Decision No. 29/2003/QD-BGDĐT on the issuance of regulations for the use of the Fund to improve the quality of the Higher Education Project

DECISION
Regulations on the use of the Quality Improvement Fund for the Higher Education Project

----------------------------

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Pursuant to Decree No. 86/2002/NĐ-CP dated November 5, 2002 of the Government stipulating the functions, tasks, powers, and organizational structure of Ministries and ministerial-level agencies;

Pursuant to Government Decree No. 43/2000/NĐ-CP dated August 30, 2000 detailing and guiding the implementation of certain provisions of the Education Law;

Pursuant to Decision No. 649/QĐ-TTg dated July 24, 1998 of the Prime Minister regarding the Higher Education Project (the Higher Education Project);

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

Pursuant to …;:

Article 1. The accompanying Decision hereby promulgates the Regulations on the use of the Quality Improvement Fund for the Higher Education Project.

Article 2. This Decision shall take effect fifteen days from the date of publication in the Official Gazette. This Decision replaces Decision No. 03/1999/QĐ-BGDĐT dated February 11, 1999 of the Minister of Education and Training.

Article 3. The Director of the Office, Heads of the Planning and Finance Department, Director of the Higher Education Project, Heads of relevant units, and Principals of universities participating in the Higher Education Project are responsible for implementing this Decision.

(Attached to Decision No. 738/2004/QD-NHNN dated June 16, 2004 of the Governor of the State Bank of Vietnam)
Regulations on the use of the Quality Improvement Fund for the Higher Education Project
(Pursuant to Decision No. 29/2003/QĐ-BGDĐT dated June 24, 2003 of the Minister of Education and Training)

Chapter 1:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1. Purpose of the regulations

1. To introduce to universities, research institutions, government agencies, and interested individuals the purpose of the Quality Improvement Fund, and the criteria that universities must meet to be eligible for funding from the Fund.

2. To guide procedures and tasks to be carried out during the process of applying for and using funds from the Quality Improvement Fund.

3. To serve as a basis for evaluating, classifying, ranking, and providing funding for projects seeking support from the Quality Improvement Fund.

Article 2. Objectives and contents of the Higher Education Project

The Ministry of Education and Training, authorized by the Government of Vietnam, implements the Higher Education Project with credit support from the International Development Association of the World Bank.

1. The objectives of the Higher Education Project include:

a. Enhancing the connectivity, flexibility, and adaptability of the higher education system to the increasingly high and diverse demands of economic and social development;

b. Improving the quality of teaching and research at universities;

c. Enhancing the efficiency of resource utilization throughout the higher education system and within each university.

2. The contents of the Higher Education Project include:

a. Component I: Support for enhancing management and operational capacity at the system level and at universities (within the scope of the Higher Education Project);

b. Component II: Financial support, based on competition, to strengthen activities aimed at improving the quality of teaching and research at universities through the Quality Improvement Fund;

c. Component III: Support for the management and implementation of the Higher Education Project.

Article 3. Sources of finance, beneficiaries, and objectives of the Quality Improvement Fund

1. Sources of finance and beneficiaries of the Quality Improvement Fund The Quality Improvement Fund is established based on a portion of the loan from the International Development Association and the State Budget of Vietnam to fund activities conducted by public universities to enhance the quality and effectiveness of training. Grants from the Quality Improvement Fund will only be provided to public universities meeting the criteria, on a competitive basis.

2. Objectives of the Quality Improvement Fund The Quality Improvement Fund will support programs aimed at achieving the following objectives:

a. Encouraging the consolidation and development of multi-disciplinary universities;

b. Reforming, updating textbooks, modernizing teaching methods, restructuring academic disciplines, curricula, and training programs to meet labor market needs;

c. Enhancing the qualifications and skills of administrative and teaching staff to improve the quality and effectiveness of training and research;

d. Enhancing the flexibility and adaptability of universities to societal requirements.

Article 4. Scope of the Quality Improvement Fund

1. Activities within the scope of financial support from the Quality Improvement Fund include:

a. Enhancing management and operational capacity for training and research activities;

b. Training and developing teaching staff;

c. Improving the structure of training programs, content, and curricula;

d. Upgrading and purchasing new technical equipment for training and research;

e. Upgrading and expanding libraries, information centers, computer centers, and other shared facilities serving training and research activities;

f. Connecting internal school computer networks.

