norte - coa.gov.ph · pdf filemethods required therefor”. ... july 2013; simplified...
TRANSCRIPT
Republic of the Philippines
COMMISISON ON AUDIT
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
A CITIZEN PARTICIPATORY AUDIT REPORT CPA REPORT NO. 2015-001
IMPLEMENTATION OF FARM TO MARKET ROAD PROJECTS OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE
NORTE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.0 INTORDUCTION ……………………………………………………………. 1
2.0 BACKGROUND .……………………………………………………………. 2
3.0 AUDIT FOCUS ..…………………………………………………….............. 3
4.0 AUDIT OBJECTIVES ……………………………………………………… 4
5.0 AUDIT CRITERIA …………………………………………………............. 4
6.0 AUDIT METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………. 5
7.0 AUDIT PERIOD ……………………………………………………............. 5
8.0 AUDIT OVER-ALL RESULTS …………………………………………….. 7
9.0 OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ……………………………. 9
10.0 RESULTS OF CITIZEN SURVEY..………………………………………… 25
11.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………………… 28
12.0 APPENDICES …………..…………………………………………………… 29
13.0 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS………………………………………… 40
Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
Implementation of Farm to Market Road Projects
A Citizen Participatory Audit Report
February 24, 2016
1
Republic of the Philippines
COMMISISON ON AUDIT
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
February 29, 2016
Honorable ROBERTO Y. UY
Governor, Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Norte
Dipolog City
Dear Governor Uy,
Pursuant to Commission on Audit (COA) Resolution No. 2006-002 dated January 31, 2006,
directing Auditors to conduct compliance as well as performance or value-for-money (VFM)
audits, complementary to their financial audit, and to prepare separate reports for the
compliance/VFM audit, while including the gist of the significant findings, observations and
recommendations from the said audits in the Annual Audit Reports, the Audit Teams of the
Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Norte conducted a performance audit of selected
Farm-to-Market Road (FMR) implemented and completed in CY 2014.
For the purpose, we adopted the audit technique of citizen participatory audit in line with the
COA’s response to the call of the President of the Philippines for increased transparency and
citizen participation in governance, and, invoking COA’s authority granted by the 1987
Constitution “to define the scope of its audit and examination” and “establish the techniques and
methods required therefor”. As audit tools, we used “geo-tagging” during project inspection and
administered Survey Questionnaires on the implementation of FMR projects. The survey jointly
conducted by the COA Audit Teams including Members of the Civil Society Organizations
(CSOs), Alternative Center for Organizational Reforms and Development Inc. (ACORD), aimed
to determine whether the FMR contributed to the attainment of the objectives and intent of
Republic Act No. 8435 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
In addition the survey was conducted to determine whether the purpose of the FMR Project is
achieved by the Local Government Units (LGUs) through proper identification of priority
locations of FMRs that takes into account the number of farmers and fisher folk and their
families who shall benefit therefrom and the amount, kind and importance of agriculture and
fisheries products produced in the area. The details of the audits are embodied in this letter.
2
1.0 BACKGROUND
Republic Act (RA) No. 8435, otherwise known as the Agriculture Modernization Act of the
Philippines, prescribes urgent related measures to modernize the agriculture and fisheries sectors
of the country in order to enhance their profitability, and prepare said sectors for the challenges
of globalization through an adequate, focused and rational delivery of necessary support
services.
Pertinent portion of the said act states that it is the declared policy of the State to enable those
who belong to the agriculture and fisheries sectors to participate and share in the fruits of
development and growth in a manner that utilizes the nation’s resources in the most efficient and
sustainable way possible by establishing more access to assets, income, basic and support
services and infrastructure.
Section 46 of the said RA provides for Agriculture and Fisheries Infrastructure Support Services.
– The Department of Public Works and Highways, the Department of Transportation and
Communications, the Department of Trade and Industry and the LGUs shall coordinate with the
Department of Agriculture (referred to as the “Department” in the Act) to address its
infrastructure requirements, provided, that the Department and the LGU shall also strengthen its
agricultural engineering support in carrying out the smooth and expeditious implementation of
agricultural infrastructure projects.
As such, Section 52 of the RA provides that the Department of Agriculture shall coordinate with
the LGUs and the resident-farmers and fisher folk in order to identify priority locations of farm-
to-market roads (FMRs) that take into account the number of farmer and fisher folk and their
families who shall benefit therefrom and the amount, kind and importance of agriculture and
fisheries products produced in the area.
The importance of implementation of FMR projects in country-side development that will help
uplift the lives of farmers and fisher folks in the rural areas and the role of LGUs in this regard,
led to the selection of FMR projects for the next pilot on Citizen Participatory Audit (CPA) by
the Commission. FMRs were subjected to CPA considering, among others, the value and extent
of implementation, the degree of improvement the project will have in the quality of life of the
project beneficiaries, the importance of addressing the need to provide infrastructure access, and
vulnerability to corruption.
In Region IX, among the three (3) provinces, only the Provincial Government of Zamboanga del
Norte had the most number of FMR projects involving large amount of money implemented in
CY 2014, hence, selected FMRs were subjected to this type of audit.
3
2.0 AUDIT FOCUS
The audit focused on FMR projects completed during CY 2013-2014 adopting the CPA
approach. For this purpose, the criteria for high value in terms of project cost and the presence
of resident or advocate CSOs, among others, were considered in the selection criteria of
projects for evaluation.
The audit covered four (4) FMR projects implemented by the Provincial Government of
Zamboanga del Norte in the total amount of P57,052,034.56 with a total area of 36,875 square
meters, with a total population of barangays covered by the projects of 17,579.
IMAGE FROM SATELLITE Project Actual Project
Cost Area
(in sq.m.) Population
Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Norte
1. Concreting Along
Daanglungsod –
Sinuyak – Sitog
Provincial Road,
Katipunan,
Zamboanga del Norte
(image consist of 2
segments)
P13,877,952.00 6,732 6,349
2. Concreting Along
Siare – Dinokot
Madalum – Sindangan
Provincial Road,
Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte
13,296,130.56 5,755 4,355
3. Concreting Along
Villaramos – Saluyong
Provincial Road,
Manukan, Zamboanga
del Norte
13,877,952.00 6,018 2,525
4. Concreting of La
Libertad-Dampalan
(La Libertad Section)
Provincial Road
16,000,000.00 18,370 4,350
TOTALS P57,052,034.56 36,875 17,579
4
3.0 AUDIT OBJECTIVES
The citizen participatory audit was conducted to determine whether:
1. Estimates of the work items, quantities and costs in the approved Program of Works
(POW) were accurate and the project costs were reasonable;
2. FMR projects were implemented in accordance with approved POW, plans and
specification and DPWH Department Orders; and
3. FMR projects achieved the intended purpose, specifically to:
3.1 Validate the public awareness on the FMR projects implemented by LGU’s;
3.2 Verify access of farmers/fisher folk to market as well as arterial roads and
highways through FMR projects; and
3.3 Assess the level of satisfaction of beneficiaries on the FMR projects implemented
by LGUs in their respective barangays.
4.0 AUDIT CRITERIA
To achieve the audit objective, the Audit Teams adopted the following audit criteria:
• Accuracy of estimates and reasonableness of project cost
RA 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations;
DPWH Department Order (DO) No. 11 Series of 2014 dated February 3, 2014
and DO No. 72 series of 2012 ;
DPWH Dept. Order No. 22 series of 2015; LGU Equipment Rental Rates as of
July 2013; Simplified Estimate by Max Fajardo,
COA Circular Nos. 2012-003 and 2009-001 dated October 29, 2012 and
February 12, 2009, respectively; and
Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) Resolution Nos. 018-2006,
07-2009 and 03-2011.
• Compliance with POW, plans and specifications
DPWH DO No. 11 regarding provision on standard measurement for road width,
length and shoulder.
• Effective utilization of FMR projects
Farmers’/fisher folk access/link to market through FMR projects;
5
Road links to the agricultures and fisheries production sites, coastal landing
points and post-harvest facilities to the market and arterial roads and highways;
and
Located within key production areas under convergence initiatives which link
these areas to higher road class system.
