Procurement System For CCSFP

CITY COLLEGE OF
SAN FERNANDO PAMPANGA

City of San Fernando (P)
PROCUREMENT SYSTEM
FOR THE CITY COLLEGE
OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA
Precious Gem V. David

John Carlo V. Quizon
February 2015
Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Advisers Recommendation
Panels Approval
Acknowledgment
Dedication
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter I INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Statement of the Problem
Objectives
Significance of the Study
Scope and Delimitation
Chapter II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Review of Related Studies
Review of Related Literature
Conceptual Framework
Chapter III METHODOLOGY
Project Research Design
Project Development
Evaluation Procedure
Evaluation Criteria
Instruments and Techniques Used
25
27
Chapte
r IV
RESU
LTS
AND
DISC
USSI
ON
Project
and
Techni
ii
iiical
iv
vDescri
vi
viiption
ix
x
Project
1
3Structu
3
4red
5
Organi
7
8zation
11
12
23
25
Project Limitations and Capabilities

Project Evaluation
Chapter V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
Appendices
Appendix A: FURPS Evaluation Form
Appendix B: Questionnaire
Appendix C: References
Appendix D: Researchers Profile
28
28
40
41
45
45
46
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Population of the respondents

Table 3.2 Likert scale
Table 4.1 Hardware and software requirements of the proposed system
Table 4.2 Respondents rating on the functionality of the proposed system
Table 4.3 Respondents rating on the usability of the proposed system
Table 4.4 Respondents rating on the reliability of the proposed system
Table 4.5 Respondents rating on the performance of the proposed system
Table 4.6 Respondents rating on the supportability of the proposed system
25
26
28
41
42
43
44
44
LIST OF FIGURES
32
Figure 2.1 Input-Process-Output (IPO) diagram of the proposed system
Figure
Figure 3.1 Context Data Flow Diagram
Figure 3.2 Level 1 Data Flow Diagram
4.10
Figure 3.3 Hierarchical Input-Process-Output (HIPO) of the proposed system
Figure 3.4 Hierarchical Input-Process-Output (HIPO) of the proposed systemRemin
(Continuation)
Figure 3.5 Program Flowchart of the proposed system (Log in)
Figure 3.6 Program Flowchart of the proposed system (Main Form)
Figure 3.7 Program Flowchart of the proposed system (Continuation)
Figure 3.12 Iteration in Agile Development Cycle
Figure 4.1 Procurement System Log-in
Figure 4.2 Change Server
Figure 4.3 Register Account
Figure 4.4 Projects Home
Figure 4.5 Projects Inbox
Figure 4.6 Projects Sent
Figure 4.7 Compose Message
Figure 4.8 Messages Inbox
Figure 4.9 Messages Sent
ders
Figure
4.11
Accou
nts
Figure
4.12
Add
Remin
der
Figure
114.13
12
13Create
14
15New
16Project
17Figure
18
194.14
20
21Budget
22
23Propos
28
29al
29
29
30
30
31
31
Figure 4.15 Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) breakdown

