competence demonstrated at a high level", the one that corresponds to a

scoring of 5;

b) "Demonstrated competency", the one that corresponds to a score of 3;

c) "Competence not demonstrated or non-existent", the one that corresponds to a

score of 1.

2-A Final score to be assigned to the parameter "Competencies" is the arithmetic mean of the

scores assigned to the competencies chosen for each worker.

37

Article 50.

Final assessment

1-A The final assessment is the result of the weighted average of the scores obtained in the two

evaluation parameters.

2-For the parameter "Results" is assigned a minimum weighting of 60% and for the

parameter "Competencies" a maximum weighting of 40%.

3-By dispatch of the member of the Government responsible for the area of the Administration

Public may be set different than those set in the preceding paragraph at

role of careers and, by joint dispatch of the member of the Government of the guardian and

of that, other different limits may also be set for special careers

or in the function of specificities of the tasks of services or their management.

4-A The final assessment is expressed in qualitative mentions depending on the scores

endings in each parameter, in the following terms:

a) "Relevant Performance", corresponding to a final assessment of 4 a to 5;

b) "Proper Performance", corresponding to a final performance evaluation

positive from 2 a to 3.999;

c) "Inadequate Performance", corresponding to a final assessment from 1 a to 1.999.

5-To the final assessment of employees the provisions of Article 36 (12) shall apply.

Article 51.

Recognition of excellence

1-A attribution of the qualitative mention of "Relevant Performance" is the subject of

assessment by the Coordinating Board of the Assessment, for the purposes of the possible

recognition of merit signifying "Excellent Performance", on the initiative of the

evaluated or from the evaluator.

2-A The initiative provided for in the preceding paragraph shall be accompanied by characterization

that specify the respective fundamentals and analyze the impact of the performance,

evidencing the relevant contributions to the service.

3-The recognition of the merit provided for in paragraph 1 shall be the subject of advertised in the service

by the internal means deemed to be more appropriate.

4-For the purposes of implementing legislation on careers and remuneration, the assessment

maximum in it envisaged corresponds to the qualitative mention of "Excellent Performance".

38

Section III

Effects of evaluation

Article 52.

Effects

1-A The assessment of individual performance has, in particular, the following effects:

a) Identification of personal and professional potentials of the worker who

should be developed;

b) Diagnosis of training needs;

c) Identification of professional skills and behaviours deserving of

improvement;

d) Improvement of the job posting and the processes associated with it;

e) Change in remunerative positioning in the career of the worker, and

award of performance awards, under the applicable law.

2-The recognition of "Excellent Performance" in three consecutive years confers

to the worker, alternatively, the right to:

a) Sabbatical period with the maximum duration of three months for study achievement

about subject to waking up with the respective maximum manager of the service, whose

final text should be the subject of advertiser;

b) Internship in a foreign public administration body or in organization

international, and must submit report of the same to the maximum leader;

c) Internship in another public service, nongovernmental organization or entity

business, with activity and management methods relevant to the

Public Administration, and should submit report of the same to the leader

maximum service;

d) Frequency of training actions appropriate to the development of

professional skills.

3-The recognition of "Excellent Performance" in three consecutive years confers

still to the worker, the following year, the right to five days ' vacation or, by option of the

worker, to the corresponding remuneration.

39

4-The recognition of "Relevant Performance" in three consecutive years confers

to the worker, the following year, the right to three days of vacation or, by option of the

worker, to the corresponding remuneration.

5-To the effects of the performance evaluation of workers applies equally to

arranged in the n. the s

7 a to 9 of Article 39 para.

Article 53.

Mention of Inadequate

1-A attribution of the qualitative mention of "Inadequate Performance" should be

accompanied by characterization that specifies the respective grounds, by

parameter, so as to enable decisions in the sense of:

a) To analyze the fundamentals of insufficiency in performance and to identify the

needs for training and the appropriate professional development plan

to the improvement of the performance of the worker;

b) Founding decisions to better exploit the capabilities of the

worker.

2-The identified training needs must translate into actions to be included in the

professional development plan.

Article 54.

Potential for development of workers

1-The performance evaluation system shall allow the identification of the potential of

development and development of employees and the diagnosis of their respective

training needs, and these should be considered in the annual training plan

of each service.