5.0 AUDIT METHODOLOGY
The Audit Teams performed the following techniques and procedures:
• Gathered and reviewed approved Annual Investment Plan (AIP), Annual
Procurement Program (APP) and project documents such as POW and detailed cost
estimates, approved plans and specifications, Approved Budget of the Contract
(ABC), bid and contract documents;
• Analysed disbursement vouchers and supporting documents;
• Reviewed of financial and project accomplishment reports;
• Conducted Geo-tagging and documentation of the project with the assistance of
Technical Audit Specialist and CSO Partners;
• Evaluated contract cost and validated reported accomplishment together with the
Technical Audit Specialist and CSO Partners;
• Interviewed LGU officials and employees involved in project implementation;
• Administered survey questionnaire to end-users/project beneficiaries with the
assistance of CSO Partners to evaluate project utilization;
• The consolidation, analysis and preparation of survey results were mainly done by
CSO Partners; and
• Issued Audit Observation Memorandum.
6.0 AUDIT PERIOD
The CPA planning was slated October 1, 2015 with COA Auditors and CSOs representatives in
attendance. The data gathering and processing, actual fieldwork, inspection, data analysis,
preparation and submission of CPA report were undertaken from November 30, 2015 to
February 24, 2016.
6
CPA Planning / CSO Profiling October 1, 2015
Start of actual inspection/measurement of road length/validation of
accomplishment December 2-4, 2015
CPA Capability Building November 10-13, 2015
Processing/analysis of data with ATL/Senior TAS/LGU Engineers
December 2-11, 2015
Entrance Conference December 1, 2015 Exit Conference February 10, 2016
7
7.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Cognizant of the objectives and rationale on the enactment of RA 8435, the LGUs committed to
provide FMRs linking the agriculture production sites to the market and arterial roads and
highways. For this purpose, the LGUs included in their CY 2013 and CY 2014 APP and AIP
under the Local Funds (Loan from PVB and 20% DF) the construction of FMR projects. Some
of these FMRs were subjected to CPA.
For CY 2014, Four (4) FMR projects selected with estimated project cost per POW totalling to
P57,350,000.00 where a total amount of P41,350,000.00 were contracted while one (1) FMR
project amounting to P16,000,000.00 were undertaken by administration, as follow:
Project Project Cost
per POW Actual Project Expenditures
Materials Labor Fuel / Equip /
Overhead Total
BY CONTRACT
1. Concreting Along
Daanglungsod –
Sinuyak – Sitog
Provincial Road,
Katipunan,
Zamboanga del
Norte
P14,000,000.00 6,969,092.00 1,165,935.00 5,742,925.00 13,877,952.00
2. Concreting Along
Siare – Dinokot
Madalum –
Sindangan Provincial
Road, Sindangan,
Zamboanga del
Norte
13,350,000.00 6,482,597.00 1,163,530.00 5,650,003.56 13,296,130.56
3. Concreting Along
Villaramos –
Saluyong Provincial
Road, Manukan,
Zamboanga del
Norte
14,000,000.00 6,752,252.00 1,172,430.00 5,953,270.00 13,877,952.00
Sub-total P41,350,000.00 P20,203,941.00 P3,501,895.00 P17,346,198.56 P41,052,034.56
BY ADMINISTRATION
1. Concreting of La
Libertad-Dampalan
(La Libertad Section)
Provincial Road
P16,000,000.00 10,740,300.00 1,946,137.78 1,698,292.85 14,384,730.63
Sub-total P16,000,000.00 P10,740,300.00 P1,946,137.78 P1,698,292.85 P14,384,730.63
TOTALS P57,350,000.00 P30,944,241.00 P5,448,032.78 P19,044,491.41 P55,436,765.19
8
7.1 Accuracy of estimates and reasonableness of project cost
7.1.1 The preparation of Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) and Programs of
Work (POW) are detailed engineering activities required in the implementation
of infrastructure projects. The ABC shall be prepared on the basis of the design
for the project which has been duly approved by authorized officials in
accordance with existing regulations.
7.1.2 On the other hand, the POW shall include, among other things, estimates of the
work, items, quantities and costs and a PERT/CPM network of the project
activities. In the preparation of POW, Detailed Cost Estimates and ABC, the
implementing agencies are guided by Department Orders (DO) issued by the
DPWH.
7.1.3 Audit, however, disclosed that DPWH Dept. Order No. 22 series of 2015; LGU
Equipment Rental Rates as of July 2013; Simplified Estimate by Max Fajardo,
were not followed accordingly.
7.1.4 Evaluation of project estimates reflected in the POW and ABC disclosed that
three (3) FMR projects under contract were excessive by 5.92% or
P2,295,960.28 per COA Cost Estimate.
Project Title Project Cost
per
Contract
COA-TAS
Evaluation
Excessive
Amount
Reason
Concreting Along
Daanglungsod –
Sinuyak – Sitog
Provincial Road,
Katipunan,
Zamboanga del Norte
P13,877,952.00 P13,135,601.57 P 742,350.43 Excessive cost is due
to over-estimated
number of days of all
equipment used for
Items 201 and 311.
Concreting Along
Siare – Dinokot
Madalum –
Sindangan Provincial
Road, Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte
13,296,130.56 12,519,652.22 776,478.34 Excessive cost is due
to over-estimated
number of days of all
equipment used for all
work items.
Concreting Along
Villaramos –
Saluyong Provincial
Road, Manukan,
Zamboanga del Norte
13,877,952.00 13,100,820.49 777,131.51 Excessive cost is due
to over-estimated
number of days for all
work items.
Total Excess
Amount
P41,052,034.56 P38,756,074.28 P2,295,960.28
9
7.2 Project implementation in conformity with POW, Plans and Specifications
7.2.1 Inspection conducted on December 2 to 4, 2015 revealed the following noted
deficiencies, viz:
Project Title / Images
Findings / Observations
1. Concreting Along Daanglungsod – Sinuyak – Sitog Provincial Road, Katipunan,
Zamboanga del Norte
1.) The actual road project length was found to be 1,122.2 meters and the PCCP width was reduced from
6.10 meters to 6.0 meters with no variation order/change order presented and submitted. However, the
actual PCCP area (6,733.20 sq.m.) was more than the required (6,710.00 sq.m.) by 23.20 sq.m.
2.) Minor transverse cracks were noted on the pavement at stations 0+281 and 1+116.
3.) Excessive scaling on the PCCP surface was observed at the right lane of the road pavement covering 2
blocks of PCCP at station 0+826.
4.) Pothole was noted on the PCCP at the middle of the road pavement with an approximate diameter of
3 inches at station 1+043.
Latitude: 8.478048
Longitude: 123.30908
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+281
Remarks:
Transverse crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement
with a length of 2.15 meters.
Latitude: 8.476202
Longitude: 123.310801
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+565
Remarks:
Pothole was noted on the PCCP at the right lane of the road
pavement with an approximate diameter of 4.5 inches
Latitude: 8.434179
Longitude: 123.306953
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+826
Remarks:
Excessive scaling on the PCCP surface was observed at the
right lane of the road pavement covering 2 blocks of PCCP.
Latitude: 8.429493
Longitude: 123.307097
Stations Involved: Sta. 1+043
Remarks:
Pothole was noted on the PCCP at the middle of the road
pavement with an approximate diameter of 3 inches.
Latitude: 8.428886
Longitude: 123.306802
Stations Involved: Sta. 1+116
Remarks:
Transverse crack was noted on the right lane of the
pavement at with a length of 3 meters.
10
Project Title / Images
Findings / Observations
2. Concreting Along Siare – Dinokot Madalum – Sindangan Provincial Road,
Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte
1.) The actual road project length was found to be 1,151.70 meters and the PCCP width was reduced from
6.0 meters to 5 meters with no variation order/change order presented and submitted. The actual PCCP area
(5,758.5 sq.m.) was less than the required (5,760.00 sq.m.) by 1.50 sq.m.