2. The Quality Improvement Fund will not provide funding for basic construction activities except for minor renovation and repair work (as stipulated in Article 19 of this Regulation).

Article 5. Levels of Financial Support from the Quality Improvement Fund

The Quality Improvement Fund has three levels of financial support: A, B, and C. Each eligible university may apply for and receive all three levels of support A, B, and C if it meets the respective criteria for each level.

1. Level A Support Universities that meet the eligibility criteria for the Quality Improvement Fund must first submit an application for Level A support to be considered for funding. Each university can only receive one Level A grant throughout the implementation of the University Education Project. The maximum budget for a project applying for Level A support is 500,000 USD. Universities that have not been granted Level A funding in the current selection round may reapply in subsequent rounds.

2. Level B Support Universities that demonstrate effective use of their Level A grant according to its intended purpose, progress, and impact may submit an application for Level B support. Each university can only receive Level B support once throughout the implementation of the University Education Project. The maximum budget for a project applying for Level B support is 750,000 USD.

3. Level C Support Universities that have received Level B support may submit applications for one or more projects at Level C. If a university submits applications for multiple Level C projects simultaneously, it must prioritize them. If the first-ranked project is selected for Level C support, the second-ranked project will also be evaluated, but if the first-ranked project is rejected, no other lower-ranked projects will be evaluated in the current evaluation round, although they may be submitted in the next round. However, rejected projects cannot be resubmitted. The total funding for a university at all three levels A, B, and C shall not exceed the amount specified in Article 6 of this Regulation.

Article 6. Total Funding for a University from the Quality Improvement Fund

The total funding for a university from the Quality Improvement Fund at all three levels A, B, and C shall not exceed either 800 USD multiplied by the number of full-time equivalent students (as defined in Article 8 and calculated based on the latest survey results of universities), or 10 million USD (all grants must be less than this amount).

Part on Grants from the Quality Improvement Fund for all three levels A, B, and C shall not exceed 95% of the anticipated budget to implement proposed projects, with the remaining 5% to be contributed by the university from non-State budget sources. This commitment to contribute is considered a necessary condition for projects seeking grants from the Quality Improvement Fund.

Chapter 2:

QUALIFICATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND

Article 8. General Qualifications

Universities meeting the general qualifications below shall have the right to submit applications for grants from the Quality Improvement Fund:

1. Being a higher education institution (at bachelor's, master's, or doctoral level) with legal status, having an independent administrative and educational management system;

2. Belonging to the public university category;

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

4. Having at least 2,000 full-time equivalent students (at bachelor's, master's, or doctoral level) currently enrolled at the university based on the latest survey results;

5. The grant application must be signed by the Rector (or Director for National University and Regional University).

Article 9. Specific Qualifications for Each Grant Level

1. Level A To be eligible to apply for Level A grants, each university must participate in Component I activities, including:

a. Collecting and providing information on key performance indicators and other required data annually to the university survey and the Project Coordination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Project Coordination Board);

b. Conducting graduate student surveys and supplying necessary information to the Project Coordination Board;

c. Developing and submitting to the Ministry of Education and Training a medium-term development plan for the university.

2. Level B To be eligible to apply for Level B grants, each university must:

a. Commit to continuously improve quality and enhance autonomy and accountability through presenting to the Ministry of Education and Training a revised medium-term plan based on data obtained from graduate student surveys conducted by the university and national university surveys;

b. Demonstrate appropriate and effective use of Level A grants through a detailed report requested by the Project Coordination Board.

3. Level C To be eligible to apply for Level C grants, each university must:

a. Prove that information gathered from university surveys and graduate student surveys has been utilized strategically to improve departmental structures, update curricula, teaching methods, or other changes aimed at enhancing training quality and efficiency, as evidenced by improvements in specific performance indicators set by the Project Coordination Board (as specified in Article 16(c));

b. Have received Level B grants.

Chapter 3:

EVALUATION, SELECTION, AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT BUDGETS

Article 10. Structure of Selection and Evaluation Committees

1. The Steering Committee for the Higher Education Project is established with members invited by the Minister of Education and Training. The number of members does not exceed fifteen part-time members, including:

- The Minister of Education and Training - Chairperson of the Committee;

- The Deputy Minister of Education and Training responsible for higher education - Permanent Member of the Committee;

- Representatives at the Deputy Minister level from the Ministries of Planning and Investment, Finance, Science and Technology, 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 from organizations employing graduates - Member;

- Some experienced and reputable scientists - Members.