2-A The identification of training needs must associate the needs

priority for employees and the requirement of the job assignment assigned to it,

taking into account the resources available for this purpose.

Chapter II

Actors in the evaluation process

40

Article 55.

Subjects

1-Interests in the process of evaluating the performance within each service:

a) The evaluator;

b) The evaluated;

c) The Coordinator of the Assessment;

d) The Joint Commission;

e) The maximum manager of the service.

2-A The absence or impediment of direct evaluator does not constitute grounds for the

lack of evaluation.

Article 56.

Evaluator

1-A The assessment is of the competence of the immediate superior or, in its absence

or hindrance, of the following level hierarchical, cabling by the evaluator:

a) Negotiate the objectives of the assessed, in accordance with the objectives and results

set for their organic unit or in implementation of the respective

competencies, and set the measurement indicators of performance, specifically

the criteria for overcoming objectives, in the frame of the general guidelines fixed

by the Coordinating Board of Evaluation;

b) Review regularly with the assessed annual objectives negotiated, adjust them,

if necessary, and report on the assessment of the evolution of its performance and

possibilities for improvement;

c) Negotiate the competences that integrate the second evaluation parameter, in the

terms of the point b) of Article 45 and Article 48.

d) Evaluate annually directly subordinate workers by ensuring the

correct application of the integral principles of the assessment;

e) Weighing the expectations of employees in the process of identifying the

respective development needs;

f) Substantiate the evaluations of "Relevant Performance" and " Performance

Inadequate ", for the effects provided for in the law.

41

2-The immediate superior shall collect and record the contributions that repute

appropriate and necessary for an effective and fair assessment, specifically when

there are employees with effective responsibility for coordination and guidance on

the work developed by the evaluated.

Article 57.

Evaluated

1-In fulfillment of the principles set out in this Law the assessed shall be entitled:

a) To which you are guaranteed the means and conditions necessary for your performance

in harmony with the objectives and results that has contrupdated;

b) To the evaluation of their performance.

2-Constitud duties of the assessed carry out the respective self-assessment as a guarantee

of active involvement and accountability in the evaluative process and to negotiate with the

evaluator in the setting of the objectives and competences constituting parameters of

evaluation and respective measurement indicators.

3-The leaders of the services are responsible for the application and dissemination to the

assessed, in good time, of the evaluation system, ensuring compliance with its

principles and the differentiation of merit.

4-It is guaranteed to the assessed knowledge of the objectives, fundamentals, content and

operation of the evaluation system.

5-It is guaranteed to evaluate the right of complaint, appeal and impugning

jurisdictional

Article 58.

Board Coordinator of the Assessment

1-Join the maximum leader of each service works a Coordinating Board of the

Assessment to which it competes:

a) To establish guidelines for an objective and harmonic application of SIADAP 2

and of SIADAP 3, taking into consideration the documents that integrate the cycle of

management referred to in Article 8;

42

b) Establish general guidelines in setting objectives, of choice

of skills and measurement indicators, in particular those relating to

characterization of the overcoming situation of objectives;

c) To establish the number of objectives and skills to which you are to subordinate

the performance evaluation, and may do so for all employees of the

service or, when justifying, by organic or by-career unity;

d) Ensure the rigor and differentiation of performances of SIADAP 2 and SIADAP

3, by being told to validate the evaluations of "Relevant Performance" and

"Inadequate Performance" as well as proceed to the recognition of the

"Excellent Performance";

e) Issue opinion on applications for consideration of the proposals for evaluation of the

intermediate leaders assessed;

f) Exercising the remaining powers that, by law or regulation, are committed to you.

2-The Coordinating Board of the Assessment is chaired by the maximum leader of the

service and integrates, in addition to the human resources management officer, three to

five leaders by that designated.

3-In large services, without prejudice to the existence of the Council

Coordinator of the Assessment in the terms of the previous figures, for the purpose of

operationalisation of its functioning, autonomous sections may be created

chaired by the maximum officer of the service, composed of a restricted number of

leaders, exercising the powers provided for in points d) and e) of paragraph 1.