Figure 4.16 Capital Outlay (CO) breakdown
Figure 4.17 Personal Services (PS) breakdown
Figure 4.18 Sample AIP generated using the proposed system
Figure 4.19 Sample MOOE generated using the proposed system
Figure 4.20 Sample Budgetary Requirements generated using the proposed
system
Figure 4.21 Sample Financial Plan Summary generated using the proposed
system
Figure 4.22 Manage Department
Figure 4.23 Update User Information
Figure 4.24 Change Password
Figure 4.25 Comparative Summary
Figure 4.26 Sample Bar Chart showing the allocation of budget (MOOE, CO,
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
and PS) for the budget year, current year, and the past year
Figure 4.27 Sample Pie Chart showing the allocation of budget to projects,
38
38
39
39
40
programs, and activities, separately for MOOE, CO and PS for
40
the budget year
10
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The City College of San Fernando, Pampanga (CCSFP) was established in
2009 with the purpose of providing free education to deserving Fernandinos. Since its
founding, the City College has held curricular and co-curricular activities and
programs that cater the students total development. The foundation of the City
College building along with its facilities, such as the library, computer laboratories,
and science laboratories, has helped encourage and motivate the students to do well in
their studies.
The CCSFP is considered as a department of the Local Government Unit of
the City of San Fernando, Pampanga. As a department of the City Government, the
CCSFP complies with the policies and requirements of the City Finance Committee
with respect to its budget and procurement needs.
At present, the City Government follows and requires the preparation of an
Annual Investment Plan (AIP), Project Procurement Management Plan (PPMP),
Budgetary Requirements, and Financial Plan Summary.
The process is more particularly described as follows:
For a program, project, or activity to materialize, a budget proposal is prepared
by the project coordinator, at least 45 days prior to its implementation. The budget
proposal includes the title of the program, project, or activity, the department
objectives, the date or period in which the program, project, or activity is going to be
implemented, the expected output, the budget, and the breakdown of the budget.
Six months prior to the following fiscal year, each CCSFP department submits
its expected projects, programs, and activities. The AIP is then consolidated and
11
prepared by the administrative officers of CCSFP. The AIP covers all the intended
projects, programs, and activities that the CCSFP will implement for the entire budget
year.
The funding source of the budget is identified based on its utilization. If the
project requires Personal Services (PS), i.e., project based and fixed term employees,
the funding source is the General Funds (GF). Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses (MOOE), such as food, supplies, and utilities, are also funded by the GF.
The Capital Outlay (CO) includes equipment, furniture and fixtures, and other
purchases that are retained in the CCSFP. The CO follows bidding and awarding
procedures before being funded by the City Mayors Office.
After the AIP is reviewed and approved by the CCSFP President, it goes
through deliberation by the City Budget Office and the Sangguniang Panglungsod.
The CCSFP then prepares the PPMP for the MOOE and the CO separately. The
budget is given every quarter of the year, and the PPMP is necessary for the City
Government to determine how much of the budget should be given for each quarter.
After the PPMP, the Budgetary Requirements form is prepared. This form shows the
breakdown of the total proposed budget.
The end product is the summary of all the projects, programs, and activities,
and the budget appropriated quarterly for each item. This Financial Plan needs to be
reviewed by the City Budget Officer, and approved by the City Mayor, before the
programs, projects, and activities are implemented.
The AIP, PPMP, Budgetary Requirements, and Financial Plan Summary are
encoded in Microsoft Excel. The forms are prepared individually and tallied manually.
12
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The CCSFP needs an enhanced system to address its requirements for
procurement efficiently, while consuming less time and effort in the process.
The existing CCSFP procurement process uses basic electronic system mainly
for encoding and printing.
The current procurement process is inefficient and complicated. Since the
office and department heads (project coordinators) are not guided with what to write
on the budget proposals, the administrative officers send the proposals back for the
office and department heads to fill in the omitted fields. It usually takes the
administrative office one to two weeks to consolidate the budget proposals and
prepare the AIP.
The data are unorganized and the process is laborious. The procurement
documents (AIP, PPMP, Budgetary Requirements, and Financial Plan) are prepared
individually. Since the budget and the breakdown are manually tallied, there is a
tendency for the amounts to be imbalanced. If only one item is missed, everything has
to be reviewed and recomputed. There have been instances when the amounts on the
Budgetary Requirements are not balanced with the AIP, especially after making
adjustments, and the administrative officers had to check all of the printed reports for
the discrepancies.
OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the study was to design and develop the Procurement
System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga.
The researchers aimed to develop a system that organizes the data, and
automatically generates the AIP, PPMP, Budgetary Requirements, and Financial Plan
13
Summary, using only the budget proposals encoded by the project coordinators using
the same system, to easily determine how much of the budget is needed by the CCSFP
for each month and quarter of the year.
The researchers aimed to develop a straightforward system by simplifying
procedures, such as encoding and categorizing data, or eliminating other procedures
entirely, such as manually tallying the breakdown versus the budget, thus,
significantly cutting down the time necessary to prepare the required documents.
Using the Procurement System, the reports are generated instantly, as opposed to the
current process which takes up one to two weeks for the preparation of procurement
documents.
The researchers aimed to develop a module that sends and receives budget
proposals from the project coordinator (client) to the administrative officer (server),
and vice versa, through a network.
SIGNIFANCE OF THE STUDY

The Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga
was designed and developed for the benefit of CCSFP, CCSFP Administrative Office,
project coordinators, the researchers, and future researchers.
The system benefits CCSFP in such a way that its departments procurement
needs could be easily and quickly attended to because of the faster processing of the
procurement documents. Its departments programs, projects, and activities are
implemented with ease because the budget allocated to them will be given at their
projected period.
The system benefits the CCSFP Administrative Office because the process is
simplified and straightforward. The amounts do not have to be manually tallied, and
14
the AIP, PPMP, Budgetary Requirements, and Financial Plan Summary do not have to
be encoded individually; therefore, time and resources are saved.
The system is also beneficial to the project coordinators because the system
serves as a guide on what data to enter for the budget proposals. The system may also
help project coordinators in such a way that the submitted proposals can be monitored
should these proposals be subjected to modifications.
Designing and developing this system is constructive to the researchers
because of the knowledge and skills the researchers gained throughout the
development of the system, which can be applied to their future endeavors.
This study may serve as guidance for future researchers who would like to
contribute to the further development of the Procurement System. This may also
provide reference for future researchers who are interested in developing systems with
similar concept or platform.
SCOPE AND DELIMITATIONS

Scope
This study is conducted for the preparation of necessary documents for the
procurement process Budget Proposals, AIP, PPMP, Budgetary Requirements, and
Financial Plan Summary.
The process is described as follows:
In the module for creating the budget proposal, the project coordinator can
add, update, or delete the details of the program, project, or activity. After entering the
details of the proposal, the project coordinator breaks down the budget. This form is
then submitted by the project coordinator to the administrative officer through a
network. The submitted budget proposals are reviewed and evaluated by the
15
administrative officer. If there are necessary adjustments to the proposal, the

