Financial departments and administrative institutionsTypical Cases of Project Performance Evaluatio

Financial departments and administrative institutions
Typical Cases of Project Performance Evaluation Indicator System
(For reference only)
catalogue
1、 Policy 1
Table 1 Performance Evaluation Indicators for Projects Guided by the Development of Marine Economy
Performance evaluation index 5 for the project of reducing the basic pension insurance rate and temporarily lowering the payment ratio of enterprise social insurance premiums
2、 Support category 9
Evaluation Indicators for the New Round of "131" Excellent Young and Middle aged Talent Training Plan 9
Performance evaluation indicators and standards for special funds for preschool education 16
3、 Infrastructure 19
Performance Evaluation Score Table for Financial Expenditure of Road Engineering Projects 19
Performance evaluation indicators for park renovation projects 26
4、 Information 31
Performance evaluation indicators for the overall outsourcing project of centralized backup for data disaster recovery 31
Performance evaluation indicators and standards for the "Basic Medical Insurance Information System" project 36
Reference indicator system
1、 Policy related
Table of Performance Evaluation Indicators for Marine Economic Development Guidance Fund Projects
Basic indicators, specific indicators, evaluation content (standards), scoring
First level indicators, second level indicators, and third level indicators
Business indicators
(70 points) Goal setting situation
(10 points) Adequacy of basis (3 points) Whether the basis for setting up guidance funds for marine economic development is sufficient, sufficient: 3 points; General: 1.5 points; No: 0 points
Clarity of work objectives (3 points): Is the goal of setting up funds to guide the development of the marine economy clear? Clear: 3 points; Basic clarification: 1.5 points; Unclear: 0 points
The consistency between project objectives and relevant plans (4 points) guides the consistency between the project and planning documents such as the Overall Plan for Marine Economic Development and the 2009 Industrial Development Guidance Catalogue, with a high degree of conformity: 4 points, basic conformity: 2 points, non conformity: 0 points
Target completion status (15 points) Project investment plan completion rate (5 points) Project investment plan completion rate, 100%: 5 points; 90-100%: 3 points; 70-90%: 1 point; Below 70%: 0 points
Timeliness of goal completion (5 points): The degree of conformity between project construction progress and plan, 100% compliance: 5 points; 90-100% compliance: 3 points; 70-90%: 1 point; Below 70%: 0 points
The completion of technical indicators (5 points) has been fully achieved: 5 points; The main indicators have been fully achieved, while others have basically reached: 3 points; The main indicators reach: 2; Not reached: 0 points
Organizational management level
(19 points) Management system guarantee (2 points) Project application management, special fund management, and comprehensive business management (supervision, assessment, etc.) system establishment: 2 points; Basic soundness: 1 point; Unhealthy: 0 points
Organizational and personnel support guarantee (2 points): Is there organizational guarantee? Yes: 1 point, No: 0 point; Is there sufficient personnel and a dedicated person in charge: Yes: 1 point, No: 0 point
Qualification of the project unit (3 points): The qualification of the project unit meets the conditions for funding or rewards for marine economic development guidance: Yes: 3 points; There are situations that do not meet the conditions: 0 points. 
Compliance of project application review process (4 points): The application project has been reviewed by the local development and reform department and the finance department, and the application materials are complete: 4 points; Approved but incomplete application materials: 4 points; Inadequate review process: 0 points
Organizational ability of the project unit (3 points): The project unit has a dedicated person (or department) responsible for independently developing project management systems. Good: 3 points; General: 2 points; Poor: 0 points
Organizational Service Satisfaction (5 points) The satisfaction of the project unit with the organizational services of the business supervisory department, very satisfied: 5 points; Relatively satisfied: 4 points; General: 3 points; Poor: 0 points
Economic benefits (6 points) Profit growth rate (3 points) After the project is put into operation, the unit profit increases by 10% or more year-on-year: 3 points; 5% (inclusive) -10%: 2 points; Within 5%: 1 point; No increase of 0 points. 