4-In services where, by their nature or conditioners of organic structure, no

it is possible to constitute the constitution of the Coordinating Board of the Assessment under the n. the

2

and 3, can your legal skills be entrusted to a commission of evaluation to

constitute by dispatch of the maximum officer of the service, composed of workers

with proper functional responsibility.

5-A Chair of the Coordinating Council of the Assessment or Autonomous Sections

provided for in paragraph 3 may be delegated to the terms of the law.

6-The functioning regulation of the Coordinating Board of the Assessment shall be

drawn up by each service taking into account its nature and size.

7-The Coordinating Board of Assessment has restricted composition to leaders

superior and to the person responsible for human resource management when the exercise of the

its competences focus on the performance of intermediate leaders and, in the case of

43

whether to deal with the exercise of the competence referred to in ( e) of paragraph 1, applies, with the

due adaptations, the provisions of paragraph 3 and following of Article 69.

Article 59.

Joint Committee

1-Join the maximum leader of each service works a Joint Commission with

advisory competence to appreciate evaluation proposals given to know the

employees assessed, prior to type-approval.

2-A The Joint Committee is composed of four vowels, being two representatives of the

Administration, designated by the maximum officer of the service, being a member of the

Council Coordinator of Assessment, and two employee representatives by these

elected.

3-In large services can be constituted several committees

paritary, in which the representatives of the Administration are appointed from among the

members of the autonomous sections provided for in paragraph 3 of the previous article and the representatives

of workers elected by the universes of workers who correspond to the

competence of those autonomous sections.

4-The vowels representatives of the Administration are designated in number of four,

for the period of two years, being two herds, one of which guides the proceedings of the

commission, and two alternates.

5-The vowel representatives of the workers are elected, for the period of two years,

in number of six, being two herds and four alternates, through secret ballot

by the workers who constitute the universe of workers of the whole service or of

part of it in the terms of paragraph 3.

6-The process of electing the vowels representatives of the workers shall take place in

December and is organized in the terms of dispatch of the maximum office of the service that is

Advertised on the electronic page of the service, of which it shall appear, among others, the

following points:

a) Date limit for referral, by workers, of members of the table or tables

of voting, expressly referring that, in the absence of that indication, the same

are designated by the competent leader up to 48 hours prior to the realization of the

election act;

44

b) Number of elements of the table or polling stations, which should not be higher than

5 by each table, including alternating members;

c) Date of the electoral act;

d) Period and place of the operation of the polling stations;

e) Date limit of the communication of the results to the respective leader;

f) Dispensation of the members of the tables from the exercise of their functional duties in the

day on which the election takes place, and facilities are also granted to the

remaining workers for the period strictly indispensable for the financial year

of the right to vote.

7-A The non-participation of workers in the election implies the non-constitution of the

parity commission without, however, obstinate to continue the evaluation process

understanding itself as irrelevant any requests for appreciation for that organ.

8-The actual vowels are replaced by the supplent vowels when they have to

interrupt the respective mandate, or whenever the committee is called to

pronounce on processes in which those have participated as assessed or

evaluators.

9-When to check the interruption of the mandate of at least half of the number of

effective and supple vowels, representatives of the Administration, on the one hand, or elected

in representation of the assessed, on the other, the procedures provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5

may be repeated, if necessary, for a single time and within a period of five days.

10-In cases of the previous number, vowels designated or elected to fill

of the vacancies complete the mandate of those who replace, by going on to 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

referred procedures is not an impediment to the further progress of the evaluation process

understanding itself as irrelevant any requests for consideration by the committee

parity.

Article 60.

Maximum service leader

1-Compete to the maximum manager of the service:

a) Ensure the suitability of the performance evaluation system to the realities

specific of the service;

45

b) Coordinate and control the annual assessment process in accordance with the principles

and rules set out in this Law;

c) Set weighting levels of the evaluation parameters, in the terms of the present

law;

d) Ensuring compliance in the service of the rules set out in this Law in

matter of percentages of differentiation of performances;

e) Homologate the annual assessments;

f) Decide from the complaints of the evaluated;

g) Ensure the elaboration of the annual report of the performance evaluation, which

integrates the report of activities of the service;

h) Exercise the remaining powers that are committed to you by this Law.