administrative officer sends it back to the project coordinator using the system,
together with remarks on the changes that should be made. After the budget proposals
have been submitted and approved within a deadline, the AIP, PPMP, Budgetary
Requirements, and Financial Plan Summary can be generated using the details from
the budget proposals.
All necessary procurement documents, which include the AIP, PPMP,
Budgetary Requirements, and Financial Plan Summary, can be printed, or exported as
an MS Excel or PDF file.
Delimitations
The system does not automatically send the reports to the City Budget Office.
The reports are still printed, and then signed by the CCSFP President before sending
to the City Budget Office.
The system generates reports based on the data entered by the users. It does
not suggest nor forecast the budget to be appropriated for the following years.
The system is used only for the preparation of the necessary documents for
procurement. It does not cover the bidding and awarding process, and the actual
purchasing of goods.
16
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Visual Basic .NET (VB.NET) is an object-oriented programming language
which is a development of Visual Basic (VB) implemented on the .NET Framework.
This is an effective programming language to use in developing Windows desktop
applications (Bai, 2012). The researchers agree with this statement, because VB.NET,
being a product of Microsoft, makes it practical to develop desktop applications for
the Windows operating system.
C# is a general-purpose programming language derived from C. Similar to
VB.NET, C# has access to .NET Framework libraries. The C# syntax is concise, while
VB.NET has longer structure; however, the user can shorten the codes in VB.NET
using the With/End With construct (Yagulasamy, 2005). Choosing between VB.NET
and C# is largely subjective. Users who have greater knowledge in Java choose to use
C# because of the similarities in syntax. One of the reasons the researchers single out
VB.NET is their knowledge in the programming language which can help them
develop high-quality software.
One of the advantages of VB.NET is the visual programming environment,
which allows the user to easily and efficiently design and develop a program by
manipulating the program elements graphically rather than specifying them in text;
hence, the drag-and-drop feature (Microsoft, 2012). Although this can be applied to
majority of the programming languages, some of these languages such as Java need a
third-party development environment to effectively utilize visual programming
(Horstmann & Cornell, 2007).
17
Setting aside their levels of proficiency in programming languages, the

researchers tried to find other languages which are not Microsoft products but can be
fully utilized for the development of the Procurement System. The researchers found
it most practical to use Java among this pool of programming languages. Aside from it
being open source, Java makes it relatively easy for a beginner to develop a small
useful program in a short amount of time. However, the same can also be said about
VB.NET. It may not be open source, but it is more practical in a way that it does not
need a third-party development environment, and that it makes programming
Windows applications more achievable than any other programming language.
MySQL is a Relational Database Management System (RDMS) owned by the
Oracle Corporation. It is open source, but it is comparable in security and reliability to
costly RDMS such as Microsoft Access and Oracle SQL (Kofler, 2005). Even though
Microsoft Access is already compatible with VB.NET because it has access to the
.NET Framework, its storage capacity is only two gigabytes (LearnITAnytime, 2013),
while MySQL can store up to eight gigabytes of data.
The researchers prefer MySQL over other database engines because it is
simpler and easier to implement, and can provide the researchers what they need to
develop secure and reliable software.
REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES

*more studies*
Government procurement or public procurement is governed by the RA 9184
known as the Government Procurement Reform Act, an act providing for the
modernization, standardization and regulation of the procurement activities of the
government and for other purposes.
18
Procurement is one of the key aspects in the governments efforts to improve

service delivery and governance. It covers every aspect of the service delivery
processes from determining the need for goods, works, or services to timely
procurement and delivery (ADB, 2010).
According to the Section 8 of RA 9184, the Government Electronic
Procurement System, more commonly known as the PhilGEPS, serves as the
primary and definitive source of information on procurement. The PhilGEPS serves
as the official system to advertise and distribute specifications for public bidding
opportunities. It is an essential part of the government procurement reform program
designed to improve transparency, efficiency, and value for money. The PhilGEPS
is an information site, consisting primarily of a Public Tender Board, Electronic
Catalogue, and a Supplier Registry (Procurementservice.org, 2008).
Although PhilGEPS has been implemented for transparency and ease of
procurement procedures, it does not cover the preparation of the necessary
procurement documents.
The City College of San Fernando, Pampanga (CCSFP), as a department of
the Local Government Unit, needs to abide by the policies of the City Finance
Committee in procurement, according to Article I Section 3 of RA 9184.
According to the interview conducted by the researchers with Atty. Caylao
(2014), the CCSFP process of procurement starts with the budget proposal. The
budget proposal comprises the title of the project, the objective of the department in
procuring the project, the period in which the project needs to be procured, the
expected output, and the estimated breakdown of the budget.
After the budget proposals are approved, the Annual Investment Plan (AIP) is
prepared. The AIP constitutes the total resource requirements of the Local
19
Government Unit consisting of the Annual Capital Expenditures and Regular

Operating Expenditures which serve as basis for the preparation of the annual and any
supplemental budgets (NEDA & ADB, 2007). The approved AIP will be the basis of
budget allocations. If not included in the approved AIP, the project will not be funded
by the government.
The Procurement Management Plan (PPMP) is prepared and submitted for
approval by the City Budget Officer, taking into consideration the availability of
funds and budget allocation for CCSFP. The CCSFP will then adjust the PPMP to
reflect the budget allocation for their respective programs, projects, and activities.
The Budgetary Requirements is prepared after the PPMP, which includes a
detailed breakdown of the total project costs and the sources of funds.
The end product is the summary of financial plan, broken down for
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), Capital Outlay (CO), and
Personal Services (PS).
20
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
INPUT
PROCESS
Budget Proposal, AIP,