Increase in tax contribution (3 points): After the project is put into operation, the amount of tax paid by the unit increases by 10% or more year-on-year: 3 points; 5% (inclusive) -10%: 2 points; Within 5%: 1 point; No increase of 0 points. 
Social benefits (21 points) have a guiding effect on the development of the marine economy (4 points). Guiding capital investment has a significant guiding effect on the marine economy industry: 4 points; Generally 2 points; Weak: 1 point
Application of technical achievements in funded (rewarded) projects (4 points): Good application or industrialization prospects of project technical achievements: 4 points; Good: 2 points; General: 1 point; Poor: 0 points
Ecological and Environmental Impact (4 points) Guiding Funds to Protect Coastal Ecological Environment and Save Resources, Strong: 4 points; Strong: 2 points; General: 1 point; Weak: 0 points
Strong guidance for corporate investment direction (4 points); Strong: 2 points; General: 1 point; Weak: 0 points
Service recipient's satisfaction with the policy (5 points): Service recipient believes that the policy is good and the support is appropriate: 5 points; Believing that the policy is good but the support is insufficient: 3 points; Unsatisfied with current policies and support: 0 point. 
Subtotal score for business indicators 70 points
financial index 
(30 points) Implementation of funds (8 points) Municipal financial funds in place rate (3 points) Funds in place rate>=100%: 3 points; 80% -100%: 2 points; Below 80%: 0 points
Timeliness of the city's financial funds in place (3 points): The city's financial funds are in place in a timely manner as required: 2 points; Failure to arrive in a timely manner: 0 points
Matching fund availability rate (2 points): District (county) matching funds are in place as required: 2 points; Individual not in place: 1 point; Not all in place: 0 points
Actual expenditure situation (7 points) Fund utilization rate (3 points) Actual used funds/Project allocated funds>=90%: 3 points; 75% -90%: 2 points; 50% -75%: 1 point; Less than 50%: 0 points
Compliance of expenditure (4 points): If the expenditure meets the scope requirements and the special funds are used for specific purposes according to regulations: 4 points; 2 points for individual cases where funds are not specifically allocated for specific purposes; More (over 40%) without dedicated funds: 0 point
Accounting Information Quality (7 points) Information Authenticity (3 points) Whether financial accounting information is true and standardized, which is: 3 points; Basic specification: 1.5 points; No: 0 points
The completeness of information (2 points) is the completeness of financial accounting information: 2 points; Basic completeness: 1 point; No: 0 points
Timeliness of information (2 points) Whether the financial accounting information is timely is: 2 points; Basic timeliness: 1 point; No: 0 points
Financial management status (8 points) soundness of the system (2 points) Whether the financial accounting system is sound, yes: 4 points; Basic soundness: 2 points; No: 0 points
Effectiveness of management (3 points): Is there a complete authorization and approval process for fund utilization? Yes: 1.5 points; No: 0 points; Whether the financial accounting system is effectively implemented, yes: 1.5 points, no: 0 points
Timeliness of project expenditure information feedback (3 points): Whether the project execution status and financial settlement related reports and documents are reported in a timely manner according to regulations. Timely reporting: 3 points; Individual projects not reported: 1.5 points; Not reported: 0 points
Subtotal score of financial indicators 30 points
Total score of 100 points
Performance evaluation indicators for reducing the rate of basic pension insurance and temporarily lowering the proportion of social insurance premiums paid by enterprises
Basic indicators, specific indicator evaluation standards
Guidelines for Specific Scoring Methods for Primary Indicators, Secondary Indicators, and Third Indicators
Business indicators
(80 points) Goal setting situation
(25 points) Adequacy of policy basis (5 points) (1) Whether it complies with the relevant provisions of the Notice of the People's Government of Zhejiang Province on Adjusting the Payment Ratio of Basic Pension Insurance premiums for Employers (Zhejiang Zhengfa [2008] No. 70), which is: 2 points; No: 0 points; (2) Whether the project has been approved: 3 points; No: 0 points;
The prerequisite for setting goals (15 points): (1) The payment ability of the basic pension insurance fund is more than 23 months (5 points): 5 points; December 23: 4 points; Under December: 0 points; (2) The coverage of basic pension insurance has increased significantly compared to the previous year (5 points): 5 points, with some growth, but the magnitude is average: 4 points; No growth: 0 points; (3) Continuous growth in social security fee income (5 points): Continuous growth: 5 points; There is an increase, but the magnitude is not significant: 4 points; No growth: 0 points
