On DPWH contracts, and other reactions

The STAR ran last Saturday a reaction from DPWH Sec. Rogelio Singson to my column, “Shoddy bridge supplier gets new gov’t contract.” In that column of Sept. 17, 2012, I pointed that:

(1) Balfour Cleveland Consortiums (aka Balfour Beatty, Balfour Cleveland, and Cleveland Balfour) is the same Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd. (CBUKL) that recently got NEDA approval for a multibillion-peso bridge repair program to be funded by a British government loan.

(2) that Balfour Cleveland incurred cost overruns in a similar program in 2001-2007, showing poor performance record in bridge building, and so under COA recommendations must be blacklisted.

Singson tried to refute me, saying:

• “The recent NEDA-approved proposal of CBUKL passed the DPWH Evaluation Criteria of Proposals for Foreign Assisted Projects ... and the rigorous review by the NEDA Investment Coordinating Committee Technical Board... Records showed that Balfour Cleveland and CBUKL are not the same, and that Balfour is not a party to the proposed new bridge projects.

• “Balfour Cleveland did not incur cost overruns. The project cost increased from P3.04 billion to P5.19 billion primarily due to… additional scope of works such as construction of approaches, slope protection, and other appurtenant structures that were not considered in the original cost submitted to NEDA.”

I hope nobody is pulling Singson’s leg to make such claims that can put him in a bad light. For, no less than reports by and submissions to the DPWH show that:

• Balfour Cleveland Consortium and CBUKL have one and the same country rep, Grahame Coles. A DPWH press release on the Pasil Bridge, Kalinga, which collapsed while being built, and letters to newspapers from Coles identified him as such for BCC in 2001-2007. More recently a letter from Coles to the DPWH is printed on CBUKL stationery, with address: Cleveland House, PO Box 27, Yarm Road, Darlington, Co Durham, DL1 4DE UK. Incidentally, below Coles’ signature is the e-mail address [email protected]. If Singson traces this contact detail, he will find out that Marblus Inc. is yet another civil and engineering company specializing in modular bridges and highway approaches.

• A DPWH internal aide memoire stated a 79-percent cost overrun of British official development assistance (ODA) for bridges in 2001-2007. The NEDA reported that construction, slated for only three years, was completed after six years. Too, a 71-percent increase (P2.148 billion) from the original P3.04 billion to P5.188 billion. In saying that this was due to additional civil works, Singson in effect admitted that the British ODA was misused for incomplete projects. Too, that there indeed was cost overrun. A cost overrun, also called cost increase or budget overrun, is an unexpected cost incurred in excess of a budgeted amount, due to an underestimation of the actual cost during budgeting.

*      *      *

My piece last Friday about fund mishandlings by provincial capitolios, city halls, and municipios elicited many readers’ reactions, like:

• Roman Goce: “The COA special audits you cited were in the ARMM, Mindanao, and Western Visayas. What are the COA-Central Luzon findings from regular audits in, say, Mabalacat City, Pampanga? The proper agencies must act on fund anomalies.”

• EJ Flores, Las Piñas City: “Mishandlings of public funds happen right in Metro Manila. COA and DILG personnel assigned to the city halls connive with or succumb to the mayor; thus, the corruption right down to the barangay. The national leadership of the COA and DILG must consider unscheduled reshuffling of field personnel.”

*      *      *

The piece last Wednesday on anomalous DPWH field offices also drew numerous reactions, like:

• David L. King: “This concerns the nearly completed widening and rehab of national and secondary roads in the Cavite towns of Silang and Carmona, and cities of Dasmariñas and Trece Martires. The projects will benefit commuters and motorists. But something pricked my curiosity. On the billboard that states the costs of the projects, there was only one contractor named. How could this be possible? I checked out the DPWH website, which also listed the project costs, but this time with no contractor listed. I e-mailed the DPWH Secretary about this; that was months ago, but up to now no reply.”

*      *      *

Lastly, a rejoinder last Thursday of Kolonwel Trading to my earlier column drew a rebuttal from Trust Trade, winning bidder of the PNP’s 60,000 police handguns. Kolonwel rehashed three old claims: that the PNP awarded the contract to Trust Trade while Kolonwel had a pending protest, that the PNP endurance-test rules were flawed for having continuous firing only for 150 rounds instead of 500 before cleaning, and that the lady rep of Trust Trade interrupted the endurance testing to have its own shooters fire its 9-mm Glock pistols.

Excerpts from the rebuttal from Trust Trade’s Joy Gutierrez-Jose, director for marketing and operations:

“The purchase is for almost P2 billion. It’s only commonsense that the bids and awards committee carefully would follow the Procurement Reform Act of 2003. R.A. 9184 states that joint ventures — say, Kolonwel, with Countermeasures and CZ — must identify the lead partner. Does Kolonwel coordinate with its partners; maybe the PNP reply to its protest was sent to Countermeasures, the known CZ distributor and PNP supplier?

“All bidders’ reps were supposed to attend the pre-bid conferences. It was stressed that, as in a 2011 bidding (that failed), the endurance test would be for 150 rounds, followed by bore cleaning. Also, fieldstripping, oil brushing and fanning every 1,000 rounds. I was that ‘lady rep of Trust Trade.’ I have participated in PNP biddings since 2002 and never was there any rule for continuous firing of 500 rounds before cleaning.

“The interruptions that Kolonwel claimed were for two things. One was to inform the official test shooters, as stated in the rules, if they fired 15 rounds much faster than the needed ten and 15 seconds, respectively, for fast and slow firing. The other was when the firearm misfired, in this case due to official shooter’s misplaced thumb, and so our shooters were made to show that the firearm did not really jam.

“It should not be taken against Trust Trade, or the PNP, if a competitor’s rep does not understand the rules, much more firearms.”

*      *      *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ, (882-AM).

E-mail: [email protected]