PPMP, Budgetary
Requirements,
Financial Plan
Summary
Analyzing and
undergoing
normalization
procedures
Manual encoding of
procurement
requirements of
CCSFP using MS
Excel
Simplifying the
existing procurement
process
Interview and FURPS

evaluation of the
existing procurement
process of CCSFP
Scoping out and

defining what the
system will do
Studies and Literature

Review, Visual
Basic .NET 2012,
MySQL
Designing the
database and the
graphical user
interface
OUTPUT
Procurement System
for the City College of
San Fernando,
Pampanga
Figure 2.1 Input-Process-Output (IPO) diagram of the system
This Input-Process-Output model shows the inputs and the processing of the
necessary inputs of the current procurement process of CCSFP, setting in motion the
development of the proposed Procurement System for the City College of San
Fernando, Pampanga.
21
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
PROJECT RESEARCH DESIGN
The researchers made use of modeling techniques Data Flow Diagram,
Hierarchical Input-Process-Output, and Program Flowchart in designing the system.
Using these models as bases, the researchers were able to develop the system
continuously without encountering major difficulties.
Data Flow Diagram
Project Coordinator
-Budget Proposal
-Remarks for Budget Proposal Modification

-Confirmation of Approved Proposal

-Budget Proposal
-AIP
-PPMP
-Budgetary Requirements
-Financial Plan Summary
-Remarks for Budget Proposal Modification
-Confirmation of Approved Proposal
Administrative Officer
Figure 3.1 Context Data Flow Diagram
22
Project
Project Coordinator
Submission of Budget Proposals

Revised project
Project for revision
Project
Revised project
Administrative Officer
Checking of Projects for Revision
Project for revision

Approved Project Generated Reports
Project Details Revision details
Project details
Generation of Procurement Documents
Procurement
Records
Budget proposal details
Figure 3.2 Level 1 Data Flow Diagram
23
Hierarchical Input-Process-Output
1.0
Procurement System
Log in
1.3
1.2
1.1
Change Host Register
Address Account File
1.4*
Maintenance
1.3.1
New Project
1.5
Tools
1.6
User
1.7
View
1.8
1.15
1.16*
1.17*
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
AboutProjects Home
Admin
Admin Accounts
Projects Inbox
ProjectsMessages
Sent Compose
Messages Messages
Inbox Messages
Sent Reminders
Add Reminder
1.5.2
1.7.1
1.5.1
Calculator Notepad Summary and Charts
1.6.2
1.4.1*
1.4.2*
1.6.1
Change Password
Accounts
Manage Departments
Update Information
1.11.1
Sent Project List
1.16.2*
1.16.1*
Inactive Accounts
Active Accounts
1.11.1.2
1.11.1.4
1.11.1.1
1.11.1.3
Sent
Budgetary Requirements
Sent PPMP (CO)
Sent
AIP
Sent PPMP (MOOE)
1.10.1
Received Project List
1.4.1.1*
1.4.1.2*
Add UserManage
AccountUser Accounts
1.10.1.2
1.10.1.4
1.10.1.1
1.10.1.3
Received
Budgetary
Requirements
Received
Received
PPMP
(MOOE)PPMP (CO)
Received
AIP
Figure 3.3 Hierarchical Input-Process-Output (HIPO) of the system

For Figure 3.3, the components marked with an asterisk (*) means that these panels are not visible on the client side of the system.
24
1.9
Projects Home
1.9.1
Project List
1.9.1.1
1.9.2
Budget Proposal List
Send Project
1.9.1.1.1
1.9.1.1.2
Add/Update Budget Proposal
Print
1.9.1.1.2.1
1.9.1.1.2.2
1.9.1.1.2.3
1.9.1.1.2.4
AIP Budgetary Requirements
PPMP (MOOE) PPMP (CO)
1.9.1.1.2.5
Appropriations
1.9.1.1.1.1 1.9.1.1.1.3
1.9.1.1.1.3
PPMP (MOOE) PPMP (CO) Personal Services
Figure 3.4 Hierarchical Input-Process-Output (HIPO) of the system (Continuation)
25
Program Flowchart
Start
Enter username
and password
Click Log
in?
Main Form
Click
Cancel?
Stop
A
Figure 3.5 Program Flowchart of the system (Log in)
For the Program Flowchart (Figures 3.5-3.11), the components marked with an
asterisk (*) means that these processes are not applicable to the client side of the
system, thus, proceeding to the next step following the marked components.
26
Main Form
Is File clicked?
A1
Y
Is New Project clicked?
Enter Project Title and Project Year
Budget Proposal Form
Is Exit clicked?
Stop
N
A1
Y
Y
Is Maintenance clicked?* Is Accounts clicked?*
N
A
Y
Manage Department Form*
Is Manage Departments clicked?*
N
A1
Figure 3.6 Program Flowchart of the system (Main Form)
27
Is Tools clicked?
Is Calculator clicked?
Y
System Calculator
Is Notepad clicked?
Y
System Notepad
N
C
Is User clicked?
Y
Y
Is Update Information clicked?
Update Information Form
N
A
Y
Is Change Password clicked?
Change Password Form
N
C
Figure 3.7 Program Flowchart of the system (Continuation)
28
Is View clicked?
Is Summary clicked?
Y
Financial Plan
Is Charts clicked?
Charts
N
C
Is About clicked?
Y
About
N
A
29
Y
Is Projects Home clicked? Select Project
N
Is Open clicked?
Y
Budget Proposal/ AIP Form
Is Delete clicked?
Y
Project Deleted
Is Send clicked?
Y
Enter Recipient
Send Project
N
B
Y
Select Received Project
Is Projects Inbox clicked?
Generated Received Forms
N
A
30
Y
Is Project Sent clicked?Select sent project Generated Sent Forms
Y
Is Messages Compose clicked?
Enter message and recipientSend Message
C1
Y
Is Messages Inbox clicked?
Select received message
Display received message
C1
Y
Is Messages Sent clicked?
Select sent messageDisplay sent message
Y
Is Messages Reminders clicked?
Display reminders
N
A
31
Y
Is Admin Accounts clicked?*
Accounts
Y
Is Admin Add Reminder clicked?*
Enter reminder and date
Set reminder
N
C
32
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The researchers designed and developed the proposed Procurement System
using Visual Basic .NET 2012 and MySQL. The Agile Development Cycle serves as
the framework for the development of the system. In ADC, the features are taken from
start to finish within iterations.
The iteration is illustrated as follows:
Plan
Iterate
Feature 1
Release
Feature 2
Figure 3.12 Iteration in Agile Development Cycle