The rationality of goal setting (5 points) (1) Whether there is a gap in the income and expenditure of the basic pension insurance fund (3 points), which is: 0 points; No: 3 points; (2) Is the degree of aging high and the coefficient of support very high (1 point)? Yes: 0 points; General: 0.5 points; No: 1 point; (3) Is the Engel's coefficient of urban residents decreasing year by year (1 point)? What is 1 point; No, but it has decreased by 0.5 points in 2009; No: 0 points
Completion status of goals (10 points) Completion status of reducing basic pension insurance rates (5 points) Annual completion rate=100%: 5 points; 90-100%: 4 points; 70-90%: 2 points; Below 70%: 0 points
Completion status of temporary downward floating enterprise social insurance premium payment ratio (5 points) Annual completion rate=100%: 5 points; 90-100%: 4 points; 70-90%: 2 points; Below 70%: 0 points
Organizational management level
(23 points) Management system and supporting measures guarantee (5 points) (1) Whether a social security fund payment ability warning mechanism has been established (1 point), which is: 1 point; No: 0 points; (2) Have measures been formulated to expand the coverage of enterprise pension insurance, such as the inclusion of migrant workers in the insured population? (2 points) Yes: 2 points; No: 0 points; (3) Has a multi-channel mechanism for raising pension insurance funds been established (2 points)? Yes: 2 points; No: 0 points;
Implementation of systems and supporting measures (5 points) (1) Whether the relevant management systems have been implemented (1 point), which is: 1 point; No: 0 points; (2) Have measures been implemented to expand the coverage of enterprise pension insurance, such as the inclusion of migrant workers in the insured population system? (2 points) Yes: 2 points; No: 0 points; (3) Has the mechanism for raising pension insurance funds through multiple channels been implemented (2 points)? Yes: 2 points; No: 0 points;
The completeness of work files (4 points): Is the work file for the reduction of pension insurance rates and the centralized reduction of social security five fees complete? Yes: 4 points; Basically complete, but with shortcomings: 3 points; No: 0 points;
Innovation ability in work management (2 points): Is there any innovative means or methods? Yes: 2 points; Innovative methods but shortcomings: 1 point; No: 0 points
The completeness of social security informatization construction (3 points) is the completeness of social security informatization construction? Yes: 3 points; Basically complete, but with shortcomings: 2 points; No: 0 points
The soundness of the social security fee collection and management mechanism (4 points) Whether the social security fee collection and management mechanism is sound and very sound: 4 points; Basically sound, but there are still areas that are not perfect enough: 3 points; Unhealthy: 0 points
Social benefits indicator (22 points) Policy promotion effect (2 points) Single item indicator of enterprise survey questionnaire (out of 10 points) with a total average score of 8 points or above: 2 points; 6-8 points: 1 point; Below 6 points: 0 points;
If the single indicator of the enterprise survey questionnaire (out of 20 points) is above 16 points, 2 points will be given; 12-16 points: 1 point; Below 12 points: 0 points
Promoting social harmony and stability (4 points): For individual indicators in the enterprise survey questionnaire (out of 10 points), if the total average score is above 8 points: 4 points; 6-8 points: 2 points; Below 6 points: 0 points;
Promotion of employment (4 points): A single indicator in the enterprise survey questionnaire (out of 10 points) with a total average score of 8 points or above: 4 points; 7-8 points: 3 points; 5-6 points: 2 points; Below 5 points: 0 points;
Social evaluation satisfaction (10 points): Enterprise total average score above 90 points: 10 points; 80-90 points: 8 points; 60-80 points: 6 points; Below 60 points: 0 points;
Subtotal of business indicator scores
Financial and related indicators
(20 points) Implementation of policy funds for reducing the basic pension insurance rate and the proportion of social insurance premiums paid by temporarily floating enterprises (10 points) Implementation of policy funds for reducing the basic pension insurance rate and the proportion of social insurance premiums paid by temporarily floating enterprises (5 points) Implementation of "III. Connection and Handling of Related Policies and Business Operations" in Zhejiang Labor and Social Security Lao [2008] No. 125 document: If one item is not implemented, 1 point will be deducted until it is fully deducted.
