In response to an issue raised at the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Governor Joseph C. Cua has reportedly called for an investigation into the alleged irregularities in the design and construction of a P55-million road construction project being undertaken by the Department of Public Works (DPWH) Regional Office V in Sicmil, Gigmoto.
It is claimed that the provincial chief executive has written DPWH Bicol Regional Director Virgilio C. Eduarte to withhold any payment to the contractor, E.R. Rodriguez Construction Corporation, pending the completion of a thorough probe of the project
In a privilege speech the other week, Provincial Board Member Josevan Balidoy made the call regarding reported anomalies in the project as found out by the Provincial Project Monitoring Committee during its regular inspection of DPWH projects on May 17, 2024.
A copy of the field monitoring report shown to the Tribune indicated that the project, intended to build a road from the national highway to Minaabat Point in Sicmil, was started on July 5, 2022 at an original cost of nearly P55 million based on the contract signed by RD Eduarte with ERR Construction Corp. in June 2022.
The project, involving the construction of a 920-meter gravel road and 2,309 sq. m. of slope protection, among other items of work, had a target completion date of February 15, 2023.
However, for various reasons, the project’s completion date was revised to August 7, 2023, January 15, 2024, and March 15, 2024, indicating that it was supposed to be completed by the time the PPMC made its inspection.
In fact, the committee report stated, DPWH engineers Lou Anne Panesa and Elijorge Manlangit signed a Project Accomplishment Report showing that the road project was already 91% completed as of Dec. 31, 2023.
The committee, however, discovered that the actual accomplishment in the same project as of May 2024 is only 64.5%, for a negative slippage of more than 15%.
It likewise noted that even after the supposed expiration of the contract on March 15, 2024, ER Rodriguez Construction Corp. continued work on a revised route even in the absence of a duly approved Contract Time Extension and Variation Order, in violation of Section 3, Annex E of Republic Act 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.
Another adverse finding was the use of cracked concrete pavement in the Stone Masonry and Grouted Riprap, instead of boulders as required by the plans and specifications, making it substandard.
The committee was also unable to verify the actual depth of the Stone Masonry that serves as a retaining wall as it has been covered by embankment materials.
The slant height and the berm width of the Grouted Riprap is likewise not in accordance with the submitted plan while in some sections the foundation have longitudinal cracks, it was noted.
At the time of the inspection, only a few sections of the gravel road project had Sub-Base Course or gravel material while the actual slope of the side cut is between 70 to 80 degrees, instead of the required 45 degrees.
Not one of the four (4) project billboards required under the contract was installed by the contractor, which also failed to install barricades and warning signs along the entire length of the project.
A independent review of the plan’s profile and cross sections for the road project, especially the cut-and-fill sections, showed that the same are not realistic and do not seem to reflect actual topography as indicated by the finished cut sections.
Majority of the road sections in the plan indicate a cut of 10 to 20 meters, which as a rule has to be avoided as a matter of appropriate road engineering standards, a road engineer told the Tribune.
The road planner could have moved the finished grade higher than indicated on the plan to minimize the volume of cut, reducing the volume and cost of Surplus Common Excavation and most likely extending the length of the project.
Documents showed that this finding is backed up by the fact that the contractor actually reduced the volume of Surplus Common Excavation by a very large quantity and as a result, the volume for the said item in Variation Order No. 2 was not attained.
It was this finding that shocked PBM Balidoy, who said he made an actual visit to the project site a few days before his privilege speech.
“Not only is the design of the road not in accordance with DPWH standards but it is grossly and shamefully overpriced,” he emphasized, comparing its P55 million cost for a 920-meter gravel road to the present cost of paving a 6.7-wide and 280-mm thick national road, which costs only P35 million per kilometer.
If the allegations are true, certain DPWH regional officials and the contractor could face charges of violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, specifically Section 3 (g), for entering into the contract that is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.