Planning
The researchers gathered information regarding the CCSFPs existing
procurement process through personal interviews, evaluations, and previous
procurement documents. They were
able N
to identify the problems that the
Feature
administrative office is having with regards to the preparation of the necessary
documents for procurement. The researchers, using their sources of information, had
the projects requirements defined to initiate the development of the system.
Analysis
In this phase, the researchers constructed the data flow of the system.
Following the definition of requirements, the researchers evaluated the objectives of
the study, and the modules the system needs to achieve these goals. Since the
researchers are using the Agile approach, the main modules and other features were
taken one or few at a time, depending on the necessity of the system.
Designing
33
The researchers constructed the database, and designed the user interface of
the system, relative to the systems data flow. For every iteration, the database, the
data flow, and the user interface were augmented to provide modules and features for
the enhancement the system, but with no conflicts with the previous designs.
Development
The researchers developed their system using Visual Basic .NET and MySQL.
Throughout the development of the system, the researchers documented their attained
objectives and took notes of the areas that needed improvement.
Testing
The researchers facilitated a series of beta tests to ensure that the requirements
of the system were achieved, as well as to evaluate and find solutions for the
encountered errors.
Implementation and Maintenance
Upon its implementation, the researchers will update the system in whichever
area necessary, and observe the system for possible errors.
EVALUATION PROCEDURE
The system evaluation was conducted in the respondents respective offices in
the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga. The primary respondents are three
CCSFP administrative officers for the server side, and six office and department heads
for the client side of the system. The respondents were selected for the reason that
they are the persons involved with the CCSFP procurement.
Table 3.1 Population of the respondents
Respondents
Number
Administrative Office
Education Department
Business Administration Department
Office of the Student Affairs Office
34
Guidance Office
Library
Medical and Dental Services Unit
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The researchers used the FURPS model (see Appendix A) to identify the
significant attributes of the system and express them in measurable terms. The
FURPS
stand
for
Functionality,
Usability,
Reliability,
Performance,
and
Supportability.
Functionality encompasses the feature set and capabilities of the program,
generalities of the functions that are delivered, and the security of the overall system.
Usability is the attribute that considers human factors, overall aesthetics, consistency
and documentation. Reliability is evaluated by measuring the frequency and severity
of failure, the accuracy of output results, the mean time between failure, the ability to
recover from failure, and the predictability of the program. Performance is measured
by evaluating processing speed, response time, resources consumption, and efficiency.
Supportability combines program extensibility, adaptability, and serviceability, in
addition to testability, compatibility, configurability, the ease with which a system can
be accessed, and the ease with which problems can be localized.
The researchers used the Likert scale to measure the perception of the
respondents on the proposed Procurement System. A Likert scale is a psychometric
response scale often used in questionnaires, and is the most widely used in survey
research. The researchers used a scale of one to five five being the highest, and one
being the lowest score. Table 3.2 shows the Likert scale that was used to quantify and
interpret the respondents answers to the FURPS evaluation.
Table 3.2 Likert scale
35
Mean Value
Criteria
4.21-5.00
Strongly Agree
3.41-4.20
Agree
2.61-3.40
Fairly Agree
1.81-2.60
Disagree
1.00-1.80
Strongly Disagree
INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUES USED

The researchers used methods conducting interviews, and distributing
questionnaires and evaluation forms to gather information about the existing
procurement process of the CCSFP, and to evaluate the Procurement System.
The researchers conducted interviews to the respondents to gain better
understanding of the existing procurement process, and to formulate the solution to
the difficulties faced by the administrative officers with regards to the preparation of
The researchers prepared questionnaires, which are sets of prearranged
questions, for the respondents to answer in relation to the development of the system.
The researchers also formulated a FURPS evaluation form (see Appendix A)
to measure the efficacy of the system based on its functionality, usability, reliability,
performance, and supportability.
36
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PROJECT TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
The researchers recommend the hardware and software specifications shown
in Table 4.1 to maximize the performance of the system.
Table 4.1 Hardware and software requirements of the system

Hardware Requirements
Software Requirements
Pentium 4 processor or higher
Windows Operating System
512 MB RAM or higher
MySQL
minimum of 50MB disk storage
MySQL connector
.NET framework 4.5
PROJECT STRUCTURED ORGANIZATION
Figure 4.1 Procurement System Log-in

Figure 4.1 shows the Log-in, which prevents unauthorized persons to access
the system. It also shows links to change the server (see Figure 4.2), and to register an
account (see Figure 4.3). The account is validated by the admin (administrative
officer) upon submission.
37
Figure 4.2 Change Server
Figure 4.3 Register Account
Figure 4.4 Projects Home