2.) Several minor transverse cracks were noted on the pavement at Stations 0+100, 0+201, 0+742,
0+932,0+986 and 1+052
3.) Longitudinal crack was noted on Sta. 1+000 with a length of 5 meters at the right lane of the road.
4.) Minor scaling on the PCCP surface was noted on Sta. 0+553 covering 1 block at the left lane of the
Road and at Sta. 1+000, right lane, also covering 1 block of the pavement.
5.) Pothole was noted on the PCCP at Sta. 0+737 with an approximate diameter of 3 inches.
Latitude: 8.31245
Longitude: 122.9761
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+100
Remarks:
Transverse crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement
with a length of 2.5 meters.
Latitude: 8.312555
Longitude: 122.975196
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+201
Remarks:
Transverse crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement
with a length of 2.5 meters.
Latitude: 8.31278
Longitude: 122.97194
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+553
Remarks:
A portion of the PCCP surface, covering 1 block at the left
lane of Sta. 0+553, was observed to be with minor scaling.
Latitude: 8.312933
Longitude: 122.970309
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+737
Remarks:
Pothole on the pavement was observed at Sta. 0+737, left
lane, with an approximate diameter of 3 inches.
Latitude: 8.312932
Longitude: 122.970288
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+742
Remarks:
Transverse crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement
at Sta. 0+742 with a length of 1.58 meters.
Latitude: 8.312979
Longitude: 122.968559
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+932
Remarks:
Transverse crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement
at Sta. 0+932 with a length of 1.73 meters.
11
Project Title / Images
Findings / Observations
Latitude: 8.313011
Longitude: 122.968047
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+986
Remarks:
Transverse crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement
at Sta. 0+986 with a length of 2.5 meters.
Latitude: 8.313044
Longitude: 122.967969
Stations Involved: Sta. 1+000
Remarks:
Longitudinal crack and minor scaling was noted on the right
lane of the pavement at Sta. 1+000 with a length of 5.0
meters.
Latitude: 8.313098
Longitude: 122.967458
Stations Involved: Sta. 1+052
Remarks:
Transverse crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement
at Sta. 1+052 with a length of 2.5 meters.
3. Concreting Along Villaramos – Saluyong Provincial Road, Manukan, Zamboanga
del Norte
1.) The actual road project length was found to be 1,003.80 meters. Actual PCCP area (6,022.80 sq.m.) was
more than the required (6,000.00 sq.m.) by 22.80 sq.m.
2.) Several minor transverse, meander and diagonal cracks were noted on the pavement at stations 0+218,
0+600, 0+913 and 0+944.
3.) Massive longitudinal crack was noted at station 1+000 with a length of 18 meters at the left lane of the
road and major longitudinal crack at station 0+822 with a length of 22 meters also at the left lane of the
road pavement.
4.) Major scaling on the PCCP was noted at station 0+004 covering 2 blocks of PCCP, and at station 0+287
also covering 2 blocks of the PCCP.
Latitude: 8.512366
Longitude: 123.159256
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+004
Remarks:
Major scaling on the PCCP was observed covering both left
and right lanes and about 5 meters in length.
Latitude: 8.510776
Longitude: 123.16039
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+218
Remarks:
Meander crack was noted at the left lane of PCCP.
12
Project Title / Images
Findings / Observations
Latitude: 8.510264
Longitude: 123.160719
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+287
Remarks:
Major scaling on the PCCP was observed covering 2 blocks
at the right side lane of the road.
Latitude: 8.508116
Longitude: 123.162006
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+600
Remarks:
Meander crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement
with a length of 1.10 meters.
Latitude: 8.606564
Longitude: 123.162719
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+822
Remarks:
Longitudinal crack was noted on the PCCP at the left lane of
the pavement with a length of 22 meters.
Latitude: 8.505879
Longitude: 123.162931
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+913
Remarks:
Diagonal crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement
with a length of 5.30 meters.
Latitude: 8.505714
Longitude: 123.162884
Stations Involved: Sta. 0+944
Remarks:
Minor transverse crack was noted on the right lane of the
pavement with a length of 2.20 meters.
Latitude: 8.505089
Longitude: 123.162846
Stations Involved: Sta. 1+000
Remarks:
Major longitudinal and spider crack was noted on the left
lane of the pavement with a length of about 18 meters.
13
7.2.2 Audit of the various construction materials and supplies, equipment rental and
labor component of the project in the “Concreting along La Libertad-Dampalan
Road (La Libertad Section)” undertaken by administration, the following
deficiencies/errors were observed:
Construction Materials and Supplies:
The “Work Item Equipment Schedule” in the approved Program of Work, no
cost was provided for direct materials for item 201-Aggregate Base Course
(Coarse Aggregates & Binder) and Item 311-PCCP (Fine Aggregates &
Coarse Aggregates) as these materials will be hauled from sites using
provincial-owned heavy equipment, however, an amount of P529,550.00 for
these costs were paid;
The procurement of 2”x8”x12” Coco Lumber and #3 and #4 Concrete Wire
Nails exceeded the quantity against the estimate in the approved Program of
Works by 336 bd.ft. and 60 kgs each, equivalent to P6,048.00, P3,720.00 and
P3,390.00, respectively, or a total cost of P13,158.00;
Double requisition of the same quantity but with different unit cost of
construction materials were paid amounting to P73,984.00 and 87,148.00
under Purchase Order Nos. 13-09-0670 and 13-10-0761 dated September 11,
2013 and October 4, 2013, respectively, but were not included in the
estimate in the approved Program of Work but whose payments were
attached with two different POW’s;
Qty. unit cost total cost Qty. unit cost total cost
1 Trapal 300mtrs. 91.20 27,360.00 300mtrs. 80.00 24,000.00
2 Plastic drum (200ltrs.) 10pcs. 1,900.00 19,000.00 10pcs. 1,200.00 12,000.00
3 GA 26 Cor. G.I. sht x 8" 50shts. 188.00 9,400.00 50shts. 260.00 13,000.00
4 GA 26 Palin sheets x 8" 4shts. 192.00 768.00 4shts. 305.00 1,220.00
5 Umbrella Nails 3kls. 82.00 246.00 3kls. 78.00 234.00
6 #2 1/2" CWN 30kls. 53.00 1,590.00 30kls. 75.00 2,250.00
7 #1" CWN 10kls. 65.00 650.00 10kls. 75.00 750.00
8 1/4x4x8 Ordinary Plywood 34pcs. 330.00 11,220.00 34pcs. 445.00 15,130.00
9 4" Hinges 12pairs 42.00 504.00 12pairs 75.00 900.00
10 Welding Rod 5boxes 2,700.00 13,500.00 -
11 #3" CWN 30kls. 49.00 1,470.00 30kls. 75.00 2,250.00
12 #4" CWN 30kls. 48.00 1,440.00 30kls. 75.00 2,250.00
Totals 87,148.00 73,984.00
No.
P.O. # 13-09-0670
delivery date 10.14.13
P.O. # 13-10-0761
delivery date 10.25.13Items/Materials
100 pieces of 2”x 7”x 10” coco lumber amounting to P17,500 were procured
and delivered on January, 2015 despite the project was already 100%
completed on September 4, 2014;
14
112 pieces 2”x 7”x 12” of coco lumber and welding rod were procured
totalling P41,724.00 but these items were not included in the approved POW.
Equipment Rental:
The Provincial Government rented transit mixer with the City Government of
Dipolog to be used for its five (5) different projects undertaken by administration
with the City Government of Dipolog due to unavailability of related equipment
capable to undertake major road concreting projects with lengths of more than
200 linear meters.
Verification of the Obligation Request No. 300(18)14-02-00905 dated February
14, 2014 certified by the Provincial Governor as to “Charges to
appropriation/allotment necessary” and certified by the Provincial Budget Officer
as to “Existence of available appropriation” showed that the amount of
P300,000.00 was charged to this project.
