Republic of the Philippines )City of Iloilo ) S.S.x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, MANUEL P. MEJORADA, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident of 19-11 La

Belle St., Pavia, Iloilo, after having been sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose

and state:

1. This is a criminal and administrative complaint for violation of Republic Act No.

3019, particularly (e) and (g), or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in

relation to Republic No. 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act,

against the following:

a. City Mayor JED PATRICK E. MABILOG, with temporary office at the 3rd

Floor, Robinsons Place, Ledesma St., Iloilo City, his official capacity as

Local Chief Executive and Head of the Procuring Entity as defined in

Republic Act No. 9184;

b. Atty. JOSE JUNIO JACELA, chairman, Bids and Awards Committee,

Iloilo City LGU, with temporary office at the 3rd Floor, Robinsons Place,

Ledesma St., Iloilo City;

c. And such other persons, specially members of the Bids and Awards

Committee (BAC), who are involved in this transaction; and

d. F. F. Cruz and Company, Inc. and Freyssinet Filipinas, Inc. Joint Venture,

building contractor for the project, with address at Barangay Lapuz, Lapaz,

Iloilo City;

In connection with the unlawful award of the Phase 2 supplementary works for the

new Iloilo City Hall building project without undergoing the mandated open,

competitive public bidding;

2. That I am a taxpayer of the City of Iloilo and the Republic of the Philippines, and I

am filing this complaint in that capacity;

3. The offenses were committed by these public officials, and private respondent, as

follows:

a. Sometime in the months of August or September 2011, respondent

Mabilog, in conspiracy with the Bids and Awards Committee headed by

respondent Jacela, illegally, criminally, with obvious intent to defraud the

government and its taxpayers, and in open defiance of the Commission on

Audit (COA) advice to Mabilog that the supplementary contract should

undergo competitive public bidding under RA 9184 and its Implementing

Rules and Regulations-A (IRR-A), proceeded to award the project through

negotiated contract with respondent F. F. Cruz and Company,

Inc./Freyssinet Filipinas Joint Venture to undertake the construction

activities for the completion of the City Hall building project;

b. The complainant cannot specify the exact date when this illegal award

through negotiated procurement which is an exception to the general rule

for competitive public bidding under RULE XVI, Section 53, paragraph

(53.4), of the Implementing Rules and Regulations-A, because the entire

process was kept under wraps, hidden from the public, and to this date, no

details have in fact been disclosed by these respondents;

c. The actions of respondents violate the principle of transparency for

government transactions enunciated under RA 9184;

d. It was only because respondent Mabilog was asked by members of media

that he admitted the construction work has resumed and the contract has

been awarded without undergoing a competitive public bidding (See annex

“A”, a newspaper clipping from The News Today, a newspaper of general

circulation in Iloilo City and the whole of Western Visayas, with the

headline “City Hall project resumes sans bidding”, which appeared on its

front page on October 5, 2011);

e. This action of respondent Mabilog is a complete turn-around from his

public pronouncement last June 2011 that the city government of Iloilo was

going to conduct an “open, competitive public bidding” for the

supplementary work after consultations with the Commission on Audit (see

annex “B”, which is a print-out from the website of SunStar Daily with the

title, “New City Hall’s Phase II up for bidding” that came out on June 23,

2011);

f. In that dialogue with COA, respondent Mabilog was advised that the scopes

of work involved in the supplementary contract do not fall under the

“adjacent and contiguous” category under Section 53, paragraph (53.4), of

the IRR-A for RA 9184, because the items to be undertaken do not meet the

criteria;

g. The pertinent provision above-cited is hereunder quoted:

“53.4. Adjacent or Contiguous. Where the subject contract is adjacent or contiguous to an on-going Infrastructure Project or Consulting Service where the consultants have unique experience and expertise to deliver the required service: Provided, however, That (a) the original contract is the result of a Competitive Bidding; (b) the subject contract to be negotiated has similar or related scopes of work; (c) it is within the contracting capacity of the contractor/consultant; (d) the contractor/consultant uses the same prices or lower unit prices as in the original contract less mobilization cost; (e) the amount involved does not exceed the amount of the ongoing project; and (f) the contractor/consultant has no negative slippage/delay: Provided, further, That negotiations for the procurement are commenced before the expiry of the original contract.”

h. As explained to the undersigned by COA Iloilo City Team Leader Ofelia T.