Figure 4.4 shows the Projects Home panel, which contains the list of
projects for the budget year, the current year, and the previous years.
38
Figure 4.5 Projects Inbox
Figure 4.6 Projects Sent
Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show the Projects Inbox and Sent, respectively. If the
user is on the server side of the system, the Inbox panel contains the submitted
proposed projects of the office and department heads (project coordinators). The Sent
panel contains the projects sent back to the office and department heads with remarks
on the changes that should be made on the proposals.
39
Figure 4.7 Compose Message

Figure 4.7 shows the Compose Message panel. With this form, the users, both
server and client, can interact and exchange messages.
Figure 4.8 Messages Inbox

Figures 4.8 and 4.9 show the Messages Inbox and Sent, respectively which
contains the users received and sent messages. The user has the option to reply to the
sender, forward messages to other users, or delete messages. The user is informed of
incoming messages through the Windows notification tray.
40
Figure 4.9 Messages Sent
Figure 4.10 Reminders

Figure 4.10 shows the Reminders. This panel displays the requirements and
their deadlines set by the admin. The user is informed of new reminders through the
Windows notification tray.
41
Figure 4.11 Accounts

Figure 4.11 shows the Accounts panel. The active accounts are either verified
accounts, or accounts that have been created by the admin. The inactive accounts are
the submitted accounts which are not yet verified by the admin. This panel is not
visible on the client side of the system.
Figure 4.12 Add Reminder

Figure 4.12 shows the Add Reminder form, where the admin sets the
requirements deadlines. This panel is not visible on the client side of the system.
42
Figure 4.13 Create New Project

Figure 4.13 shows the New Project window. On this form, the user creates a
project set which will contain the budget proposals. This form leads to the Budget
Proposal form (See Figure 4.14).
Figure 4.14 Budget Proposal

Figure 4.14 shows the Budget Proposal form. This form is used to create
budget proposals which are consolidated to generate the AIP, PPMP, Budgetary
Requirements, and Financial Plan Summary (See Figures 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, and 4.21
for sample documents). The budget is then broken down according to its utilization
MOOE, CO, or PS (See Figures 4.15, 4.16, and 4.17).
43
Figure 4.15 Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) breakdown
Figure 4.16 Capital Outlay (CO) breakdown
Figure 4.17 Personal Services (PS) breakdown
44
Figure 4.18 Sample AIP generated using the system
Figure 4.19 Sample MOOE generated using the system
45
Figure 4.20 Sample Budgetary Requirements generated using the system
Figure 4.21 Sample Financial Plan Summary generated using the system
46
Figure 4.22 Manage Department

Figure 4.22 shows the Manage Department panel under the Maintenance
menu. On this panel, the admin may add, update, and delete departments. The
departments are necessary to identify which CCSFP offices are implementing the
programs, projects, or activities on the Budget Proposal (see Figure 4.14).
Figure 4.23 Update User Information

Figure 4.23 shows the Update User Information panel under the User menu.
47
Figure 4.24 Change Password

Figure 4.24 shows the Change Password panel under the User menu. The
password should be, at least, eight characters long.
Figure 4.25 Comparative Summary

Figure 4.25 shows the annual Summary panel under the View menu. It shows
comparative information regarding the allocations for the budget year, current year,
and the past year. The Summary can also be viewed as charts (see Figures 4.26 and
4.27).
48
Figure 4.26 Sample Bar Chart showing the allocation of budget (MOOE, CO, and
PS) for the budget year, current year, and the past year
Figure 4.27 Sample Pie Chart showing the allocation of budget to projects, programs,
and activities, separately for MOOE, CO and PS for the budget year
PROJECT LIMITATIONS AND CAPABILITIES
The Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga
was designed and developed to address the needs of the CCSFP in the preparation of
The system allows the admin to manage account registrations. It is also
capable of securing the database by preventing unauthorized persons in accessing the
system.
The system is capable of guiding the project coordinators in creating their
budget proposals, and sending them to the administrative officers through a network.
The system allows the admin to modify, give remarks, and send back the budget
proposals to the project coordinators.
49
The system includes a module that allows users to interact by exchanging

messages. It also allows the admin to set and delete reminders.
The system is capable of generating, exporting, and printing necessary
procurement documents, such as the AIP, PPMP for MOOE and CO, Budgetary
Requirements, Financial Plan Summary, and Annual Comparative Summary and
Charts.
PROJECT EVALUATION
The respondents evaluated the proposed Procurement System using the
FURPS model. The researchers gathered and interpreted the results of the evaluation.
Functionality
Table 4.2 Respondents rating on the functionality of the system
Indicators
1. Department records are well
organized.
2. Records are shared and are
accessible by any authorized person
in the department.
3. Generating procurement reports is
relatively fast and accurate.
Mean
Interpretation
5.00
Strongly Agree
5.00
Strongly Agree
4.67
Strongly Agree
4. The method used in recording and

generating reports is secured.
5.00
Strongly Agree
5. Searching records is fast and easy.

