Sample Solution
A city’s no-bid spending limit is an amount of money that may be spent without a request for proposal (RFP) process. This limit is set by the city council or local governing body and is usually based on the size and financial capabilities of a municipality. In order to ensure transparency, cities must keep careful records and adhere to specific regulations when engaging in any sort of procurement processes involving large amounts of money, such as entering into contracts with private entities or purchasing innovative technologies.
When it comes to making large purchases, municipalities traditionally use a RFP process wherein vendors submit offers detailing their products or services which are then evaluated against each other before awarding the contract. However this model can be time consuming due to the high volume of requests for proposals received and often does not adequately accommodate new technologies or breakthrough solutions which may not fit neatly within existing frameworks (Berazneva et al., 2018). To help mitigate some of these issues alternative methods like direct purchase orders, two-stage selections, competitive dialogue procedures have been developed allowing more freedom when selecting contractors while still maintaining necessary checks balances (Klein & Laws 2020).
At times however, even these alternative approaches can present challenges particularly when dealing with highly specialized items like cutting edge technology where there are few providers capable offering such goods services at competitive prices Kovacs et al., 2019). City leaders therefore must carefully consider any roadblocks they might encounter beforehand determining whether pursuing such options would ultimately benefit their citizens both economically socially before moving forward.
In conclusion, understanding what goes into municipal procurement decisions through knowledge no-bid spending limits potential alternatives traditional RFP models will help equip city leaders make informed purchasing decisions best suited meet needs their constituents regardless how complex the situation may seem.
As the Philippines acquired full freedom in 1946, the Filipinos were all the while recreating themselves from their encounters with the Spaniards, Americans and Japanese. Regardless of whether the Philippines was at that point independent and sovereign, the nation actually required direction especially in molding its own type of government. Since it was the Americans, the new occupiers in the country, the type of government that the Americans had laid out during their occupation was still new to the Filipinos. Thus, the commonsense and helpful choice for the Filipinos to do as far as picking its type of government was to put together it with respect to the model being proposed by the Americans, a majority rule republic with an official type of government. At the present, this is the sort of government, which actually exists in the Philippines.
To be sure, these two progressive occasions of the Spanish colonization and the American occupation had impacted the current type of government in the Philippines, which is unitary. This type of government has run and worked the country for very nearly four centuries. However, why would that be a move for Federalism by President Rodrigo Duterte? It is for this question that this study will be sought after. Adjusting an arrangement of government that is proper to the nation is a significant choice since it will direct and shape the aggregate exercises of individuals. Likewise, it will decide how country will push ahead as one reduced body. In this paper, the specialists trust that through differentiating and contrasting the unitary and bureaucratic types of government, it will augment our comprehension in which type of government is fitting to the country.
Survey OF RELATED Writing
This part presents the different writing that can uphold the proposition of this review. Concentrates on the unitary and administrative types of government as far as political interest, spending plan allotment and distribution of abilities are the apparent significant writing.
A.Unitary Government
There are 123 popularity based nations in this present reality. (Ziomek, 2013). In those nations, a few constitutions place practically all political power in the focal government, with minimal free dynamic left to territories or districts. Others make a moderately feeble focal government, with numerous political choices being made at lower levels. The previous alludes to a unitary government. As per Dickovick (2003), there are in excess of 150 nations practice the unitary arrangement of government as it is the most involved framework in the official and parliamentary nations today.
A unitary state is one in which no other legislative body except for the focal government has any areas of strategy that are solely influenced quite a bit by. A nearby government actually exists yet its power is designated by the focal government, not decide by the constitution. (Riker, 1964). The unitary government, which power rotates around the focal power, Tumangday (2013) alludes it as a start to finish government since the power comes from the top (focal government) and streams down to the base (neighborhood government). The focal government is accountable for strategy making and is a definitive regulation making body in the land. In a popularity based unitary framework, the focal government has total independence over all degrees of government, and no powers are settled for those levels. (Barrington, 2013)