2-When the maximum leader does not approve the assessments awarded by the

evaluators or the CCA, in the case provided for in Article 69 (5), assigns new mention

qualitative and respective quantification, with the respective statement of reasons.

3-A the competence provided for in the e) of paragraph 1 may be delegated to the rest

senior leaders of the service.

Chapter III

Process of evaluation

Article 61.

Phases

The assessment process for employees comprises the following phases:

a) Planning process for evaluation and definition of objectives and results a

reach;

b) Realization of self-assessment and evaluation;

c) Harmonisation of evaluation proposals;

d) Meeting between evaluator and evaluated for performance evaluation,

contractualization of the objectives and the respective indicators and fixation of the

competencies;

e) Validation of evaluations and recognition of "Excellent Performances";

f) Assessment of the evaluation process by the Joint Commission;

g) Approval;

46

h) Complaint and other impugations;

i) Monitoring and review of objectives.

Article 62.

Planning

1-The planning of the evaluation process, definition of objectives and fixation of the

results to be achieved obeys the following rules:

a) The process is of the initiative and responsibility of the maximum manager of the service and

it should be proceeding from the fundamental guidelines of the documents that integrate the

management cycle, the skills of each organic unit and the management

articulated activities, focused on the transversal architecture of the processes

internal production;

b) The definition of objectives and results to be achieved by the organic units should

involve the respective leaders and employees, ensuring uniformity

of priorities and internal alignment of the service's activity with the results

to obtain, the identification and satisfaction of the public interest and the needs of the

users;

c) Cascading planning, when carried out, shall highlight the contribution of

each organic unit for the final results intended for the service;

d) The definition of guidelines allowing to ensure compliance with the

percentages relative to the differentiation of performances.

2-The planning of the objectives and results to be achieved by the service is considered by the

Council Coordinator of the Assessment in the establishment of guidelines for a

objective and harmonic application of the performance evaluation system, for the fixation

of indicators, in particular those relating to the overcoming of objectives, and to validate the

evaluations of "Relevant Performance" and "Inadequate Performance", as well as the

recognition of "Excellent Performance".

3-In the planning stage establish the necessary joints in the application of the

various subsystems constituting the SIADAP, namely targeting the alignment

of the objectives of the service, the leaders and too many employees.

4-A The planning phase is expected to take place in the last quarter of each calendar year.

47

Article 63.

Self-assessment and evaluation

1-A self-assessment aims to involve the assessed in the evaluation process

and identify opportunities for professional development.

2-A self-assessment is mandatory and concretizes through filler

own, to be analyzing by the evaluator, if possible jointly with the evaluated, with

preparatory nature to the allocation of the assessment, not constituting a binding component

of the performance evaluation.

3-A evaluation is carried out by the evaluator pursuant to this Law, the guidelines

transmitted by the Coordinating Board of the Assessment and in function of the parameters and

respective performance indicators and is present to that Council for the purpose of

harmonisation of proposals for awarding mentions of "Relevant Performance" or

"Inadequate Performance" or recognition of "Excellent Performance".

4-A self-assessment and evaluation shall, as a rule, elapse in the first fortnight of

January.

5-A self-assessment is requested by the evaluator or delivered on the initiative of the evaluated.

Article 64.

Harmonisation of evaluation proposals

In the second half of January, as a rule, the meetings of the Council are held.

Coordinator of the Assessment to proceed to the analysis of the evaluation proposals and their

harmonize in such a way as to ensure compliance with the percentages relating to

differentiation of performances by transmitting, if need be, new guidelines to the

evaluators, following those provided for in paragraph d) of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of Article 62 and

initiate the process leading to the validation of the "Relevant Performances" and

"Inadequate Performances" and recognition of the "Excellent Performances".

48

Article 65.

Evaluation meeting

1-During the month of February, and after the harmonisation referred to in the previous article,

the meetings of the evaluators with each of the respective assessed are held, with the

objective to give knowledge of the evaluation.

2-In the course of the meeting, evaluator and evaluated should jointly analyze the profile

of the evolution of the worker, identify his expectations of development well

how to address the remaining effects provided for in Article 52.

3-In articulation with the approved activities plan for the new management cycle and

considering the targets set for the respective organic unit, in the course of

meeting are contrupdated the evaluation parameters in the terms of the articles

following.