Average
5.00
4.93
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Table 4.2 shows that the lowest mean obtained was 4.67. The data indicate that
the system scored the lowest in generating procurement reports. The slow generation
of documents is possibly caused by the large amounts of data being consolidated to
create the reports.
The highest mean obtained was 5.0. The data indicate that the system scored
high in terms of security and data organization. The high rating for security is due to
the security feature of the system which prevents unauthorized access. The high rating
for data organization is due to the well-structured lists of submitted forms.
50
Usability
Table 4.3 Respondents rating on the usability of the system
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. The proposed Procurement System

is convenient to use.
4.78
Strongly Agree
2. The system can be easily

understood and navigated.
4.67
Strongly Agree
3. The platform being used provides

consistent look and feel.
4.89
Strongly Agree
4. The forms and reports can be

viewed and printed without difficulty.
5.00
Strongly Agree
Average
4.83
Strongly Agree
Table 4.3 shows that the lowest rating obtained was 4.67. The data indicate that the
system scored the lowest in the ease of navigation. Since the system involves a huge
quantity of information, the researchers designed the interface taking into
consideration the best possible way to display the modules in different windows,
sacrificing the ease of navigation.
The system scored 5.0, the highest rating, in the ease of viewing and printing
reports. The user only has to click on Print, and the generated reports are displayed.
The user does not need to adjust cells like in Microsoft Excel for the contents to fit.
Reliability
Table 4.4 Respondents rating on the reliability of the system
Indicators
1. User inputs are properly validated.
2. Duplicate records are easily
detected.
Mean
5.00
Interpretation
Strongly Agree
5.00
Strongly Agree
3. Data modification can be done with

ease.
4.67
Strongly Agree
4. The system provides user log-in

and system activities can be tracked
down to the users accordingly.
5.00
Strongly Agree
5.00
Strongly Agree
4.93
Strongly Agree
5. Reports are properly dated and

accounted for.
Average
51
Table 4.4 shows that the lowest rating obtained was 4.67 for the ease of data
modification. The difficulty in data modification is possibly caused by the systems
user interface, in which the user has to go to different panels before completely
modifying the information. The researchers decided on creating separate panels for
the modules because it is more suitable than putting all the requirements in one
window.
The rating of 5.0 on the other four indicators shows that the system is reliable
in terms of validating the input and tracking user activities. The system validates the
data encoded by the user to minimize possible errors, and it filters duplicate records.
The users activities are tracked since the usernames, and the date and time of
activities are displayed alongside the reports submitted to the system.
Performance
Table 4.5 Respondents rating on the performance of the system
Indicators
1. Response time and processing time
are in acceptable range.
2. Usage of computer resources is
maximized.
3. Data retrieval in every department
is fast and easy.
Average
Mean
Interpretation
4.89
Strongly Agree
5.00
Strongly Agree
5.00
Strongly Agree
4.96
Strongly Agree
Table 4.5 shows that the lowest rating obtained by the system is 4.89 based on
the response time and processing time. The cause of this is the huge amount of data
being consolidated to generate procurement documents which slows the processes of
the system. Slow processing time can also be attributed to the hardware components
of the computer used during the evaluation. It can also be attributed to the other
processes the computer was undergoing which are not associated to the system.
The system scored 5.0 on the other indicators which interprets that the system
has an agreeable performance which can be attributed to the huge comparison in
52
terms of management between the existing procurement process and the Procurement
System.
Supportability
Table 4.6 Respondents rating on the supportability of the system
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. The system can be applied and used
in any computer and operating
4.11
Agree
system.
2. The system can be applied and
installed with minimum hardware
5.00
Strongly Agree
requirements.
3. The system supports data back-up
4.78
Strongly Agree
and restoration procedures.
Average
4.63
Strongly Agree
Table 4.6 shows that the lowest rating obtained was 4.11 attributed to the
portability of the system. Since it was developed using Visual Basic .NET, the system
only runs in Windows operating system.
The highest score obtained by the system in terms of supportability is 5.0. The
data indicate that the system scored the highest in the minimum hardware
requirements of the system. The system does not consume much disk space during
installation and execution, and it runs well on at least Pentium 4 processor.
53
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY
The current procurement process of the City College of San Fernando,
Pampanga has proven to be tedious and unorganized. Due to the inconveniences the
administration is experiencing using the existing process, the researchers came up
with the Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga to
simplify and organize the preparation of the necessary documents for procurement.
The system was designed and developed by the researchers by making use of
different methodologies and analytical tools that aided them in the system
development, such as the Agile Development Cycle (ADC), Data Flow Diagrams
(DFD), Hierarchical Input-Process-Output (HIPO), and program flowchart.
The result of the evaluation shows that the system successfully achieved the
requirements agreed upon by the researchers and the CCSFP Administrative Office.
CONCLUSION
The researchers designed and developed the proposed Procurement System for
the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga that addresses CCSFPs requirements
for procurement efficiently with less time and effort.
The researchers developed the Procurement System which organizes the data,
and automatically generates the AIP, PPMP, Budgetary Requirements, and the
summary of the financial plan, using only the budget proposals encoded by the project
coordinators using the same system.
54
The system is straightforward; it simplifies laborious processes and eliminates

unnecessary procedures, significantly cutting down the time needed to prepare the
required documents.
The system includes a module that sends and receives budget proposals from
the project coordinator (client) to the administrative officer (server), and vice versa,
through a network.
The system was evaluated and approved by three administrative officers and
six office and department heads.
RECOMMENDATION
The researchers recommend that the Procurement System be widened in
range. Not only can it be used by the City College of San Fernando, but also by the
other departments of the Local Government Unit.
The future researchers can also develop a module that forecasts the budget
allocations for the next years using data analytics.
The system can be designed and further developed for other operating systems
to increase its supportability.
55
APPENDIX A
CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA

City of San Fernando, Pampanga
FURPS EVALUATION FORM

(Project Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga)
Name:
Position:
Date:
Signature:
Objective:
The objective of this evaluation form is to test the proposed system by
evaluating it using the FURPS Model (Functionality, Usability, Reliability,
Performance, and Supportability).
Instruction:
Please rate the proposed system by checking the box that corresponds to your
rating in the table below.
1
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
FUNCTIONALITY
Description:
1. Department records are well organized.