Timeliness of implementing the policy funds to reduce the basic pension insurance rate and temporarily lower the proportion of enterprise social insurance premiums (5 points). Each district's tax collection and management agency has timely reduced the basic pension insurance rate and social insurance premiums in accordance with the requirements: 5 points; Individual tax administration agencies failed to implement in a timely manner: 3 points; There are 2 district level tax collection and management agencies that have not been implemented in a timely manner: 1 point; Failure to arrive in a timely manner: 0 point
Quality of financial data information (10 points) Authenticity of financial data information (5 points) Whether the downward adjustment and tax reduction data information is true: Yes: 5 points; Basic authenticity: 3 points; No: 0 points
The accuracy of financial data information (5 points) is reduced and whether the data information for tax reduction is accurate: Yes: 5 points; Basically accurate, but with shortcomings: 3 points; No: 0 points
Subtotal of financial indicator scores
Total score
2、 Support category
Evaluation indicators for the training plan for outstanding young and middle-aged talents
Evaluation indicators, evaluation criteria, and score for this item
Level 1, Level 2, Level 3
The setting of business indicators and project goals (9 points) is based on sufficient evidence (3 points). If the project is based on sufficient evidence, 3 points will be given, 1.8 points will be given if it is relatively sufficient, 1.2 points will be given generally, and 0 points will be given if it is not sufficient. three
Clarity of objectives (3 points): 1.5 points for clear objectives, 0.9 points for relatively clear objectives, 0.6 points for general objectives, and 0 points for unclear objectives; 1.5 points for clear annual goals, 0.9 points for more specific goals, 0.6 points for general goals, and 0 points for unclear goals. three
The rationality of the goal (3 points) is 1.5 points for the overall goal, 0.9 points for the more reasonable goal, 0.6 points for the general goal, and 0 points for the unreasonable goal; The annual target is reasonable with a score of 1.5 points, relatively reasonable with a score of 0.9 points, average with a score of 0.6 points, and unreasonable with a score of 0 points. three
The completion status of project goals (41 points), the degree of completion of goals (21 points), and the assessment (12 points) for the first level of trainees in the 2009 assessment will be scored 4 points. If the number of trainees who have completed the assessment accounts for 95% or more of the total number of people, 2.7 points will be awarded. If the number of trainees who have completed the assessment accounts for 85% or more, 1.3 points will be awarded. If it is less than 85%, 0 points will be awarded. four
For the second level trainees who have completed all assessments in 2009, they will receive 3 points. Those who have completed assessments accounting for 95% or more of the total will receive 2 points, those who have completed assessments between 85% and 95% will receive 1 point, and those who have completed assessments below 85% will receive 0 points. three
For the third level trainees, 2 points will be awarded if all assessments are completed in 2009. 1.3 points will be awarded if the number of assessments completed accounts for 95% or more of the total number, 0.7 points will be awarded if the number of assessments is between 85% and 95%, and 0 points will be awarded if the number of assessments completed is below 85%. two
Those who have completed all the assessment work for the unit where the candidate is trained in 2009 will receive 3 points. Those who have completed the assessment and account for 95% or more of the total number of units will receive 2 points, those who have completed the assessment and accounted for 85% or more will receive 1 point, and those who have completed the assessment and accounted for 85% or less will receive 0 points. three
Training measures (9 points) for the first level of trainees: 10% of the total number have participated in more than one scientific research activity, received continuing education, pursued further education, or participated in high-level academic and technical exchange and inspection activities targeting the trainees in 2009