4-A The assessment meeting is marked by the evaluator or required by the assessed.

5-In the case that the above application is not met, in the legal deadlines,

translated into meeting markup, may the assessed require the maximum leader to

said marking.

6-In the event that no meeting is scheduled in the terms of the preceding paragraph, the assessed may

require the member of the relevant Government to establish the necessary guidelines

to the timely fulfillment of the provisions of this Law.

7-A The situation provided for in the previous figures is considered for evaluation purposes

of the leaders involved.

Article 66.

Contractuation of the parameters

1-At the beginning of each annual assessment period, at the beginning of the exercise of a new

job title or function, as well as in all circumstances where fixation is possible

of objectives to be achieved, meeting between evaluator and evaluated is carried out to set and

record in the evaluation fact sheet such objectives and the skills to be demonstrated, as well as

the respective indicators of measurement and overcoming criteria.

2-A trading meeting referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be preceded by meeting

of the analysis of the leader with all the evaluated that integrate the respective unit

49

organic or team, being the same mandatory when there are shared goals

arising from documents that integrate the management cycle.

Article 67.

Contractuation of objectives

Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 46, the contractualization of objectives to be achieved

carry out in accordance with the following rules:

a) The objectives to be achieved by each employee must be defined by the evaluator and

assessed at the beginning of the period of the assessment prevailing, in the event of

disagreement, the position of the evaluator;

b) The identification of improvement results and individual development

of the employee is mandatory in one of the objectives, when it results from diagnosis

carried out in the scope of evaluation of the rated performance as

"Inadequate Performance";

c) The objectives of improvement and development of the worker may be

of relational scope, of attitudes or of the acquisition of technical skills and of

methods of work.

Article 68.

Contractuation of competences

1-Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 48, the setting of competences to be assessed

carry out in accordance with the following rules:

a) The skills to be developed by the 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 rank of

work, and come to fruition in the specific models of adaptation of SIADAP 3;

b) The identification of skills to be demonstrated in the annual performance of each

worker is carried out from among those related to the respective career,

category, functional area or job posting, preferably by arrangement

among the actors in the evaluation.

50

2-A selection of the skills to be assessed is carried out from among the list constants to

referred to in Article 36 (6) where it does not check that provided for in point (a) of the

previous number, translated into the regulatory instruments of adaptation of SIADAP.

Article 69.

Validations and recognitions

1-Following the evaluation meetings, the meetings of the Council are held

Coordinator of the Assessment with a view to:

a) The validation of the evaluation proposals with mentions of " Performance

Relevant "and of" Inadequate Performance ";

b) The analysis of the impact of performance, specifically for the purpose of

recognition of "Excellent Performance".

2-The recognition of "Excellent Performance" implies formal declaration of the

Board Coordinator of the Assessment.

3-In the event of non-validation of the evaluation proposal, the Coordinating Board of

Evaluation returns the process to the evaluator accompanied by the statement of reasons not

validation, so that the one, within the time limit for it is determined, reshape the proposal of

evaluation.

4-In the case of the evaluator deciding to keep the proposal previously formulated must

to provide appropriate reasoning before the Coordinating Board of the Assessment.

5-In the case of the Assessment Coordinating Board not to host the submitted proposal

in the terms of the preceding paragraph, sets out the final assessment proposal that transmits to the

evaluator so that this gives knowledge to the assessed and remeta, by hierarchical, for

homologation.

Article 70.

Assessment by the Joint Committee

1-The worker assessed, after taking notice of the evaluation proposal that will be

subject to type-approval, may require the maximum officer of the service, within seven

working days, that your process be submitted to the Joint Committee,

presenting the rationale necessary for such an appreciation.

51

2-The application must be accompanied by the documentation that supports the

fundamentals of the application for consideration.

3-A The hearing of the Joint Committee may not, in any case, be refused.

4-A Joint Committee may ask the evaluator, when assessed or, by being the case, to the

Board Coordinator of the Evaluation, the elements that judge convenient for your

better clarification, as well as invite evaluator or assessed to expose your position,

for a single time, in hearing, the duration of which will not be able to exceed thirty minutes.

5-A appreciation of the Joint Commission is made within 10 working days counted from

of the date on which it was requested and express itself through reasoned report

with proposal for evaluation.