However, the rental equipment for the transit mixer allocated for this project “La
Libertad-Dampalan Road (La Libertad Section)” as prepared by the Head of the
Construction & Maintenance Division of PEO and noted by the OIC Provincial
Engineer, was only P80,000.00, resulting to excessive project cost by
P220,000.00.
Labor Component:
The Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Norte implemented by
administration the project Concreting along La Libertad-Dampalan Road (La
Libertad Section), wherein per attached Individual Project Accomplishment
Report as of October 31, 2014 by the Provincial Engineering Office showed that
the project was started on July 12, 2013 and 100% completed on September 4,
2014. Further verification on the date of actual completion cannot be made as
there was no Certificate of Completion attached to any supporting papers relating
to the said project.
Review and verification made on the supporting papers for the labor component
of the said project showed that payments for masonry/labor/carpentry works
covering the period September 5 to November 15, 2014 against the project fund
even if the said project was already declared as 100% completed on September 4,
2014 as certified by the head of construction and maintenance division and noted
by the OIC Provincial Engineer, which, resulted to an excessive labor cost of
P233,376.00.
15
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT
7.3 RESULTS OF THE CITIZEN SURVEY
A sample of 10% of estimated households for every barangay was taken from respondents
through Convenience Sampling with conscious effort to include representatives from the fisher
folks and farmers group. (see sampling below).
Particulars
Project 1
Municipality of
Katipunan
Project 2
Municipality of
Sindangan
Project 3
Municipality of
Manukan
Project 4
Municipality of La
Libertad
No. of Household per
Barangays (based on
submitted report from
Municipal Planning
Division)
Sitog 741
Sinuyak 296
Macias 364
LaConcepcion 364
Depane 233
Saluyong 261
Poblacion
Dampalan 1,968
Mauswagon
Sta. Catalina
Total no. of households 1,036 728 484 1,968
10%(sample) rounded 104 73 48 196
Actual Distributed
samples
100 200 100 200
Samples returned
with answers
76 159 89 50
Existing Condition before the construction of FMR projects
The survey revealed, among others, that before the construction of the FMR, farm and other
agricultural produce in the area are being transported to the market generally thru carrying and
by other means, as shown below:
Means of
Transportation
Respondents
Totals Mun. of
Katipunan
Mun. of
Sindangan
Mun. of
Manukan
Mun. of La
Libertad
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Handcarry 57 32 134 37 63 23 42 30 296 31
Carabao /Paragos 57 32 85 24 65 24 45 33 252 26
Horse 44 25 35 10 45 16 37 27 161 17
Truck/ Jeep 6 3 11 3 20 7 5 4 42 4
Karitela 4 2 11 3 10 4 0 0 25 3
Bus 0 0 5 1 3 1 0 0 8 0.8
Tricycle 1 0.5 41 11 19 7 3 2 64 7
Motor/Bisikleta 4 2 25 7 39 14 6 4 74 8
Traktora/ Kuliglig 5 3 9 2 4 1 0 0 18 1.2
Sikad-sikad 1 0.5 5 1 7 3 0 0 13 2
Total 179 100 361 100 275 100 138 100 953 100
16
It can be noted from the above tabulation, the respondents either hand carry used carabao
(paragos) to transport their farm produce and other agricultural products to be able to sell them to
the market. With the above means of transportation, it took them a maximum of four (4) hours to bring their agricultural products/farm produce to the market as shown on the table below:
Travel Time
(no. of hours)
Respondents
Totals Mun. of
Katipunan
Mun. of
Sindangan
Mun. of
Manukan
Mun. of La
Libertad
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
1-2 22 37 31 20 32 35 10 22 95 27
3-4 25 42 110 72 40 45 31 69 206 59
5-6 4 7 9 6 15 16 3 7 31 9
7-8 8 14 3 2 4 4 1 2 16 5
Total 59 100 153 100 91 100 45 100 348 100
Condition after the construction of FMR
This condition, however, changed with the construction of the FMRs in said Barangays. Survey
showed that 19% and 21% of the respondents now use truck/jeep/tricycle or motor/bisikleta
respectively and only a meager 5% and 7% resorted to walking and carabao (paragos) as shown
on the following table.
Means of
Transportation
Respondents
Totals Mun. of
Katipunan
Mun. of
Sindangan
Mun. of
Manukan
Mun. of La
Libertad
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Handcarry 9 7 26 4 25 7 3 2 63 5
Carabao /Paragos 3 3 48 7 39 11 4 2 94 7
Horse 1 1 23 4 17 5 1 .05 42 3
Truck/ Jeep 22 19 116 18 69 20 43 25 250 19
Karitela 15 13 34 5 21 6 3 2 73 6
Bus 8 7 62 9 24 7 35 20 129 10
Tricycle 17 15 139 21 51 15 38 22 245 19
Motor/Bisikleta 37 32 116 18 68 20 44 26 265 21
Traktora/ Kuliglig 4 3 92 14 28 9 1 .05 125 10
Total 116 100 656 100 342 100 172 100 1,286 100
Likewise, majority or 71% of the respondents inform that after the construction of the FMRs, it
took them less than an hour to travel from their Barangays to the market to sell their farm
produce/agricultural products, as can be seen in the table below.
17
Travel Time
(no. of hours)
Respondents
Totals Mun. of
Katipunan
Mun. of
Sindangan
Mun. of
Manukan
Mun. of La
Libertad
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Less than 1 hour 27 47 145 96 45 51 28 57 245 71
1-2 24 42 6 4 35 40 20 41 85 25
3-4 4 7 0 0 6 7 1 2 11 3
5-6 2 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 1
7-8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 57 100 151 100 88 100 49 100 345 100
Further, as to the respondents’ assessment of the FMR projects, generally, they are satisfied, but
again, the degree of satisfaction vary from not to very satisfied as shown below:
Level of
Satisfaction
Respondents
Totals Mun. of
Katipunan
Mun. of
Sindangan
Mun. of
Manukan
Mun. of La
Libertad
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Very Satisfied 9 13 86 59 25 30 36 75 156 45
Satisfied 24 33 41 29 37 44 10 21 112 32
Somewhat Satisfied 21 29 11 8 10 12 2 4 44 13
Not Satisfied 18 25 6 4 12 14 0 0 36 10
Total 72 100 144 100 84 100 48 100 348 100
In general, the FMR projects in the barangays provide access from the farm areas to the
market/business center of the Municipality where the farmers can trade/sell their produce. It also
provides access from one point to another, open passage for agri-tourism, livelihood opportunity,
among others, which helped uplift the living condition of the barangay residents.
8.0 AUDIT CONCLUSIONS
In terms of the implementation of the FMR projects selected for CPA, they were in consonance
with the AIPs of the LGUs sourced from Local Funds.
The audit showed non-compliance with RA 9184 and DPWH Department Orders in the
preparation of POW and detailed cost estimates. As a result, the approved POW and cost
estimates of three (3) FMR projects implemented by contract in the total amount of
P2,295,960.28 were 5.92% above COA evaluated cost, hence, considered excessive. In addition,
the provision of a minimum of 1.5 meters shoulder gravel surfacing as required under DPWH
DO No. 11 was not considered in the preparation of POW and Detailed Estimates, hence, not
implemented for the project Concreting along Siare-Dinokot-Madalum-Sindangan, Provincial
Road, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte. Deviation from approved POW, plans and
specifications made during project implementation was not supported by revised program of
work and as-built plans.
18
Deficiencies/inconsistencies were observed in the information reflected in the submitted
documents/reports. Specifically for project implemented by administration the Concreting along
La Libertad-Dampalan Road (La Libertad Section).
Other deficiencies such as potholes, transverse cracks, longitudinal cracks, major and/or
excessive scaling of PCCP, meander cracks, diagonal cracks, and spider cracks, were noted
during inspection. Also, some portion of the right and left side of the road showed loose or no
shouldering materials applied due to inadequate/limited width. These conditions will
unfavourably affect the life span of the FMRs.