2. The Project Evaluation Board (hereinafter referred to as the Project Evaluation Board) consists of:

- The Head appointed by the Minister of Education and Training; - One dedicated information officer;

- One program officer; - One secretary;

- Five scientific advisors (or more) working part-time selected based on their reputation and experience in education, research, and management;

The Project Evaluation Board is responsible for evaluating, ranking, and classifying projects through the Scientific Council. The Scientific Council includes the Head of the Project Evaluation Board and the scientific advisors, supported by experts. The Project Evaluation Board invites these experts according to specific project types to provide specialized advice on the projects under review.

Article 11. Responsibilities of Evaluation and Selection Units

1. The Steering Committee for the Higher Education Project shall be responsible for reviewing and selecting projects based on the assessment, classification, and ranking conducted by the Project Evaluation Board, to submit to the Minister of Education and Training (Chairman of the Steering Committee) for a decision to allocate funds.

2. The Project Evaluation Board shall be responsible for:

a. Checking the participation criteria of universities submitting projects to the Fund;

b. Evaluating projects according to the prescribed standards;

c. Classifying projects according to the prescribed standards;

d. Ranking projects within each funding level A, B, C;

e. Preparing a list of ranked projects and a summary report for each project, accompanied by necessary documents, to be submitted to the Steering Committee through the Project Director for approval.

Article 12. Conditions for Project Selection

Selected projects must meet the following requirements:

1. High quality;

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

3. Aimed at achieving high results in improving the quality of training and scientific research or enhancing efficiency and performance in management and resource utilization;

4. High feasibility;

5. Encouraging collaboration with other domestic and international universities and research institutions.

Article 13. Standards for Evaluating Projects Requesting Funding from the Quality Improvement Fund

Proposed projects will be evaluated and considered based on three groups of standards:

1. Clarity and Reasonableness The clarity and reasonableness of the project will be assessed in the following aspects:

a. The project's objectives must be clear, reasonable, and measurable;

b. The project's objectives must align with the general goals of higher education development and the university's medium-term plan;

c. The project must ensure scientific validity (based on the review and evaluation by the Scientific Council and subject matter experts);

d. Overall, the project must contribute to balancing the development of staff, strengthening equipment, and innovating training content and programs.

2. Impact The impact of the project will be reviewed based on the expected benefits of the project through implementation indicators such as student-to-faculty ratio, unit cost per full-time equivalent student, promotion and dropout rates, employment status of graduates, introduction of new textbooks or modification of existing ones to meet the needs of improving training quality and enhancing the connection between teaching and research, and between training and production. Resource utilization efficiency will be reviewed within the relationship between input and output factors in the training process.

3. Feasibility The feasibility of projects will be assessed based on considerations of:

a. Management and implementation capacity, taking into account the university's experience in applying for funding and the implementation plans of university units responsible for implementing the project;

b. The quality of the management and teaching staff, and necessary facilities to ensure effective project implementation;

c. Financial sustainability through the university's contribution to project implementation from non-state budget sources and additional resources that the project will generate to support future quality improvement activities.

The feasibility of the project will be reviewed through past implementation results of the university and project details. An important criterion for feasibility is the demonstration of the university's management and implementation capacity. Commitment to enhancing management and implementation capacity through the effective implementation of Component I of the Higher Education Project will be particularly considered. The university must commit to ensuring sufficient staff, non-state budget counterpart funding (at least 5% of the total project budget), and necessary facilities to implement the project, these factors will serve as the basis for evaluating the project's sustainability.

When reviewing a university's project, the Project Evaluation Board, through the Scientific Council with the support of subject matter experts, will not only assess the quality of the project but also consider progress over time through key implementation indicators of the university. These indicators are analyzed based on data provided by surveys of universities and graduate student surveys.

When reviewing a university's project, the Project Evaluation Board, through the Scientific Council with the support of subject matter experts, will not only evaluate the quality of the project but also consider progress over time through key implementation indicators of the university. These indicators are analyzed based on data provided by surveys of universities and graduate student surveys.