6-The report provided for in the preceding paragraph is subscribed to by all vowels and, in the case of

no consensus should be found, it should contain the alternative proposals submitted and

respective rationale.

Article 71.

Homologation of evaluations

The approval of the performance evaluations is the competence of the maximum leader

of the service, it shall be, as a rule, carried out until March 30 and of it shall be given

knowledge to the assessed within five working days.

Article 72.

Complaint

1-The deadline for submission of complaint of the act of approval is five days

useful, from the date of their knowledge, and the respective decision shall be handed down

within a maximum of 15 working days.

2-In the decision on complaint, the maximum leader takes into account the fundamentals

presented by the assessed and the evaluator, as well as the Commission's reports

Parity or the Coordinating Board of Assessment on requests for consideration

previously presented.

52

Article 73.

Other impugations

1-From the act of homologation and the decision on complaint is to be challenged

administrative, by hierarchical appeal or tutelar, or jurisdictional imputation, in the

general terms.

2-A The favourable administrative or jurisdictional decision gives the employee the right

to see revised its assessment or to be assigned new evaluation.

3-Where the review of the assessment is not possible, specifically by

supervenient replacement of the evaluator, is competent for the effect the new superior

hierarchical or the maximum leader of the service, to whom the new assessment is to be carried out.

Article 74.

Monitoring

1-In the course of the evaluation period, appropriate means are adopted

monitoring of the performances and carried out the respective joint analysis, between

evaluator and evaluated or within the organic unit, so as to viabilize:

a) The reformulation of the objectives and the results to be achieved, in the cases of

supervenience of conditioners that prevent the anticipated unwinding of the

activity;

b) The clarification of aspects that show useful to the future act of assessment;

c) The participative collection of reflections on the actual mode of development of the

performance, as an act of statement of reasons for the final assessment.

2-The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall be carried out on the initiative of the evaluator or the

application of the assessed.

Article 75.

Differentiation of performances

1-Without prejudice to the provisions of the paragraph a) of Article 27, the differentiation of

performances is guaranteed by the setting of the maximum percentage of 25% for the

qualitative final evaluations of "Relevant Performance" and, from among these, 5% of the total

of the workers for the recognition of "Excellent Performance".

53

2-The percentages provided for in the preceding paragraph shall focus on the number of

workers provided for in n. the

2 a to 7 of Article 42, with approximation by excess,

when necessary, and must, as a rule, be distributed proportionally by all

careers.

3-The percentages referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be of the knowledge of all

evaluated.

4-A The allocation of the percentages shall be the sole responsibility of the maximum leader

of the service will still ensure its strict compliance.

5-The number of objectives and competences to be fixed in the evaluation parameters, and

respective weights, must be established in advance, in the terms of the present

law, specifically in the terms set out in paragraph c) of Article 58 (1), having in

account for the need to ensure proper differentiation of performances.

Title V

Support information system for performance management and control actions

Article 76.

Management and follow-up of SIADAP 2 and SIADAP 3

1-The provisions of this Law in relation to evaluation procedures and their

supporting instruments does not prevent their compliance in electronic version and,

when it is the case, with use of digital signatures.

2-Compete to the secretaries-general of each Ministry draw up summary reports

evidencing the way SIADAP 2 and SIADAP 3 were applied in the framework of

respective services, particularly as to the planning phase and how much to the

final evaluation results.

3-Compete to the Directorate General of Administration and Public Employment (DGAEP):

a) Follow up and support the implementation of the performance evaluation, specifically

through the production of instruments of normative guidance;

b) Elaborate annual report showing how the SIADAP was applied in the

Public Administration.

4-For the purposes of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, DGAEP collects information from the

services with competence in planning, strategy and evaluation and of the

general secretariats.

54

5-All processes of transmission of information within each Ministry and of

food of the relevant databases should have electronic support, the

statistical treatment and link to wage processing systems to be carried out

progressively in an automatic way.

6-A The structure and content of the reports referred to in the preceding paragraphs are the subject

of standardization through dispatching of the Government member responsible for the area of

Public Administration.

Article 77.

Publicitation of results

1-Anually it is disclosed in each service the overall result of the application of the

SIADAP, containing still the number of the qualitative mentions awarded per career.