Posting of signboards and relevant information pertaining to the implementation of FMR projects
in the form specifically prescribed in Items 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 of COA Circular No. 2013-004 dated
January 30, 2013 were not observed.
Despite the deficiencies noted, survey conducted on the respondents-beneficiaries/barangay
residents disclosed that, generally, they were satisfied with the FMRs constructed as these
considerably reduced their travel time in bringing their products to the market. Likewise, they
are pleased that their transportation problem due to poor road access was solved. However, they
are requesting for more FMR projects to be implemented in their barangays for the benefit of
other residents, specifically those who have to bring their fishery and agriculture produce to the
market and requested that such existing FMRs will have regular maintenance check. Also,
information about the project should be made through the use of project billboards so as not to
deprive the people of information about the project and possible participation in its
implementation.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION
1. In the preparation of ABC, POW and detailed cost estimates, during the exit conference we
further recommended to the concerned LGU Officials the following courses of action:
Direct the concerned LGU Engineers to prepare the POW, plans and detailed
estimates in accordance with DPWH standards/requirements and ensure that FMR
projects are implemented in accordance with the approved plans and specifications,
cost estimates and DPWH standards;
Provide a minimum of 1.5 meters shoulder gravel surfacing in the preparation of
POW; and
Require the Engineer to closely monitor the implementation of FMR projects to
ensure that the projects are implemented in accordance with POW, plans and
specifications, and DPWH standards. Any deviation from POW during project
implementation should be covered by revised POW and as-built plan.
2. In the implementation of FMR projects, we have recommended that LGU Management:
19
Consider the importance of planning in all aspects of execution of construction
works that would ensure timely procurement of needed materials for the
construction of FMRs so that the quality of construction works, especially with
regard to the smoothness of the concrete finish be retained;
Provide readily available construction equipment to continuously supply the needed
requirement in carrying out simultaneous construction of FMRs; and
Direct the Contractor for FMR implemented thru straight contract to correct the
noted deficiencies and/or institute appropriate action against the contractor.
Refrain from charging those expenses that are not related to the project for which it
was appropriated and require the concerned LGU Officials for FMR implemented
by administration reclassify the cost deficiencies noted totalling P220,000.00 for the
excess charges on Equipment Rental.
3. On the accuracy of estimates and reasonableness of project cost:
Project should be properly planned to ensure that the road condition are taken
into consideration in the preparation of POW, plans and specifications, and
DPWH standards. The POW and detailed estimates should be prepared in
accordance with applicable DPWH DOs;
Documents relative to project implementation should be thoroughly reviewed to
ensure that the same are in order and project funds are utilized for the intended
purpose.
For the project implemented by contract we require the submission of the
following:
a. Explanation from the project engineers responsible for the planning and
formulation of the duly approved POW on the excessive cost arising from;
Over-estimated number of days of all equipment used for items, 105
“Subgrade Preparation”, item 200 “Aggregate Subbase Course”,
item 201 “Aggregate Base Course” and item 311 “PCCP, 150mm
thick” for the (1) Concreting along Siare-Dinokot-Madalum
Sindangan Provincial Road and (2) Concreting along Villaramos-
Saluyong Provincial Road with a combined excess cost of
P1,553,609.85;
Over-estimate number of days of all equipment used for items 201
“Aggregate Base Course” and 311 “PCCP, 150mm thick” in the
Concreting along Daanglungsod-Sinuyak-Sitog Provincial Road with
a value of the excess cost of P742,350.43.
20
b. Require the contractor in the Concreting along Daanglungsod-Sinuyak-Sitog
Provincial Road in Municipality of Katipunan to: a) remove and replace the
pavement blocks with major scaling at his own expense; b) to correct
pavement with transverse cracks by adopting the procedures laid down in
DPWH Standard Specifications for Item 740 – Structural Concrete
Inspection and Cracks Repair; and c) to patch with concrete the pavement
with pothole to avoid further damage to the pavement.
c. Require the contractor in the Concrete along Siare-Dinokot-Madalum
Sindangan Provincial Road in the Municipality of Sindangan that: a)
pavement with minor transverse cracks and minor scaling should be
corrected by adopting the procedures laid down in DPWH Standard
Specifications for Item 740 – Structural Concrete Inspection and Cracks
Repair; b) Concrete Core Drilling for strength determination should be done
to ascertain the cause of the longitudinal crack in the pavement and
appropriate final corrective measures must be undertaken at the contractor’s
expense;
d. Require the contractor in the Concreting along Villaramos-Saluyong
Provincial Road, in the Municipality of Manukan to: a) remove and replace
the pavement blocks with major scaling and diagonal cracks at his own
expense; b) pavement with transverse, meander and longitudinal cracks
should be corrected by adopting the procedures laid down in DPWH
Standard Specifications for Item 740 – Structural Concrete Inspection; and
c) Cracks Repair and Concrete Core Drilling for strength determination to
ascertain the cause of the aforementioned cracks and appropriate final
corrective measures be undertaken at the contractor’s expense.
e. Explanation as to why the deficiencies were not communicated to the
contractor in order that corrective measures are immediately effected to
avoid further deterioration of the roads as these are used daily by the
commuting public.
For the project implemented by administration Concreting of La Libertad-
Dampalan Road (La Libertad Section) We require the submission of the
following:
On the Procurement of Materials
a. Explanation/justification as to (1) the attachment of two different Program
of Works; (2) the excess procurement of construction materials: (3) the
payment of two different requisitions of the same quantity at difference unit
cost; (4) the delivery and payment of construction materials even though the
project was already 100% complete; and (5) the procurement and payment
21
of construction materials which were not included in the approved Program
of Works.
b. Copy of unit cost derivation for item “Item 201-Aggregate Base Course
(Coarse Aggregates & Binder)”; and Item 311-PCCP (Fine aggregates &
Coarse Aggregates) to justify/substantiate difference of unit cost of these
items if purchased in the local market.
c. Copy of the breakdown of overhead cost with the plans and specifications
for the bunkhouse construction. If bunkhouse was already demolished after
the project completion, submit waste material report and/or documents
transferring these construction materials to other site or accountable officer.
On the Equipment Rental
Refrain from charging those expenses that are not related to the project for
which it was appropriated.
On the Labor Component
Require submission of Certificate of Completion and explanation on the
circumstances.
4. On the information/publicity about the project:
Determine the location of FMRs to be implemented taking into consideration
the intent and purpose of RA 8435; and
Observe the provisions of Items 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 of COA Circular 2013-004 dated
January 30, 2013 on the posting of infrastructure projects implemented for the
information of the public to poster transparency and accountability and also to
encourage public participation.
5. On compliance with RA 8435
Prepare AIP based on the needs for FMRs in the various barangays of
concerned LGUs; and
Coordinate implementation of AIP with the DILG, DPWH, DTI and DA to
address all issues/concerns for efficient project implementation.
22
10.0 AUDITEE’S COMMENTS
1. For the project implemented by contract (1) Concreting along Siare-Dinokot-Madalum
Sindangan Provincial Road; (2) Concreting along Villaramos-Saluyong Provincial
Road; and (3) Concreting along Daanglungsod-Sinuyak-Sitog Provincial Road
On October 10, 2013, the Provincial Governor issued memorandum to conduct an
Inspection and Appraisal of Project in the receipt of the request for payment from the
contractor of said projects.
After the conduct of inspection the inspectorate team submitted a written report to the
Provincial Governor particularly the subject concreting projects, that these projects were
substantially completed as to the total length of the pavement, viz: (1) Concreting along
Siare-Dinokot-Madalum Sindangan Provincial Road, Municipality of Sindangan L=1,152
meters; (2) Concreting along Villaramos-Saluyong Provincial Road, Municipality of
Manukan L=1,003 meters; and (3) Concreting along Daanglungsod-Sinuyak-Sitog
Provincial Road, Municipality of Katipunan L=1,122 meters and depth of the pavement
as per result of coring activities hereto attached for actual pavement thickness
determination only. The Engineers in charge didn’t go further for strength determination
out of the concrete core drilled samples for they didn’t received any complaint from the
previous project in-charged and former area engineers that the projects have related
problems and issues during the preparation of base and pouring of concrete.