Article 14. The review process and decision on funding allocation for projects from the Quality Improvement Fund

1. Projects will be reviewed and evaluated through five stages in the following order:

a. Screening based on criteria: The examination of application files for funding support is based on general criteria and specific criteria for each level of funding A, B, and C. Only projects with application files meeting these criteria will be recommended for further review.

b. Evaluation by subject matter experts: The project evaluation board will examine the content of each project that meets the file criteria. Projects with deep scientific or technical content will be sent to subject matter experts for review and to provide advisory opinions to the Project Evaluation Board regarding the scientific and technical aspects of the project. For levels "B" and "C," the Coordination Board will provide the Evaluation Board with information on the implementation of previous grants awarded to institutions. Additionally, the Evaluation Board may, if deemed necessary, invite additional subject matter experts to conduct reviews of the implementation of projects at previous levels. These experts should be selected based on their expertise in specialized fields.

c. Classification of sub-projects: Projects that meet the criteria will be reviewed by each member of the Scientific Council based on reports from subject matter experts, indices, and evaluation criteria proposed by the Evaluation Board. To be recommended for funding, projects must meet minimum thresholds for specific criteria in three groups (reasonableness, impact, feasibility). These minimum thresholds will increase progressively according to the types of funding levels (the standard for level B will be higher than for level A, and the standard for level C will be higher than for level B). After evaluation, each member of the Scientific Council will preliminarily classify projects into categories: Excellent, Good, Pass, or Rejected.

d. University representatives defending submitted sub-projects: Each university submitting an application for QIG "B" or "C" may be required to respond via email or send a representative group to a direct meeting with the Scientific Council to explain and defend their sub-project and answer any questions related to the reasonableness, expected scope of impact, and feasibility of the submitted sub-project. During this meeting, the Scientific Council may request universities to clarify the objectives of the sub-project participating in the quality improvement fund, explain the anticipated benefits and how they will be monitored, and answer questions about the implementation of previous QIG sub-projects and plans for implementing the sub-project participating in the quality improvement program.

e. Ranking of projects: After preliminary classification results, the Scientific Council will convene to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of sub-projects and agree on the final classification for all sub-projects and ranking according to the quality of projects at each level A, B, and C. In the evaluation, classification, and ranking of projects, the Scientific Council must reach a consensus; in case of disagreement, the Scientific Council will decide by voting. The vote of the Chair of the Evaluation Board will be decisive in case of a tie. The classification and ranking results will be presented to the Steering Committee, approved by the Project Director, along with a brief report outlining comments on each project.

2. The decision on funding allocation from the Quality Improvement Fund will be recommended by the Steering Committee based on the evaluation results of the Evaluation Board and the financial capacity of the Fund for each level A, B, and C for the Minister of Education and Training (Chairman of the Steering Committee) to approve. The Steering Committee will determine the appropriate number of projects to be funded from the Fund in each funding allocation meeting to ensure selectivity and the most effective use of the Fund's resources. It is estimated that 9 out of 10 (90%) projects at level A, 2 out of 3 (66%) at level B, and 1 out of 2 (50%) at level C will be funded. This estimate will be reviewed periodically and may be adjusted based on agreement with the World Bank.

3. After the Steering Committee convenes and decides on the selection of projects, universities participating in the Quality Improvement Fund will be notified of the review results. Universities with approved projects will have the right to withdraw funds from the Quality Improvement Fund to implement the project according to procedures guided by the Project Coordination Board.

4. Comments from subject matter experts, discussions of the Scientific Council, and the Steering Committee will be kept completely confidential. Members of the Project Evaluation Board, the Scientific Council, and the Steering Committee will not provide any information about the evaluation, classification, and ranking of projects, nor will they advise on project content for institutions preparing to participate in the Quality Improvement Fund.

5. No member of the units involved in the project evaluation process may advise institutions on revising their projects.

6. The Scientific Council and the Steering Committee must ensure fair evaluation and selection of projects without being influenced by any conflict of interest. Subject matter experts and members of the Scientific Council currently working at institutions with projects participating in the Quality Improvement Fund will not participate in the evaluation process of their own institution’s projects.

7. Institutions submitting projects can only be explained by the Project Evaluation Board about the application procedures and participation criteria for the Quality Improvement Fund.

8. Institutions requiring technical advice during the preparation of project applications (including technical appendices described in Article 16) need to report to the Project Director for consideration and decision so that the Project Coordination Board can sign a contract with service providers for consulting on the preparation, submission, and implementation of sub-projects.