2-The overall results of the application of SIADAP are externally publicized by the

DGAEP, notably on your electronic page.

Article 78.

Actions of control

The Inspectorate General of Finance carries out audits to assess the way services

they proceed to the application of the performance evaluation subsystems.

Title VI

Transitional and final provisions

Chapter I

Transitional provisions

55

Article 79.

Electronic page

Information relating to the application of SIADAP is advertised, pursuant to this Law,

on the electronic page of the service and, if it does not exist, the documents with such information

are advertised by affixing at appropriate place or are given free access in place

publicly announced.

Article 80.

Transitional arrangements

1-In the three calendar years following the entry into force of this Law, the evaluation of the

performances in them provided may follow a transitional regime in the terms of the

following numbers, upon decision of the maximum manager of the service, heard the

Board Coordinator of the Assessment.

2-The transitional arrangement may be used in the assessment of workers since

are cumulatively met the following conditions:

a) If it addresses workers to whom, in recruitment for the respective career, it is

required literary habilitation at the level of compulsory education or conferment of

diploma from the 12 to the year of secondary school;

b) If it deals with employees to develop activities or tasks characterized

mostly as routine, with a permanence character, standardized,

previously determined and executive.

3-The transitional regime is based on the assessment of the employee's "Competencies", in the

terms set out in the paragraph b) of Article 45 para.

4-The "Competencies" are previously chosen for each worker, in number

not less than eight.

5-In the choice of "Competencies" applies the provisions of the n. the

6 and 7 of Article 36 and

in Article 68, a competence which underscores the ability, however, is mandatory

of achievement and guidance for results.

6-Where, for the exercise of their duties, the employee is in contact

regular professional with other employees or users, the evaluator must have in

account for the perception by them obtained on the performance, as a contribution to the

56

evaluation, and should record it in the evaluation process and reflect it in the evaluation of the

"Competencies".

7-The assessment of each competence in the transitional arrangements applies to the provisions of paragraph 1

of Article 49.

8-A each competency can be assigned diverse weighting in order to highlight the

respective importance in the exercise of functions and ensure the differentiation of

performances.

9-A The final assessment is the simple or weighted arithmetic mean of the scores

assigned to the chosen competencies for each worker.

10-In the transitional regime applies, with the necessary adaptations, the provisions of

Headings IV and V.

Article 81.

Strategy of application

1-Until November 30 the services start or continue the construction of the QUAR

provided for in Article 10, and, in the framework of the guidelines set by the respective members

of the Government, propose the objectives to be pursued in the following year and establish the

performance indicators and their sources of verification.

2-The services which, in the different ministries, are competent in relation to

planning, strategy and evaluation, accompany and validate, pursuant to this Act,

compliance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

3-Until December 15, the members of the Government referred to in paragraph 1 shall approve the

annual objectives of each service.

4-Until December 31 are subscribed to the letters of mission of senior leaders who

to the date still they have not received them for not being applicable to current legislation.

Article 82.

Specific evaluation systems

1-A evaluation of the performance regarding 2008 in the services and bodies, as well

as in the special regime careers and special bodies that have a system

of specific performance evaluation that has not yet been adapted under the

n Article 2 (3) or Article 21 of Law No 10/2004 of March 22 takes place from

57

agreement with the respective specific system, up to its adaptation under Rule 3.

and of the nº2 of Article 86º.

2-In the case of the specific systems referred to in the preceding paragraph do not preview

percentages of differentiation of performances enshrined in Article 15 of Law n.

10/2004, of March 22, the particulars and quantifications awarded are presented to the

member of the respective Government for ratification, aiming for the verification of the balance of

distribution of the mentions by the various levels of evaluation.

Chapter II

Final provisions

Article 83.

Extension of scope of application

The provisions of this law in respect of SIADAP 3, unless the law or regulation of

adaptation provided for in Article 3 dispend to the contrary, it is also applicable, with the

necessary adaptations, to current employees with the quality of employee or

agent of legal persons who find themselves excluded from their scope.

Article 84.

Criteria for tie-up

When, for the purposes set out in the law, it is necessary to make the tie-break between

workers or leaders who have the same final classification in the assessment of

performance, it consecutively releases the evaluation obtained in the parameter of "Results",

the last previous performance evaluation, the relevant service time in the career and

in the exercise of public functions.