2. Records are shared and are accessible by any authorized
person in the department.
3. Generating procurement reports is relatively fast and accurate.
4. The method used in recording and generating reports is
secured.
5. Searching records is fast and easy.
Appendix A
USABILITY
Description:
1. The proposed project procurement system is
convenient to use.
2. The proposed system can be easily understood and
navigated.
3. The platform being used provides consistent look and
feel.
4. The forms and reports can be viewed and printed
without difficulty.
RELIABILITY
Description:
1. User inputs are properly validated.
2. Duplicate records are easily detected.
3. Data modification can be done with ease.
4. The proposed system provides user log-in and system
activities can be tracked down to the users
accordingly.
5. Reports are properly dated and accounted for.
PERFORMANCE
Description:
1. Response time and processing time are in acceptable
range.
2. Usage of computer resources is maximized.
3. Data retrieval in every department is fast and easy.
SUPPORTABILITY
Description:
1. The proposed system can be applied and used in any
computer and operating system.
2. The proposed system can be applied and installed with
minimum hardware requirements.
3. The proposed system supports data back-up and
restoration procedures.
Appendix A
APPENDIX B
CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA

City of San Fernando, Pampanga
QUESTIONNAIRE
(Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga)
Name:
Position:
Date:
Signature:
1. Please explain the existing project procurement process of the City College of San
Fernando, Pampanga (CCSFP).
2. What platform are you using in preparing the necessary documents? Is this
platform easy to use?
3. How much time do you exert in the preparation of the documents?
4. How are the records organized?
5. Have you encountered errors and miscalculations using the existing system? If
yes, how are these errors detected?
6. Can the records be accessed by anyone? Do you have security measures to prevent
unauthorized access?
7. On which aspects of the existing procurement process are you having difficulties?
8. Are you satisfied with the existing procurement system? If no, are you willing to
test a new system to help you with the procurement needs of the CCSFP?
Appendix B
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
Books
Bai, Y. (2012). Practical Database Programming with Visual Basic .NET. (2nd ed.).
Wiley-IEEE Press
Government Procurement Policy Board. (2009).
Government Procurement. (5th ed.). GPPB.
Handbook on Philippine
Horstmann, C. S. & Cornell, G. (2007). Core Java, Volume I Fundamentals. (8th

ed.). Prentice Hall.
Kofler, M. (2005). The Definitive Guide to MySQL 5. (3rd ed.). Apress.
National Economic and Development Authority & Asian Development Bank. (2007).
Guidelines on Provincial/Local Planning and Expenditure Management.
(Vol. 2). NEDA & ADB.
Interview
Atty. Caylao, C. F. R. (2014, September 11). Personal Interview.
Websites
Asian Development Bank. (2010, November 19). Strengthening National Public
Procurement Processes.
Retrieved October 15, 2014, from
http://www.adb.org/projects/43219-012/details
LearnITAnytime. (2013, November 18). Know The Advantages And Disadvantages
Of Microsoft Access.
Retrieved October 15, 2014, from
http://www.learnitanytime.com/4031/know-the-advantages-anddisadvantages-of-microsoft-access-2/
Microsoft Robotics. (2012). VPL Introduction. Retrieved October 14, 2014, from
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb483088.aspx
Yagulasamy, A. (2005, April 14). Complete Comparison for VB.NET and C#.
Retrieved
October
15,
2014,
from
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/csharpfaq/archive/2004/03/11/what-are-theadvantages-of-c-over-vb-net-and-vice-versa.aspx
Appendix C
Appendix D

Procurement System For CCSFP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Procurement System For CCSFP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY COLLEGE OF

SAN FERNANDO PAMPANGA

Precious Gem V. David

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Project Limitations and Capabilities

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Table 3.1 Population of the respondents

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Figure 4.15 Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) breakdown

programs, and activities, separately for MOOE, CO and PS for

the budget year

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

SIGNIFANCE OF THE STUDY

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

SCOPE AND DELIMITATIONS

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

administrative officer. If there are necessary adjustments to the proposal, the

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Setting aside their levels of proficiency in programming languages, the

REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement is one of the key aspects in the governments efforts to improve

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Government Unit consisting of the Annual Capital Expenditures and Regular

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Budget Proposal, AIP,

Interview and FURPS

Scoping out and

Studies and Literature

Figure 2.1 Input-Process-Output (IPO) diagram of the system

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

-Remarks for Budget Proposal Modification

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Figure 3.1 Context Data Flow Diagram

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Submission of Budget Proposals

Project for revision

Checking of Projects for Revision

Project for revision

Project Details Revision details

Budget proposal details

Figure 3.2 Level 1 Data Flow Diagram

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Figure 3.3 Hierarchical Input-Process-Output (HIPO) of the system

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Figure 3.4 Hierarchical Input-Process-Output (HIPO) of the system (Continuation)

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Budget Proposal Form

Figure 3.6 Program Flowchart of the system (Main Form)

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga

Figure 3.7 Program Flowchart of the system (Continuation)

Procurement System for the City College of San Fernando, Pampanga