Demegillo, the supplementary contract fails to meet ALL the conditions set

forth in Section 53.4 of Rule XVI of the IRR-A for RA 9184, particularly

under sub-sections (b) and (d);

i. The scopes of work for the supplementary contract cannot be

considered as “similar or related scopes of work”;

1. The original contract was predominantly civil works in

nature;

2. The scopes of work for the supplementary contract involved

mechanical, electrical, plumbing, data cabling, fire-fighting

systems and other components to make the project

operational and ready for occupancy;

ii. Because the scopes of work did not meet the requirement for sub-

section (b), there is no basis for the procuring entity (The City of

Iloilo) to arrive at “the same prices or lower unit prices” as the

original contract because their nature are vastly different;

1. The philosophy behind sub-section (d) is to be able to

“compare apples with apples” in negotiating the unit prices

for a negotiated contract;

2. Hence there is no comparison for the prices of Portland

cement and steel bars on the one hand, and electrical cables

and firefighting systems on the other hand;

i. The supplementary works, which are basically composed of the scopes of

work DELETED from the Proposed Iloilo City Hall Project by virtue of the

“Bid Bulletin No. 1” posted by the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) in

the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PHILGEPS)

website, an extract of which furnished by PhilGEPS Director III Rosa Maria

M. Clemente per her letter dated September 1, 2011 is attached as Annex

“C”:

i. STRUCTURAL WORKS

1. Canteen construction on the roof deck;

ii. ARCHITECTURAL WORKS

1. Deck insulation;

2. Epoxy paint on parking area and roof deck;

iii. SANITARY/PLUMBLING WORKS

1. Water heater;

2. Motor pumps and Pressure Tanks

iv. FIRE PROTECTION WORKS

1. Fire and jockey pump;

v. ELECTRICAL WORKS

1. Power cables (XLPE)

2. Distribution transformers

3. Generator Set and its auxillaries

4. Wires and cables, equipment and cabinets/frames for Data

System

vi. MECHANICAL WORKS

1. Air-con equipment

vii. EQUIPMENT

1. Three (3) units passenger elevators

j. A cursory glance at the scopes of work for the supplementary contract is

enough to show that there can be no basis for comparing unit prices,

which is a strict condition under Section 53.4 of the IRR-A of RA 9184;

k. Neither can these scopes of work be “similar” to civil works;

l. But despite having been advised by the Commission on Audit (COA) that

the supplementary works did not meet the requirements of Section 53.4 of

the IRR-A of Republic Act No. 9184, respondents proceeded to

surreptitiously pursue the negotiated procurement for the contract and only

revealed that the deed had been done after it was already completed;

m. It is clear from the manner the transaction was carried out that there was

malicious and criminal intent to deceive the general public and violate the

provisions of RA 9184 to ensure the contract is awarded to the private

respondents without undergoing competitive public bidding;

n. There’s more than just violating the provisions of RA 9184 in this

transaction;

o. The cost estimates for the supplementary works were also bloated by the

respondents ;

p. Phase II of the Iloilo City Hall project cost a minimum of P260 million

based on their own public pronouncements, which is 40 times more than

what the LGU’s own construction consultant, Engr. Conrado Goco of the

Pacific Orient Management Consultants, estimated during a cable television

program, “Serbisyo Publiko”, hosted by City Councilor Perla S. Zulueta

sometime in May 2011, which is P48 million;

i. I published a blog article about this interview in my “Point of View”

WordPress blog on May 16, 2011, a printed copy of which is

attached as Annex “D”;

q. Architects in Iloilo City have criticized the project as overpriced, because

by their own estimates and knowledge in the construction industry,

medium-rise buildings such as this project would only involve a unit cost of

P18,000 per square meter, which in the case of the Iloilo City Hall with its

16,000 square meters of floor area, should cost only about P288 million;

r. The original contract for the project was already overpriced based on these

industry standards, as it carried a price tag of P368 million;

i. The price tag for the original contract was subsequently adjusted to

P450 million by way of change orders

s. With the additional cost of P260 million for phase II or the supplementary

works that respondents undertook, the total cost of the project will reach

P710 million;

t. Clearly, the dictum for public officials to pursue projects and other

activities with economy and efficiency was disregarded, and discarded, by

respondent Mabilog as Head of the Procuring Entity;

i. He was presented with cost estimates amounting to P48 million for

the scopes of work for phase two to complete the building, but he

threw it aside and came up with a P260 million price tag;

u. These deliberate acts, in defiance of the advice given by the Commission on

Audit, and in a complete turn-around on respondent Mabilog’s own

declaration that there will be an open, competitive public bidding for the

supplementary works, will result in injury and gross disadvantage to the

government and taxpayers in contravention of Section 3 paragraphs (e) and

(g) of RA 3019;

v. The chairman and members of the Bids and Awards Committee conspired

to make a mockery of RA 9184 by resolving to award, by way of a

negotiated contract, the supplementary works even though the scopes of

works these covered do not fall under the category of “adjacent and

contiguous” and give undue benefit and advantage to private respondents

for this contract which is grossly overpriced;

w. The private respondent knowingly and deliberately conspired with the

public respondents herein in defrauding the government in accepting the

supplementary contract in blatant violation of the cardinal rule for

government procurements that the transaction should undergo competitive

public bidding;

4. That I am executing this complaint affidavit for the purpose of attesting to the

truthfulness of the foregoing statements and file this criminal and administrative

complaint against the respondnents;

5. Further, affiant sayeth naught.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ______ day of February, 2012,

at Iloilo City, Philippines.

MANUEL P. MEJORADAComplainant-Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________________ in Iloilo City,

Philippines. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and I am fully

satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood his complaint-affidavit.

__________________________