Article 15. Information Work

1. The Project Evaluation Board shall be responsible for:

- Sending regular notifications regarding the schedule for submitting applications to participating schools in the Quality Improvement Fund;

- Providing information on procedures, final deadlines for submission, evaluation timeframes, and project review; - Publishing a newsletter on the situation of participation and implementation of the Quality Improvement Fund; - Announcing the list of members of the Scientific Council and subject matter experts.

2. When performing the responsibilities stipulated in Article 15.1, apart from announcing the name of the project, the name of the school, and the department within the school responsible for the project, the Project Evaluation Board will not provide any other information about individual sponsorship application files.

3. As soon as possible after the decision on funding allocation by the Steering Committee, the Project Evaluation Board shall be responsible for informing each school that submitted an application for sponsorship from the Quality Improvement Fund about the outcome of the project review, accompanied by a summary report from the Scientific Council on the strengths and weaknesses of the project. Apart from this notification, the Project Evaluation Board will not provide any other information related to the specific project evaluations.

Chapter 4:

APPLICATION FILE FOR THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND

Article 16. Content and Format of Application Files for the Quality Improvement Fund

To ensure the consistency of the application file for the Quality Improvement Fund to guarantee fairness and effectiveness in project evaluation and selection, all documents in the file must be prepared according to the prescribed format in both Vietnamese and English. The application for sponsorship from the Quality Improvement Fund should include:

1. Application Form for Sponsorship from the Quality Improvement Fund

The application form includes the following main contents:

- Name of the university - Main management department;

- Unit (department, office, board) and staff responsible for implementing the project;

- Name of the project;

- Summary of the project's objectives;

- Summary of activities requiring sponsorship from the Quality Improvement Fund;

- Expected indicators to be achieved in project activities presented as measurable performance metrics;

- Estimated cost of the project (classified by type of expenditure);

- Duration of the project;

- Forms of co-sponsorship (number and source).

2. Notification of Compliance with Participation Standards in the Quality Improvement Fund

All files must be accompanied by a notification of compliance with the participation standards of the Quality Improvement Fund. This notification must be confirmed with the official seal of the school and clearly state that the school has met the general and specific standards for each level of sponsorship, along with necessary supporting documents including:

a. For all levels of sponsorship

- The number of equivalent full-time students (at bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral levels) in the most recent academic year (as calculated in the latest comprehensive survey);

- Announcement of having a clear administrative and training management system;

- Announcement of participation and provision of necessary information for the annual university survey (indicating the date and month of the most recent working period with the surveyor);

- Announcement of conducting graduate student surveys together with survey results as required by the Project Coordination Board (indicating the date and month of the survey); Official mid-term plan submitted to the Ministry of Education and Training.

b. For Level B sponsorship

- Summary of changes in the school's mid-term plan based on information collected through annual university surveys and graduate student surveys;

- Comprehensive report to the Project Coordination Board on the implementation of Level A sponsorship;

c. For Level C sponsorship

- Summary of how information from university surveys and graduate student surveys was used to develop directions for development, reflected in adjustments to the school's mid-term plan, changes to course programs, teaching methods for specific courses, and/or improvements in quality and efficiency of the school (as measured by performance indicators);

- Comprehensive report to the Project Coordination Board on the implementation of all previous sponsorships from the Quality Improvement Fund.

3. Quality Improvement Fund Participation Project

The content of the Quality Improvement Fund participation project includes the following items:

a. School Information

- Mission of the school;

- Summary of the school's mid-term plan;

- School performance indicators.

b. Content of the Quality Improvement Project

- Project objectives;

- Description of the project and its activities;

- Project targets and specific performance indicators;

- Anticipated benefits;

- Costs for activities (classified by six-month periods).

c. Implementation Plan for the Quality Improvement Project

- Project implementation plan and financial plan.

- Forms of co-sponsorship.

d. Management and Implementation of the Project

- List and responsibilities of staff involved in managing and implementing the project;

- Contact address

Article 17. Submission Period

During the implementation period of the Higher Education Project, there will be two submission periods or more each year for evaluating and selecting projects to improve quality. Applications that are not submitted within this period may be submitted in subsequent periods according to Article 5 of this Regulation.

Chapter 5:

USE OF FUNDS FROM THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND

Article 18. Funding Agreement

1. Universities with approved funding projects by the Steering Committee must contact and sign a Funding Agreement with the Project Coordination Board. Only after completing the signing of this document can the university begin using funds from the Quality Improvement Fund;

2. Universities receiving funding from the Quality Improvement Fund must implement their projects in a focused, effective manner and comply with educational, technical, financial, management regulations, maintain separate accounting records, and ensure accounting principles.