Further, the inspectorate team didn’t require the contractor for a variation order/change
order for the change/variation of width of the pavement since the area of the concrete was
already attained in fact it was more than the desired total area which is more
advantageous to the government; viz:
Project Name
PCCP
Actual
PCCP
Required
PCCP
Difference
Concreting along Siare-Dinokot-Madalum Sindangan
Provincial Road, Municipality of Sindangan
5,760 sq.m. 5,760 sq.m. None
Concreting along Villaramos-Saluyong Provincial Road,
Municipality of Manukan
6,018 sq.m. 6,000 sq.m. 18.00 sq.m.
Concreting along Daanglungsod-Sinuyak-Sitog
Provincial Road, Municipality of Katipunan
6,732 sq.m. 6,710 sq.m. 22.00 sq.m.
Also, during the conduct of inspection, the inspectorate team has not noted any
deficiencies like scaling, cracking and sign of potholes of the said projects so the
inspectorate team recommends the payment of the said projects and no communication
transmitted to the contractor from the provincial government since the projects at that
time have no defects or deficiencies. Moreover, management also submitted Report on
Actual Thickness Determination and their letter dated February 17, 2016 to the contractor
requiring their end to explain the items 1, 2 and 3 of our Audit Observation
Memorandum.
23
2. For the project implemented by administration Concreting of La Libertad-Dampalan
Road (La Libertad Section)
On the Procurement of Materials
As to the attachment of two different POWs
The OIC-Provincial Engineer explained that there was no provision for the Rental of
Equipment in the Breakdown of Estimated Cost in the original POW and since the
implementation of this project would require rental of equipment, a revised POW was
prepared with an adjusted amount of Overhead and an amount provided for rental
equipment. In the course of the procurement of materials, the original POW was
inadvertently attached to the voucher instead of the adjusted/revised POW.
As to Excess procurement of construction materials
The OIC-Provincial Engineer explained that during the actual implementation of the
project, procurement of additional construction materials such as coco lumber and
concrete wire nails was inevitable considering that the PEO was mandated to fast track its
completion. The quantity of form lumber for pouring of concrete/cement was increased in
order to achieve the desired length of concreted stretch of road per day.
Payment of two different requisitions of the same quantity at different unit cost
a. The two requisitions were made because additional materials were needed and two
bunkhouses were constructed for the entire 3.6km length. Both bunkhouses have
not been demolished and are still utilized today. One bunkhouse is used by the PEO
field personnel in the concreting along Potungan-Marapong Libay Provincial Road
Project while the other bunkhouse was transferred without cost to La Libertad
National High School, La Libertad, ZN.
b. The difference in the total cost is due to the cost of welding rods used in the
fabrication of additional steel side forms made of angle bars and C-purlins.
Delivery and payment of construction materials even though the project was
already 100% complete
The Purchase Request for these materials was dated June 18, 2014. The Purchase Order
was dated July 21, 2014 with the Supplier’s conforme on December 19, 2014. On July 3,
2014 prior to the delivery of said materials, the Project Engineer had already utilized
coco lumber from another project to expedite the completion of work. The coco lumber
delivered on January 5, 2015 was used to replace the borrowed materials.
24
Procurement and payment of construction materials which were not included in the
approved Program of Works
Materials not included in the POW such as coco lumber and welding rods were procured
due to contingencies which rose in the day-to-day work undertaken to finish the project.
Initial requisitions for the original quantity of coco lumber were inadequate since the
materials were not sturdy enough to withstand extreme project site conditions and manual
handling. As the implementation of the project was already in full-swing, welding rods
were procured for the purpose of fabricating steel side forms to augment side-forms made
of coco lumber.
On the Equipment Rental
As explained by the Provincial Budget Officer, the purpose as indicated in the
Purchase Request of P300,000.00 and the attached POW was for the Concreting
along La Libertad-Dampalan Road (La Libertad Section), La Libertad, thus the
expense was charged against the said project;
The Provincial Budget Officer further explained that what was receive by her
office was the agreement and the same POW, that’s why it was presumed that the
purpose of the Obligation request was for the payment of equipment rental for the
said project only. No other documents were attached to warrant the charging of
said expense to other projects. Thus the OBR was processed. Moreover, her office
was not informed by the PEO of any correction so that they could have make the
necessary adjustments;
Nevertheless the projects listed utilized the said Transit Mixer had incorporated in
its respective POWs the allocation for equipment rental and have remained
unutilized as of to date.
On the Labor Component
The Area Engineer submitted Certificate of Completion for the said projects as required
and explained that the project is 100% completed but there is still activities/rectification
to be done before the project will be utilized and opened for public use, such as;
Dismantling and keeping of formworks;
Placing of cutback asphalt in every construction joint within the 3.6kms. newly
completed pavement;
Patching the minor damages due to the dismantling forms;
Making side ditches so that rain water will flow freely and will not cause scouring
on the concrete pavement with a length of 3.6kms;
Placing of shouldering materials along the 3.6kms. road
25
11.0 AUDITOR’S EVALUATION/REJOINDER RESULTS
1. For the project implemented by contract (1) Concreting along Siare-Dinokot-Madalum
Sindangan Provincial Road; (2) Concreting along Villaramos-Saluyong Provincial
Road; and (3) Concreting along Daanglungsod-Sinuyak-Sitog Provincial Road
CONTRACT REVIEW DISCREPANCY
The contention raised by Engr. Mario S. Canoneo, Area Engineer, ZDNPEO, Liloy Sub-
Office, under Item 8 that “the number of days for a set of equipment (grader, roller, water
truck and service vehicle) will be used is equal to the total duration of the delivery of the
aggregates (Items 200 and 201) plus additional of two days allocated for the final
reshaping work to the prescribed level and gradient” is not admitted, because, the
delivery of all the aggregates can be made ahead prior to grading, roller compacting and
watering for reasons of engineering economy and construction schedules such that the
aforementioned equipment are brought to the project sites during actual necessity and
paid based on the actual operation, and not paid during standby periods.
The defenced raised by Engr. Rey C. Eguia, Engineer IV, ZDNPEO, that “xxx, the 10%
variance per Resolution No. 91-52 dated September 17, 1991, commonly known as
Policy Guidelines Governing Auditorial Review and Evaluation of Bidded Infrastructure
Contracts was still in effect during that time for it was only revised this year thru
Resolution No. 2015-014 dated April 6, 2015,xxx, while the preparation of the POW was
made on October of 2012 and the implementation was done in the year 2013.”, cannot be
accepted, because the latter had amended that former COA Resolution on April 6, 2015
and the technical review of the contract was made on December 21, 2015. The latter
resolution is very clear that under the 3rd and 4th paragraph, by allowing another ten
(10%) variance over the COA Cost Estimate, which plus or minus ten (10%) accuracy of
quantities of construction materials had already been included in the preparation of the
ABC upon the effectivity of RA 9184 on January 10, 2013, may result in unnecessary, or
excessive expenditures of government funds considering the sheer magnitude of the
contract cost of infrastructure projects at present time.
INSPECTION DEFICIENCY
The justification raised regarding the non-conduct of strength and thickness
determination for concrete cannot be considered because the Schedule of Minimum Test
Requirements set by the Department of Public Works & Highways (DPWH), is
subsumed and included in all items of work of DPWH Standard Specifications (Vol. II),
prior to the payment and acceptance of accomplished work, to include Flexural Strength
Test on Concrete Beam Samples of one set considering 3 samples per set to represent 330
sq.m. of concrete pavement or a fraction thereof. Complaints, per se, from project
engineers, or project-in-charge must not be used as basis, whether or not to conduct
strength and thickness determination.
The justification presented regarding the non-issuance of Variation Order (VO) to the
contractor may not be considered, although no additional costs are claimed, because the
26
width of the pavement was reduced by 1 meter, The As-Built plan must be prepared and
the basis of it is the VO prepared by the project engineer requiring the contractor for such
changes, regardless whether there are changes in contract amount or none, advantageous
or not to the government, on the reason that there was revision of the width of the
concrete pavement although the area of the pavement is maintained.
