"It is time for us to go to the people rather than ask the people, especially the poor, to come to us."
The Jury Deliberation Report for Sustainable Shelter Category is now available for downloading. Here are some excerpts from the report:
Prior to the Jury Deliberation scheduled last November 10, 2008 at Room 101 of the University Hotel in UP Campus, Diliman, Quezon City, the jury panel agreed that eligible entries will be judged on the following criteria and scoring weights:
Criterion 1: Clearly show use of sustainable design features and appropriate building technologies (25 points max.)
Criterion 2: Original and innovative (25 points max.)
Criterion 3: Cost-effective (20 points max.)
Criterion 4: Environmentally-sound construction (20 points max.)
Criterion 5: Socio-culturally sensitive and affordable (10 points max.)
The jury also applied the following rules in selecting eligible entries:
1. Late submissions on the date of the deadline (i.e. those received after 5:00pm of Oct.24) shall have point deductions from the entry’s total score. For every 30 minutes of late submittal, 1.0 point shall be deducted. For example, the if the entry was submitted at 6:45pm and garnered a total score of 83.75 points, 4.0 points will be deducted and its final score would be 79.75 points.
2. Entries submitted after the Oct. 24 deadline will be disqualified.
3. Entries that did not conduct the required community area visit will be automatically disqualified.
Jury Deliberation Process
The judging process consisted of the following steps:
1. Before actual jury review, the Secretariat Committee examined all submissions to ascertain whether they complied with submission and presentation board layout requirements and procedural rules, and noted compliance of the proposed designs to space requirements.
2. At the start of the jury review sessions, selected resource persons and community representatives were invited for a discussion of the entries’ merits. All qualified entries were displayed and seen also by the group and their comments were solicited to be considered by the jury in their deliberations.
3. For the first round of jury review, each jury member scored the entries according to the scoring system. Each entry’s scores were averaged to obtain the total score. All entries with an average total score of 70.0 points and higher comprised the semi-finalists’ pool that advanced to the second round.
4. For the second round of jury review, previous total scores were disregarded and each entry (in the finalists’ pool only) was scored by the jury panel unanimously. Ample time was given to the jury panel for deliberation. The discussion from this deliberation formed part of the jury comments on winning and notable entries.
5. The jury selected winning designs and designated First, Second, and Third Award according to the following standard:
First Award – with at least a final score of 90 points
Second Award – with at least a final score of 80 points
Third Award – with at least a final score of 70 points
The innovation (criterion 2) score was used as the tie-breaker. The jury also decided on whether to give out special awards for some entries.
6. After the winning designs were selected, the envelopes containing the winners’ names were opened by the Secretariat Committee and the contents read to the jury.
7. Winning designers were notified through email on November 12, 2008 by the Secretariat Committee. Awarding ceremonies will be scheduled by TAO-Pilipinas in December 2008.