Your articles are both incorrect and misleading.
It is a repeat of misinformation in other publications which have been totally refuted..
We need to correct you, the supply and services contract awarded to the Balfour-Cleveland was successfully completed without any cost overrun whatsoever for any part of the project which Balfour-Cleveland were responsible.
The project carried out for the Philippine Government and awarded to Balfour-Cleveland under the UK assisted ODA funding was for the design, supply of steel superstructures and advisory services with technical support and transfer of technology only;
The Balfour-Cleveland Contract was successfully completed within the original contract value; there were no additional costs
The Balfour-Cleveland Contract was successfully completed on time to the revised programme required by the Govt of the Philippines.All bridges were supplied ahead of the Governments requirements.
The Balfour-Cleveland Contract project final cost of the works came in under budget as reconciled, audited and verified by both the UK Governments Department for International Development(”DFID”) and DPWH.
Other parts of the bridge programme outwith our contract are unrelated to Cleveland-Balfour and as we were not party to these arrangement we cannot comment. Your article unfairly and incorrectly mixes these separate arrangement and we totally refute their linkage:
We at Cleveland Bridge take our contractual duties very seriously, we deliver on programme and to cost.
We therefore request that a rebuttal is issued by your newspaper at the earliest possible juncture.