For the justification on road structural defects and failures, it is crystal clear in Item b,
Section 62.2.3.2 of the RA 9184, otherwise known as Government Procurement Act that
the warranty period for structural defects on semi-permanent structures is five (5) years
from final acceptance. Even though the Inspectorate Team did not notice any defects
during final inspection is immaterial, it is clear that the contractor should execute all
necessary repairs of the defects, except those due to force majeure, at their own expense
within five (5) years from date of acceptance.
Based on the foregoing, the previous contract review discrepancy and inspection
deficiency of the three (3) road projects is hereby maintained.
2. For the project implemented by administration Concreting of La Libertad-Dampalan
Road (La Libertad Section)
On the Procurement of Materials
As to the attachment of two different POWs
Review of the (2) Program of Works attached showed no indication which one was
revised or is the original as both were dated July 3, 2013 and no wordings as Revised
POW. WE recommend further in future transactions personnel in-charge to be cautious in
the preparation of POWs.
As to Excess procurement of construction materials
In our view, the reason of the OIC-Provincial Engineer to fast track its completion which
causes the excess procurement of construction materials is not enough to justify. Per
review on the procurement of all the materials, basically all were delivered by the
suppliers starting October 14, 2013 up to January 5, 2015 when per PEO
Accomplishment Report as of October 2014 the project should have started on July 12,
2013 which more or less 3 mos delayed. In our opinion if project were not delayed in the
implementation, such excessive procurement could have been evaded.
We also observed that these coco lumber and concrete wire nails were procured in three
consecutive weeks with the same supplier but with different unit costs.
Payment of two different requisitions of the same quantity at different unit cost
We observed in the attached Breakdown of Overhead Cost marked as Annex E showed
that the total overhead cost is P904,514.05, however, per explanation on the attachment
27
of two POWs the overhead cost was revised and reduced to P634,514.05 which do not
tally with the breakdown showed. The difference we were referring in the AOM is not the
total cost but the unit cost of each item.
Another observation is that the Invoice Receipt for Transfer of Properties to La Libertad
National High School for the bunkhouse was not approved by the Provincial Governor. In
view we seek for further justification on the matter.
Delivery and payment of construction materials even though the project was
already 100% complete
We question why the Purchase Order (PO) was received only on December 19, 2014
which showed that it took 5 mos (approved on July 21, 2014) for the PO to be processed?
We also like to be clarified if these materials were borrowed from Aseniero, Dapitan City
project which commenced on July 7, 2014, were done then Asenerio get its materials for
it to continue the construction?
On the Equipment Rental
We maintain our recommendation to refrain from charging those expenses that are un-
related to the project for which it was appropriated. However, since the respective
allocation for rental equipment of the other projects charged to Concreting La Libertad
remained unutilized, to correct the said deficiency noted, we are in favour to the
suggested recommendation of the Provincial Budget Officer to make the necessary
adjustment for the payment of Equipment Rental by distributing the P220,000.00 to
different projects listed based on the amount specified therein through issuance of
Obligation Request (OBR) to be signed by concerned officials and forward copies to the
Provincial Accountant.
Furthermore, we recommend officials/employees to be more specific in the preparation of
the Purchase Request and to attach the appropriate supporting documents to guide each
and every office in the processing of the transactions.
On the Labor Component
Review on the submitted Certificate of Completion showed that the project is completed
on September 4, 2014 in accordance with approved plans and specifications. However,
evaluation of the said certification with the plans and specification could not be made as
these documents were not attached nor submitted for evaluation to date. Moreover, we
believed the construction of the road was not constructed continuously straight at 3.6kms.
It is constructed by meters length or by phase, therefore, the dismantling and keeping of
formworks, placing of cutback asphalt in every joint, patching of minor damages due to
and dismantling of forms could have been done at every phase, and should then form part
of the 100% completed works as of September 4, 2014. While the placing of shouldering
28
materials would not take at least 51 more working days with more or less 20 laborers
performing the activity from September 5 to November 15, 2014.
Until the plans and specifications are finally reviewed by COA, we are unsatisfied by the
explanation of the project engineer.
11.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We acknowledge the cooperation and assistance extended to the CPA Team by the officials and
staff of the Zamboanga del Norte Provincial Government during the audit, the Punong
Barangays and their officials, and the respondents/residents during the conduct of survey and
validation.
We also thank the World Bank for the support and funds provided to the CPA. The Bank shall be
furnished copy of the report.
Submitted in compliance with COA Regional Office IX, Office Order No. 141 dated November
24, 2015.
ESTARLITA C. SUACITO DAPHANE JULALEE G. CRUZ
State Auditor III State Auditor II
Team Member Team Member
AMBROSIO L. HALILULLA BENJAVIER T. JUMAANI
STAS TAS I
Team Member (TITs) Team Member (TITs)
EMERLITA BASILIO LEONILO A. MORALES
ACORD, INC. State Auditor IV
Team Member (CSO) Team Leader
ATTY. BERNARDO R. SUMICAD VISITACION Q. MENDOZA
State Auditor V Director IV
Team Supervisor Regional Director
29
APPENDIX “A”
Location MAP of FMR
L
a
Municipality of
La Libertad
L
a
Municipality of Katipunan
Municipality
of Manukan
Municipality
of Sindangan
30
APPENDIX “B.1”
Satellite of FMR at Katipunan
Photo of Segment 1 to 3 Photo of Segment 4
Project Cost: P13,877,952.00
Length: 1,100 meters
Width: 6.10 meters
Population: 6,349
31
APPENDIX “B.2”
Satellite of FMR at Sindangan
Project Cost: P13,296,130.56
Length: 960 meters
Width: 6.0 meters
Population: 4,355
32
APPENDIX “B.3”
Satellite of FMR at Manukan
Project Cost: P13,877,952.00
Length: 1,000 meters
Width: 6.0 meters
Population: 2,525
33
APPENDIX “B.4”
Satellite of FMR at La Libertad
Project Cost: P16,000,000.00
Length: 3,674 meters
Width: 5.0 meters
Population: 4,350
34
APPENDIX “C”
Survey Questionnaire
MGA SUBAY PANGUTANA Para sa pag implementar sa proyekto sa “Dalan gikan sa Umahan padulong sa Merkado “
Hunyo 8, 2015
Kini nga subay gihimo para sa mga sumosunod nga katoyoan:
1. Nga makasiguro kung ang Proyekto nga gihimo para sa dalan umahan padulong sa merkado
nagasunod sa balaod nga gipatuman sa Akta Republika Numero 8435 ug iyang pagpatuman
sa balaod.
2. Nga makasiguro nga ang katoyouan sa Proyekto matuman sa local nga pamunoan ug
magasubay sa insakto nga lugar sumala sa kadaghanon sa mag uuma ug mangingisda ug mga
pamilya nga makapahimulos unya sa mga produkto sa agrikultura ug sa dagat.
“Dalan gikan sa Umahan padulong sa Merkado” Mao ni ang dalan nagasumpay sa
agrikultura ug produkto sa kadagatan , baybayon, kahimanan sa pag ani paingon sa merkado
ug kadalanan padulong sa siyudad. “
Kini nga kalihokan koneksyon sa proyekto sa Commission on Audit (COA) “ partisipasyon sa
mga lumolupyo sa mga proyekto nga ginahimo sa (Baba’s Foundation).