Article 85.

Previous evaluations and conversion of results

1-In the situations provided for in the law in which it is necessary to take into account the assessment of

performance or the service classification and, in concrete, should be taken into account the

results of the application of various evaluation systems, for conversion of values

58

quantitative is used the scale of SIADAP, and should be converted proportionally

for this any other scales used, with approximation by defect, when

necessary.

2-In the situations provided for in the preceding paragraph in which there has only been assignment of

qualitative mention or attribution of quantitative values not subject to percentages of

performance differentiation, is carried out the assessment supply under the

article 3 of Law No. 15/2006 of April 26 by evaluator designated by the leader

maximum service.

3-In the case provided for in Article 42 (5) and 6 releva yet, for the purposes of the respective

career, the last assessment awarded in the terms:

a) From SIADAP approved by Law No 10/2004 of March 22;

b) Of the evaluation systems approved under Article 2 (3) and of the article

21 of the law referred to in the preceding paragraph which establish percentages of

differentiation in observance of the principle of differentiation of performances

enshrined in Article 15 of the same legal diploma;

c) From Article 2 (3) of Law No 15/2006 of April 26.

4-In the case of those who have no evaluation of the performance performed in the years 2004 a

2007 inclusive, on grounds that it is not attributable to it, specifically by no

application of the applicable law on performance evaluation in the face of its

functional situation, the assessment supply may be required, in the terms of the article

3. of Law No. 15/2006 of April 26 by assessor designated by the maximum leader

of the service.

Article 86.

Review of evaluation systems

1-Keep in place the evaluation systems approved under Article 3 (3)

2 and Article 21 of Law No 10/2004 of March 22 until its review for adaptation

to the provisions of this Law, to which it is to occur until December 31, 2009, under penalty

of expiry.

2-Specific assessment systems not covered by the provisions of the number

previous to keep in place until your review for adaptation to the present

law, to which it is to occur until December 31, 2008, under penalty of expiry, being the

your application subject to the rules laid down in Article 82 para.

59

3-The course of the periods provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be without prejudice to the application of the

provisions of this Law in respect of SIADAP 1 and SIADAP 2, with respect to the

senior leaders, and the implementation of the transitional arrangements referred to in Article 77.

4-Considerate adapted to the corresponding subsystem of the SIADAP, without prejudice

of possible revision, pursuant to Articles 3, 5 and 6.

a) The system of evaluation of public preschool education institutions and

of the basic and secondary teaches, provided for in Law No. 31/2002, of 20 of

December;

b) The system for evaluating the performance of the teaching staff provided for in the Staff Regulations

of the Childcare Educators ' and Teachers of the Basic Education and

Secondary, approved by the Decree-Law No. 139-A/90, of April 28 and amended

by Decrees-Laws No 1/98 of January 2 and No 15/2007 of January 19;

c) The performance evaluation system of the non-teaching staff of the

public preschool education and the basic teaches and

secondary, approved by the Regulatory Decree no. 4/2006, of March 7;

d) Other evaluation systems whose adaptation is recognized by portaria

joint of the members of the Government of the guardius and responsible for the areas of

finance and the Public Administration.

Article 87.

Regulatory habilitation

The Government shall adopt, by porterie, the instruments necessary for the application of this Law,

in particular the models of evaluation sheets in the framework of SIADAP 2, for

intermediate leaders, and of SIADAP 3.

Article 88.

Abrogation standard

1-Without prejudice to the provisions of the following number, they are repealed:

a) The Act No. 10/2004 of March 22;

b) The Act No. 15/2006 of April 26;

c) The Regulatory Decree No. 19-A/2004 of May 14.

60

2-The provisions of the diplomas referred to in the preceding paragraph shall apply to the procedures

of evaluation of the performances provided until December 31, 2007 and, pursuant to the

n. paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 86, to the performances provided until December 31, 2009 and 31

of December 2008, respectively.

Article 89.

Entry into force

This Law shall come into force on the day following that of its publication.

Seen and approved in Council of Ministers of July 19, 2007

The Prime Minister

The Minister of the Presidency

The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs