Decision No. 29/2003/QD-BGDDT dated June 24, 2003 of the Ministry of Education and Traing promulgating the regulation on the use of the quality improvement fund of the higher education project

DECISION

PROMULGATING THE REGULATION ON THE USE OF THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION PROJECT

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Pursuant to the Government's Decree No. 86/2002/ND-CP of November 5, 2002 defining the functions, tasks, powers and organizational structures of the ministries and ministerial-level agencies;

Pursuant to the Government's Decree No. 29/CP of March 30. 1994 on the tasks, powers and organizational structure of the Ministry of Education and Training;

Pursuant to the Prime Minister's Decision No. 649/QD-TTg of July 24, 1998 on the Higher Education Strengthening and Reform Project (Higher Education Project);

Pursuant to Development Credit Agreement No. 3126/VN for the Higher Education Project, which was signed on September 8, 1998 between the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Government and the International Development Association of the World Bank;

At the proposal of the director of the Office,

DECIDES:

Article 1.- To promulgate together with this Decision the Regulation on the use of the Quality Improvement Fund of the Higher Education Project.

Article 2.- This Decision takes effect 15 days after its publication in the Official Gazette and replaces Decision No 3/1999/QD-BGDDT of February 11, 1999 of the Minister of Education and Training.

Article 3.- The director of the Office, the director of the Planning and Finance Department, the director of the Higher Education Project, the heads of the concerned units and the principals of the universities participating in the Higher Education Project shall have to implement this Decision.

REGULATION

ON THE USE OF THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION PROJECT
(Promulgated together with Decision No. 29/2003/QD-BGDDT of June 24, 2003 of the Minister of Education and Training)

Chapter I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1.- Purposes of the Regulation

1. To introduce to the interested universities, research institutions, governmental agencies and individuals the objectives of the Quality Improvement Fund and the criteria which the universities need to satisfy so as to receive grants from the Fund.

2. To guide the procedures and work to be carried out in the process of compiling dossiers of application for grants and using grants from the Quality Improvement Fund.

3. To serve as a basis for the evaluation, classification, rating of, and provision of grants to, projects which apply for Quality Improvement Fund grants.

Article 2.- Objectives and contents of the Higher Education Project

The Ministry of Education and Training, under the authorization of the Vietnamese Government, implements the Higher Education Project with the credit support from the International Development Association of the World Bank.

1. Objectives of the Higher Education Project include:

a/ To increase coherence, flexibility, and responsiveness of the higher education system to the higher and diversified demands of the cause of socio-economic development;

b/ To improve the training and research quality of the universities;

c/ To raise the efficiency of using resources in the whole higher education system and in each university.

2. Contents of the Higher Education Project include:

a/ Component I: To support the enhancement of managerial and executive capabilities at the system level and of the universities (under the scope of the Higher Education Project);

b/ Component II: To provide grants, on a competitive basis, through the Quality Improvement Fund with a view to promoting activities of improving the training and research quality of the universities;

c/ Component III: To support the management and implementation of the Higher Education Project.

Article 3.- Financial resources, subjects and objectives of the Quality Improvement Fund

1. Financial resources and subjects of the Quality Improvement Fund

The Quality Improvement Fund is set up on the basis of an amount deducted from the loan of the International Development Association and from the Vietnamese Government's budget in order to finance activities carried out by public universities in order to improve the training quality and efficiency.

Grants from the Quality Improvement Fund shall be only provided to qualified public universities on a competitive basis.

2. Objectives of the Quality Improvement Fund

The Quality Improvement Fund shall support the quality improvement programs aiming to attain the following objectives:

a/ To encourage the consolidation and development of multi-disciplinary universities;

b/ To renew and update materials, textbooks and to modernize teaching and learning methods, improve the structure of training disciplines, the training contents and curricula in order to respond to the demands of the labor market;

c/ To raise the professional qualifications and skills of university administrators and lecturers with a view to improving the training and research quality and efficiency;

d/ To increase flexibility and responsiveness of the universities to the demands of society.

Article 4.- Scope of the Quality Improvement Fund

1. Activities falling under the funding scope of the Quality Improvement Fund include:

a/ Enhancing the capability of managing and conducting training and research activities;

b/ Training and fostering lecturers;

c/ Improving the structure of training disciplines, the training contents and curricula;

d/ Upgrading and procuring new technical equipment in service of training and research;

e/ Upgrading and expanding libraries, documentation centers, computer centers and other public facilities in service of training and research activities;

f/ Connecting the universities' intranets.

2. The Quality Improvement Fund shall not provide grants for capital construction activities, except for minor renovation and repair (under Article 19 of this Regulation).

Article 5.- Levels of Quality Improvement Fund grants

The Quality Improvement Fund has grants at three levels of A, B and C. Each qualified university may apply for and receive grants of all three levels if satisfying the criteria and requirements for each level.

1. Level-A grants

Universities which are qualified to participate in the Quality Improvement Fund and wish to receive grants must first of all submit dossiers of application for level-A grants. Each university may receive only one level-A grant throughout the process of implementation of the Higher Education Project. The maximum funding for a project applying for level-A grant is USD 500,000. Any university which is not provided with level-A grant in a certain round may submit dossiers therefor once more in next rounds.

2. Level-B grants

Universities which are able to prove that they have used level-A grants for the right purposes, on schedule and with efficiency can submit dossiers of application for level-B grants. Each university may receive only one level-B grant throughout the process of implementation of the Higher Education Project. The maximum funding for a project applying for level-B grant is USD 750,000.

3. Level-C grants

Universities which have been provided with level-B grants may submit dossiers of application for level-C grants for one or several projects. If universities submit dossiers of application for level-C grants for many projects at one time, they must arrange such projects in a priority order. If the first project is selected for the provision of level-C grant, then the second project will also be evaluated; but if the first project is rejected, then any other projects (ranked lower in the order) will not be evaluated in the evaluation round in which the universities have submitted their dossiers for participation, but they may re-submit dossiers in the next evaluation round. However, dossiers must not be re-submitted for the rejected projects.

The total amount of grants of all three levels A, B and C for a university shall not exceed the limit stated in Article 6 of this Regulation.

Article 6.- Quality Improvement Fund grants for a university

The total amount of Quality Improvement Fund grants of all three levels A, B and C for a university shall not exceed either USD 800 multiplied with the number of students converted to an equivalent of formal concentrated long-term training (as prescribed in Article 8 and calculated through the latest result of the survey of universities) or USD 10 million (the total of grants must be smaller than this figure).

Article 7.- Funding contributed by universities

The total amount of Quality Improvement Fund grants of all three levels A, B and C shall account for 95% at most of the estimated funding for the implementation of the proposed projects, the remainder of 5% must be contributed by the concerned universities from the non-State budget funding sources. This contribution commitment is regarded as a necessary condition for projects which apply for Quality Improvement Fund grants.

Chapter II

CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND

Article 8.- General criteria

Universities which satisfy the following general criteria may submit dossiers of application for Quality Improvement Fund grants:

1. Providing higher-education training (at the bachelor, master or doctoral level) and having the legal person status, and a sole independent administrative management and training administration apparatus;

2. Being public universities;

3. Having participated in Component I of the Higher Education Project (as specified in Article 9 for each level of QIG);

4. Having at least 2,000 students converted to an equivalent of formal concentrated long-term training (at the bachelor, master or doctoral level) currently studying at the universities according to the latest result of the survey of universities;

5. Having the applications which are signed by their principals (or directors for national or regional universities).

Article 9.- Specific criteria for each grant level

1. Level A

To apply for level-A grants, each university must participate in activities of Component I, including:

a/ Collecting and supplying information on key implementation indicators and other information at the requests of the annual survey of universities and of the Higher Education Project's Coordinating Board (hereinafter referred to as the Project Coordinating Board for short).

b/ Conducting a survey of graduates and supplying necessary information to the Project Coordinating Board;

c/ Drawing up and submitting to the Ministry of Education and Training the university's medium-term development plan.

2. Level B

To apply for level-B grants, each university needs:

a/ To commit to further improve quality, enhance autonomy and self-responsibility through submitting to the Ministry of Education and Training a medium-term plan already revised on the basis of information gathered from the survey of graduates conducted by the university and the survey of universities nationwide;

b/ To prove that it has used efficiently for the right purposes level-A grant through a detailed report at the request of the Project Coordinating Board.

3. Level C

To apply for level-C grants, each university needs:

a/ To prove that information collected from the surveys of universities and of graduates has been used in making strategic decisions to improve the structure of training disciplines, renewing the training contents and curricula, teaching and learning methods or on other changes in order to raise training quality and efficiency, reflected through the improvement of specific implementation indicators set by the Project Coordinating Board (as clearly stated in Article 16 (c)).

b/ To have been provided a level-B grant.

Chapter III

EVALUATION, SELECTION OF PROJECTS AND APPROVAL OF PROVISION OF GRANTS THERETO

Article 10.- Organization of considering, approving and evaluating sections

1. The Project Directing Council of the Higher Education Project is set up and composed of members invited by the Minister of Education and Training. The number of members is no more than 15 working on a part-time basis, including:

+ The Minister of Education and Training - chairman of the Council;

+ A Vice Minister of Education and Training in charge of higher education - standing member of the Council;

+ Vice ministerial-level representatives of the Ministry of Planning and Investment, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, the Government Office and the State Bank of Vietnam - members;

+ Leaders of some universities, designated by the Ministry of Education and Training - members;

+ At least one representative of the units employing graduates - member;

+ A number of experienced and prestigious scientists - members;

2. The Evaluating Board of the Higher Education Project (hereinafter referred to as the Project Evaluating Board for short) is composed of:

+ The chairman, appointed by the Minister of Education and Training;

+ A full-time official in charge of the information work;

+ A program officer;

+ A secretary;

+ Five scientific advisors (or more) working on a part-time basis, who are selected for their prestige and experiences in training, research and administration.

The Project Evaluating Board shall have to evaluate, classify and rate projects through a Scientific Council composed of the chairman of the Project Evaluating Board and scientific advisors and supported by specialists. The Project Evaluating Board shall invite these specialists according to each particular project type, who shall provide professional advice on the project being considered.

Article 11.- Responsibilities of the project-evaluating, -considering and -selecting sections

1. The Directing Council of the Higher Education Project shall have to consider and select projects on the basis of the evaluation, classification and rating by the Project Evaluating Board, and submit them to the Minister of Education and Training (chairman of the Directing Council) for decision on the provision of grants.

2. The Project Evaluating Board shall have to:

a/ Examine the project-submitting universities' criteria for participation in the Fund;

b/ Evaluate the projects according to the prescribed criteria;

c/ Classify the projects according to the prescribed criteria;

d/ Rate the projects within the scope of each level-A, level-B or level-C grant;

e/ Prepare a list of rated projects and a summary report on each project, enclosed with necessary documents, submit them to the Directing Council through the Project Director.

Article 12.- Conditions for projects to be selected

In order to be selected, projects must satisfy the following requirements:

1. Being of high quality;

2. Being consistent with the overall objectives of the Higher Education Project as well as the university's medium-term plan;

3. Aiming to obtain high results in the improvement of the quality of training and scientific research or the raising of effectiveness and efficiency in the management and utilization of resources;

4. Being highly feasible;

5. Encouraging alliance with other universities and research institutions at home and abroad.

Article 13.- Criteria for evaluation of projects applying for Quality Improvement Fund grants

The projects applying for grants shall be evaluated and considered on the basis of the three following groups of criteria:

1. Clarity and rationality:

Clarity and rationality of a project shall be assessed in the following aspects:

a/ The project's objectives must be well-defined, rational and measurable;

b/ The project's objectives must be consistent with the overall objectives of the cause of higher education development as well as the university's medium-term plan;

c/ The project must ensure scientificity (based on the comments and evaluation of the Scientific Council and professional specialists);

d/ In overall consideration, the project must contribute to creating a balance between the development of the contingent of officials, equipment reinforcement and the renewal of training contents and curricula.

2. The projects' impacts:

The impacts of a project shall be considered on the basis of the project's expected benefits through implementation indicators such as student/teacher ratio, expenses calculated per student converted to an equivalent of formal concentrated long-term training, class promotion and drop-out rates, the employment status of graduates, the use of new textbooks or revision of textbooks in order to meet the demand of improving the training quality and to strengthen the combination between teaching and research, training and production.

The resource utilization efficiency shall be considered within the scope of relationship of input and output factors of the training process.

3. Feasibility:

The feasibility of projects shall be evaluated on the basis of considering:

a/ The management and implementation capabilities, with the experiences of universities submitting dossiers of application for grants and the implementation plans of the universities' sections responsible for the project implementation being taken into consideration;

b/ The quality of the contingent of administrators and lecturers and necessary material bases so as to ensure effective project implementation;

c/ Financial sustainability through the universities' contributions to the project implementation from non-State budget funding sources and expected resources which the projects shall additionally generate to support quality and efficiency improvement activities in the future.

The feasibility of a project shall be considered through the past implementation results of the university and the project's details. An important criterion for feasibility is the extent of demonstration of the university's management and implementation capabilities. The commitment to raise the management and implementation capabilities through the efficient implementation of Component I of the Higher Education Project shall be specially considered. The universities should commit to ensure sufficient personnel and sources of reciprocal non-State budget capital (at least 5% of the project's total funding) as well as material foundations needed for the project implementation. These factors shall be used as a basis for evaluating the project's sustainability.

When considering projects of a university, the Project Evaluating Board shall, through the Scientific Council with the assistance of professional specialists, not only evaluate the quality of the projects but also consider progresses made according to time through key implementation indicators of the university. These indicators shall be analyzed on the basis of data supplied from the surveys of universities and graduates.

Article 14.- Process of consideration, approval and decision to provide Quality Improvement Fund grants for projects

1. Projects shall be considered and evaluated through 5 stages in the following order:

a/ Criteria-based screening: The consideration of dossiers of application for grants shall be based on the general criteria and specific criteria for each grant level, A, B or C. Only projects with dossiers meeting these criteria shall be proposed for further consideration.

b/ Evaluation by professional specialists: The Project Evaluating Board shall consider the contents of projects already qualified in terms of dossiers. Those projects with specialized scientific or technical contents shall be sent to professional specialists for consideration and giving of advice to the Project Evaluating Board on the project's scientific and technical aspects. With regard to level-B and -C grants, the Coordinating Board shall provide the Evaluating Board with information on the implementation of the grants previously provided for the universities. Besides, the Evaluating Board may, if deeming it necessary, invite other professional specialists who have participated in the implementation of previous sub-projects of the universities. These specialists should be based on their specialized knowledge.

c/ Classification of sub-projects: The qualified projects shall be considered by every member of the Scientific Council on the basis of the reports of professional specialists, indicators and evaluation criteria according to the form proposed by the Evaluating Board. In order to be proposed for the provision of grants, the projects should reach the minimum level in meeting the specific criteria in the three groups of criteria (rationality, impacts and feasibility). The minimum level shall increase according to the different grant levels (level-B criteria will be higher than those of level A, and level-C criteria higher than those of level B). After making the evaluation, each member of the Scientific Council shall preliminarily classify the projects at the level: Excellent, Good, Satisfactory or Rejected.

d/ The universities' representatives shall defend the submitted sub-projects: Each university submitting dossiers for participation in QIGs of level B or C may be requested to reply via e-mail or send a representative group to meet directly with the Scientific Council so as to justify and defend their sub-projects and reply any questions raised by the Scientific Council on rationality, projected impacts and feasibility of the submitted sub-projects. At this meeting, the Scientific Council may request the universities to clarify the objectives of the sub-projects proposed for participation in the Quality Improvement Fund, to explain the benefits expected to be achieved and how they will be controlled, and to reply questions on the implementation of sub-projects funded with QIGs of the preceding level and the plans on the implementation of the sub-projects proposed for participation in the quality improvement program.

e/ Rating of projects: After the preliminary classification results are made available, the Scientific Council shall meet to discuss strengths and weaknesses of the sub-projects, reach agreement on the final classification of all sub-projects and rate the projects according to their quality at the A, B and C levels. In evaluating, classifying and rating the projects, the Scientific Council members should reach consensus among themselves. If failing to reach consensus, the Scientific Council shall make decisions by vote. The vote of the chairman of the Evaluating Board shall be of decisive significance if the numbers of votes for and votes against are equal. The results of classification and rating shall be submitted to the Directing Council through the Project Director, together with a brief report on the comments on each project.

2. Decisions to provide Quality Improvement Fund grants shall be recommended by the Directing Council on the basis of the evaluation results of the Evaluating Board and the Fund's financial capability for each level, A, B or C, so that the Minister of Education and Training (chairman of the Directing Council) can sign such decisions. The Directing Council shall decide on an appropriate number of projects to be financed by the Fund in each meeting to decide on the provision of grants in order to ensure the optimal selection and the most efficient use of the Fund's grants. The estimated number of universities evaluated to be eligible for level-A grants is 9 out of ten (90%), for level-B grants, two out of three (66%) and level-C grants, one out of two (50%). This estimation shall be considered in each period and may be changed on the basis of the agreement with the World Bank.

3. After the Directing Council meets and decides to select projects, the universities participating in the Quality Improvement Fund shall be notified of the consideration and approval results. Those universities with approved projects shall be entitled to withdraw capital from the Quality Improvement Fund for the project implementation according to the procedures guided by the Project Coordinating Board.

4. Comments of the professional specialists, discussion opinions made by the Scientific Council and the Directing Council shall be kept absolutely confidential. The members of the Project Evaluating Board, the Scientific Council and the Directing Council shall not provide whatever information on the evaluation, classification and rating of projects and not give advice on the project contents to the universities which are preparing for participation in the Quality Improvement Fund.

5. No member of the sections participating in the evaluation of the projects shall give advice to the universities on revising their projects.

6. The Scientific Council and the Directing Council should ensure that the evaluation, consideration and selection of projects be conducted in an impartial manner and not influenced by any interest conflict. Those professional specialists and Scientific Council members who are currently working in the universities with projects participating in the Quality Improvement Fund shall not be allowed to participate in the evaluation of the projects of their universities.

7. The project-submitting universities shall be only explained by the Project Evaluating Board on the procedures for compiling dossiers and criteria for participation in the Quality Improvement Fund.

8. The universities wishing to receive technical advice in the process of preparing the project dossiers (including technical appendices described in Article 16) should report such to the Project Director for consideration and decision to let the Project Coordinating Board sign contracts with the consultancy service-providing agencies to advise on the preparation and submission of dossiers and the implementation of sub-projects.

Article 15.- Information work

1. The Project Evaluating Board shall have to:

+ Send regular notices on the schedule for submission of dossiers to the universities participating in the Quality Improvement Fund;

+ Supply information on the procedures and deadline for submission of dossiers, the time for evaluation, consideration and approval of projects;

+ Publish a journal on the participation and implementation of the Quality Improvement Fund;

+ Publicize the list of members of the Scientific Council and professional specialists.

2. When discharging the responsibilities defined in Article 15.1, apart from the projects' titles, the universities' names and the universities' sections in charge of projects, the Project Evaluating Board shall not supply any other information on each dossier of application for grants.

3. At the earliest time after the Directing Council makes the decisions on providing grants, the Project Evaluating Board shall have to notify each university which has submitted the dossier of application for Quality Improvement Fund grants of the result of consideration and approval of the university's project(s), enclosed with a brief notice of the Scientific Council on the project's strengths and weaknesses. Apart from these notices, the Project Evaluating Board shall not supply any other information on the evaluation of each particular project.

Chapter IV

DOSSIERS OF APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND

Article 16.- Contents and forms of dossiers of application for participation in the Quality Improvement Fund

In order to ensure uniformity of the dossiers of application for participation in the Quality Improvement Fund with a view to ensuring fairness and efficiency for the evaluation, consideration and selection of projects, the documents in dossiers should be prepared according to the prescribed forms in Vietnamese and English. A dossier of application for Quality Improvement Fund grant consists of:

1. The application for Quality Improvement Fund grant:

The application for grant contains the following principal contents:

+ The name of the university - the managing ministry;

+ The unit (department, section or division) and officials in charge of the project implementation;

+ The project's title;

+ Summary of the project's objectives;

+ Summary of activities which need to be financed by the Quality Improvement Fund;

+ Norms expected to be achieved in the project's activities in the form of measurable implementation indicators;

+ Summary of the project's estimated expenditures (classified by expense items);

+ The project implementation duration;

+ Forms of co-financing (amount and sources).

2. Notification on the universities' satisfaction of the criteria for participation in the Quality Improvement Fund

The dossiers must be enclosed with a notice on the satisfaction of the criteria for participation in the Quality Improvement Fund. Such notice must be stamped for certification with the official seal of the university and clearly point out that the university has satisfied the general criteria as well as specific criteria for each grant level, enclosed with necessary proof documents, including:

a/ For all grant levels:

+ The number of students converted into an equivalent of formal concentrated long-term training (at the bachelor, master or doctoral level) in the latest academic year (as calculated in the latest comprehensive survey);

+ Announcement that the university has a clear administrative management and training system;

+ Announcement that the university has participated in and supplied necessary information for the annual survey of universities (indicating the date or month of the latest working session with surveyors);

+ Announcement that the university has conducted a survey of graduates, enclosed with the survey results requested by the Project Coordinating Board (clearly indicating the date and month when the survey was conducted);

+ The latest official medium-term plan submitted to the Ministry of Education and Training.

b/ For level-B grants

+ Summary of amendments to the university's medium-term plan on the basis of information gathered through annual surveys of universities and of graduates;

+ A general report on the implementation of level-A grant to the Project Coordinating Board.

c/ For level-C grants:

+ A summary of the use of information from the surveys of universities and graduates so as to put forth development orientations, demonstrated through the readjustment of the university's medium-term plan, changes in the training curricula, teaching methods for particular training courses and/or improving the quality and efficiency of the university (as measured with the implementation indicators);

+ A general report on the implementation of all previous Quality Improvement Fund grants to the Project Coordinating Board.

3. Projects participating in the Quality Improvement Fund

The contents of a project participating in the Quality Improvement Fund include:

a/ Information on the university

+ Mission of the university;

+ A summary of the university's medium-term plan;

+ The university's implementation indicators.

b/ Contents of a quality improvement project

+ The project's objectives;

+ Description of the project and its activities;

+ Targets to be achieved and specific implementation indicators of the project;

+ Benefits expected to be achieved;

+ Expenditures for activities (classified by expense items for every six months).

c/ The plan for implementation of the quality improvement project

+ The project implementation plan and the financial plan;

+ Form of co-financing.

d/ Project management and implementation

+ The list of personnel to participate in the project management and implementation and their duties;

+ Contact addresses.

Besides, all sub-projects participating at levels B and C must also submit technical appendices (made according to the forms set by the Project Coordinating Board), stating in detail the estimated expenditures, and plans for implementation and bidding for the sub-projects).

Article 17.- Dossier submission cycle

In the period of implementation of the Higher Education Project, there will be two or more cycles for submission of dossiers, evaluation, consideration and selection of projects of the Quality Improvement Fund. Any dossiers which cannot be submitted in a cycle may be submitted in subsequent cycles under Article 5 of this Regulation.

Chapter V

USE OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND GRANTS

Article 18.- Grant agreement

1. The universities with projects approved by the Directing Council for grants should contact and sign the grant agreements with the Project Coordinating Board. Only after the signing of these agreements can the universities start to use Quality Improvement Fund grants.

2. The universities which receive Quality Improvement Fund grants must implement the projects concentratedly, efficiently and comply with the regulations and criteria on education, technique, finance, management, keeping of separate records and abide by the accounting principles.

Article 19.- Valid expenses

The following expenses shall be regarded as valid within the frame of the Quality Improvement Fund:

+ Procurement of equipment;

+ Purchase of scientific newspapers and magazines;

+ Hire of international consultants and visiting professors as guest lecturers;

+ Hire of national specialists;

+ Granting scholarships for overseas training and practice;

+ Granting scholarships for domestic training and practice;

+ Organizing overseas field trips;

+ Organizing domestic training;

+ Paying remuneration to lecturers, administrative managers and facilitators;

+ Expenses for minor renovation and repair in preparation for the reception of grants;

+ Expenses for operation and maintenance;

+ Procurement of consumable materials.

Article 20.- Regulations on procurement

The procurement conducted by the projects funded with Quality Improvement Fund grants must comply with the guiding documents issued by the World Bank in January 1995 (amended and supplemented in January and August 1996), List No. 3 of Credit Development Agreement for the Higher Education Project signed between the Vietnamese Government and International Development Association. The method of procurement of goods and equipment, depending on the size of each procurement package, is prescribed as follows:

+ Procurement packages valued at more than USD 100,000 must comply with international competitive bidding procedures according to the standard bidding documents of the World Bank;

+ Procurement packages valued at between USD 25,000 and 100,000 must comply with domestic competitive bidding procedures, according to the standard bidding documents of the World Bank;

+ Procurement packages valued at under USD 25,000 must comply with domestic and international procurement procedures. This method requires three price quotations of two countries in cases of international procurement or three price quotations of three qualified suppliers in cases of domestic procurement.

Article 21.- Regulations on recruitment of consultants

The recruitment of consultants of the projects funded with Quality Improvement Fund grants must comply with the guiding documents on consultants issued by the World Bank in January 1997 (amended in September 1997). The hiring of consulting firms should be based on charges and quality (QCBS). The hiring of independent consultants should be based on their qualifications but, in exceptional cases, the method of designation may be used, if it is so consented by the International Development Association.

Article 22.- Regulations on capital disbursement

The approved projects shall receive grants through the Project Coordinating Board. The process of capital disbursement shall comply with the payment timetable stated in the grant agreements. Each university's financial officials shall disburse the grant according to the university's current disbursement system and submit the disbursement reports together with the explanatory documents as requested by the International Development Association.

Article 23.- Accounting books

The projects' accounting books must be kept according to the financial management principles and ready for production for examination when necessary at the requests of officials and consultants of the International Development Association, members of the Project Coordinating Board and auditors.

Chapter VI

REPORTING

Article 24.- Reports of the project-implementing universities

The principals (directors) of the universities which implement the projects financed by the Quality Improvement Fund shall have to prepare and submit on schedule periodical reports and sum-up reports to the Project Coordinating Board, including:

1. Financial statements: In the process of project implementation, in order to ensure the funding estimation and disbursement, the universities shall have to submit quarterly and annual financial statements and project settlement reports to the Project Coordinating Board;

2. Progress reports: The universities which have received Quality Improvement Fund grants must submit brief reports on the quarterly implementation progress to the Coordinating Board on the use of Quality Improvement Fund grants and the implementation of the quality improvement program;

3. Project review reports: After the completion of each project, the universities shall have to submit to the Coordinating Board a review report on the implementation process and results achieved by the project according to the contents agreed upon in the grant agreements;

4. Program review reports: The universities shall have to submit to the Project Coordinating Board the program review reports upon the completion of all projects financed by the Quality Improvement Fund.

Article 25.- Technical inspection reports and sum-up reports

1. Technical inspection reports: Technical inspections shall be conducted every year by a group of accountants and technicians independent from the agencies responsible for evaluating, selecting and coordinating quality improvement grants. Technical inspection reports shall be sent to the Government and the International Development Association.

2. Sum-up reports: The Project Evaluating Board shall have to make annual sum-up reports and send them to the Project Directing Council on the activities of the Quality Improvement Fund.

Chapter VII

IMPLEMENTATION PROVISIONS

Article 26.- Implementation organization and guidance

The Project Coordinating Board and the Project Evaluating Board shall have to guide the universities in implementing this Regulation.

Article 27.- Amendments and supplements to the Regulation

In the process of implementation of the Higher Education Project, on the basis of the agreement between the Vietnamese Government and the International Development Association, this Regulation may be amended and supplemented so as to suit the practical situation.