Article 19. Eligible Expenditures

The following expenditures are considered eligible under the Quality Improvement Fund:

- Purchase of equipment;

- Purchase of books, newspapers, and scientific journals;

- Hiring international consultants and foreign visiting professors;

- Hiring domestic experts;

- Scholarships and overseas internships;

- Scholarships and internships within the country;

- Organizing overseas study tours;

- Organizing domestic training sessions;

- Compensation for teaching staff, administrative managers, and support staff;

- Costs for minor renovations and repairs to prepare for receiving funding;

- Operating and maintenance costs;

- Purchase of consumable materials;

Article 20. Procurement Regulations

Procurement activities funded by the Quality Improvement Fund must follow the World Bank's Guidelines issued in January 1995 (amended in January and August 1996), and Schedule 3 of the Development Credit Agreement for the Higher Education Project signed between the Government of Vietnam and the International Development Association. The procurement methods for goods and equipment depend on the size of each procurement package and are specified as follows:

- Procurement packages valued at over $100,000 must follow international competitive bidding procedures according to the World Bank's standard bidding documents;

- Procurement packages valued between $25,000 and $100,000 must follow national competitive bidding procedures according to the World Bank's standard bidding documents;

- Procurement packages valued below $25,000 must follow national and international procurement procedures. This method requires three quotations from two countries in the case of international procurement and three quotations from three qualified suppliers in the case of national procurement.

Article 21. Consultant Recruitment Regulations

The recruitment of consultants for projects funded by the Quality Improvement Fund must follow the World Bank's Guidelines on Consultants issued in January 1997 (revised in September 1997). For hiring consulting firms, cost and quality (CQS) should be the basis. Independent consultant hiring should be based on qualifications, but in exceptional cases, designation may be used with the consent of the International Development Association.

Article 22. Provisions on Disbursement

Approved projects will receive funding through the Project Coordination Board. The disbursement process shall be carried out according to the payment schedule set forth in the Funding Agreement. Financial officers of each university shall disburse the funding according to the current disbursement system of their respective institutions and submit disbursement reports along with explanatory documents as required by the International Development Association and the Project Coordination Board staff and auditors.

Article 23. Accounting Records

Project accounting records must be maintained in accordance with financial management principles and must be available for inspection upon request by the staff and consultants of the International Development Association, the Project Coordination Board staff, and auditors.

Chapter 6:

REPORT

Article 24. Reports from Universities Implementing Projects

The Rectors (Directors) of universities implementing projects funded from the Quality Improvement Fund are responsible for preparing and submitting timely periodic and final reports to the Project Coordination Board, including:

1. Financial Reports: During the implementation of each project, to ensure budget forecasting and disbursement, universities are responsible for submitting quarterly and annual financial reports and final project settlement reports to the Project Coordination Board;

2. Progress Reports: Universities that have received funding from the Quality Improvement Fund must submit quarterly progress reports to the Project Coordination Board regarding the use of the Quality Improvement Fund and the implementation of the quality improvement program;

3. Final Project Reports: After the completion of each project, universities are responsible for submitting to the Project Coordination Board a final report on the implementation situation and results achieved in accordance with the agreed content in the Funding Agreement;

4. Program Summary Reports: Universities are responsible for submitting to the Project Coordination Board a summary report on the program upon completion of all funded projects received from the Quality Improvement Fund.

Article 25. Technical Audit Reports and Summary Reports

1. Technical Audit Reports: Technical audits are conducted annually by an independent group of accountants and technical experts, separate from the agencies responsible for evaluating, selecting, and coordinating Quality Improvement Grants. The technical audit reports will be submitted to the Government and the International Development Association.

2. Summary Reports: The Project Evaluation Board is responsible for preparing annual summary reports for the project steering committee on the activities of the Quality Improvement Fund.

Chapter 7:

IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS

Article 26. Organization and Guidance on Implementation

The Project Coordination Board and the Project Evaluation Board are responsible for organizing and guiding universities in implementing these Regulations.

Article 27. Amendment and Supplement to the Regulations

During the implementation of the Higher Education Project based on the agreement between the Government of Vietnam and the International Development Association, these Regulations may be amended and supplemented to suit specific circumstances.