Pagahimoon sa “Enumerator”
Petsa sa pagpanugtana: Oras pagsugod: Oras paghuman:
PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Ngalan (Name) :
3. Kasarian (Gender) : Tsek ( ) one ( ) Male (lalaki) ( ) Female (babaye)
2. Pinuy anan (Address) :
Ilang buwan/tuig na sa pinuy anan? (How many months/years?) _______________________
4. _______________(refer to COA Cell list) :
5. Distrito (Congressional District) :
PART II: SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
3. Asa ka nga grupo o linya sa imp pangidaron? (What is your age range?)
Check () one ( ) 7-12 ( ) 40-49 ( ) 13-19 ( ) 50-59 ( ) 20-29 ( ) 60 and above ( ) 30-39
4. Unsa imong nakab ot nga edukasyon? (What is your highest educational attainment?)
Check () one ( ) Elementarya ( ) Masters ( ) Sekondarya ( ) Doctorate ( ) Kolehiyo
35
5. Unsa imong trabaho? (What is your occupation?)
Check () one ( ) Kina ugalingon nga pangita ( ) Propesyonal (doktor,enhinyero,maestro ug uban pa.) ( ) Hepe sa Kompanya ( ) Empleyado /clerical,secretarya,etc.) ( )Asawa/bana(maybahay) ( ) Katabang sa panimalay (kasambahay) ( ) Estudyante (estudyante) ( ) Retirado ( ) Mananagat
6. Pila ka miyembro sa inyong balay ang naay kita? (How many member/s of your household is/are earning)
Check () one ( ) 0 ( ) 4 ( ) 1 ( ) 5 ( ) 2 ( ) 6 or more
7. Pila inyo kita tanan sa usa aka bulan? (What is your total monthly household income)
Check () one ( ) P10,000 paubos ( ) P40,001 to P50,000 ( ) P10,001 to P20,000 ( ) P50,000 pataas ( ) P20,001 to P30,000 ( ) wala hibal i ( ) P30,001 to P40,000
PART III: IMPORMASYON SA KUMUNIDAD MAHITUNGOD SA PROYEKTO NGA DALAN SA KAUMAHAN PAINGON SA MERKADO
8. Nakadungod na ka sa balaod nga Akta Republika Numero. 8435? (Have you heard about RA 8435?)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi)
9. Nakahibalo ka na ba sa balaod nga akta Republika Numero. 8435 nga maka angkon ta ug proyekto nga dalan gikan sa kaumahan padolong sa merkado? (Are you aware of RA No. 8435 providing for the construction of farm to market road?)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi)
PART IV: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS OF THE FARM TO MARKET ROAD PROJECT
10. Alam mo ba kung may naganap na general assembly sa local ninyong pamahalaan para sa annual development projects? (Are you aware of any general assembly heldin your LGU for annual development projects?)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi) ( ) Don’t know (Hindi alam)
11. Sa anong paraan mo nalaman na ang farm to market road project ay isa sa mga proyekto na nakapaloob sa Annual Investment Plan (AIP) ng local na pamahalaan? (How di you know that Farm to Market (FMR) Projects is one of the Projects included in the AIP in your locality (LGU)? Note: Dito malalaman din natin kong may pagsasaliksik na ginagawa ang LGU para malaman kung saan ilalagay ang farm to market (FMR) road
Check ( ) All answer that apply ( ) City/Municipal assembly (pagpupulong sa city/Municipal hall) ( ) Barangay assembly (pagpupulong sa barangay) ( ) Distribution of fliers/leaflets by the city/Municipal hall (pamamahagi ng fliers/leaflets ng city/Municipal Hall/officer’s) ( ) Distribution of fliers/leaflets by the barangay (pamamahagi ng fliers/leaflets ng barangay hall at sa mga opisyales nito.
( ) Home visit by city/Municipal Officials (pagbisita ng mga opisyal mula sa city/Municipal
36
PART V: UTILIZATION OF THE FARM TO MARKET ROAD BY THE COMMUNITY
19. Sa inyong obserbasyon , anu-ano ang mga kalakal na dumadaan sa kalsada na ito? (Based on your observation, what are the various agricultural products being transported using this Farm to
Check ( ) All answer that apply ( ) Vegetable (Gulay) ( ) Meat (Karne) ( ) Fish (Isda)
project. (With this, we will be able to know if the LGU conducted a study where the FMR Project will be constructed.
hall) ( ) Home visit by barangay officials (pagbisita ng mga opisyal mula sa barangay ( ) Poster or tarpaulin ( ) Radio/television (radio/telebisyon) ( ) Others (sa iba), specify: _________________
12. Alam mo ba o may kilala ka ban a opisyal ng pamahalaan na nakatira o may pag-aari sa lugar na to? (Are you aware of any government officials living or has property within the areas?)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi)
13. Napapaligiran po ban g mga taniman at sakahan ang inyong lugar? (Is your place surrounded with agricultural plants/farms?)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi)
14. Marami po bang dumadaan na sasakyan ditto tulad ng: (Is this area accessible to transportation like:) a. Truck b. Jeep c. Karitela d. Bus e. Tricycle f. Motor/Bisikleta g. Paragos h. Trakora i. Kuliglig
Yes No ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
15. Alam nyo po ba na may pinagawang daan (Farm to Market Road) sa inyong lugar? (Are you aware that an FMR has been constructed in your area/locality?)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi)
16. Alam mo ban kung may opisina sa local na pamahalaan at namamahala ng construction ng farm to market road project? (Are you aware if there’s any in your locality (LGU) offices which is implementing the construction of an FMR?)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi) ( ) Don’t know (Hindi alam)
17. Sino ang nagpapatupad ng pamamahala sa construction ng farm to market road project?(Who is implementing and managing the construction of the FMR project?)
Check ( ) All answer that apply ( ) City/Municipal government (opisyal ng lungsod) ( ) Barangay Officials (opisyal ng barangay) ( ) Don’t know (Hindi alam) ( ) Others (iba), please specify ______________
18. Sa palagay mo ba tama ang pagpapatupad at pamamahala ng FMR project?(Do you think that implementing and managing of FMR is correct?)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi)
37
Market Road?)
20. Noon pong wala pang kalsada ditto, paano nyo po dinadala ang mga kalakal sa palengke o tindahan? (Prior to the construction of the Farm to Market Road, how did you transport your agricultural produce to the market/store?)
Check ( ) All answer that apply ( ) Handcarry (Lakad/Buhat) ( ) Carabao (Kalabaw) ( ) Horse (Kabayo) ( ) Truck ( ) Jeep ( ) Karitela ( ) Bus ( ) Tricycle ( ) Motor/Bisikleta ( ) Paragos ( ) Traktora ( ) Kuliglig
21. Paano naman po nga yon na may kalsada na? (How about after the construction of the Farm to Market Road?)
Check ( ) All answer that apply ( ) Handcarry (Lakad/Buhat) ( ) Carabao (Kalabaw) ( ) Horse (Kabayo) ( ) Truck ( ) Jeep ( ) Karitela ( ) Bus ( ) Tricycle ( ) Motor/Bisikleta ( ) Paragos ( ) Traktora ( ) Kuliglig
22. Noon pong wala pang kalsadadito, ilang araw/oras po inaabot ang pagdadala ng mga kalakal sa palengke o tindahan? (Prior to the construction of the Farm to Market Road, how many days/hours did it take for you to bring your produce to the market/store?)
Check ( ) All answer that apply ( ) 1-2 hours ( ) 3-4 hours ( ) 5-6 hours ( ) 7-8 hours
23. Paano naman po ngayon na may kalsada na? (How about after the Farm to Market Road has been constructed?)
Check ( ) All answer that apply ( ) 1-2 hours ( ) 3-4 hours ( ) 5-6 hours ( ) 7-8 hours
24. Nagagamit mo ba ang farm to market road sa pagbababyahe ng mga ani at produkto mula sa sakahan, bahay/bagsakan papunta sa palengke o pamilihang bayan? (Are you using the farm to market road in transporting farm produce and fish ports to the market?
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi)
25. Sa iyong palagay, nakatulong ba ang kalsada sa pagtaas ng inyong kita? (in your opinion, did the Farm to Market road improve your income?)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi)
26. Kung oo, gaano ka nasisiyahan? (if yes, how satisfied are you?)
Check ( ) Applicable answer ( ) Very Satisfied (tuwang-tuwa) ( ) Satisfied (natutuwa) ( ) Somewhat satisfied (medyo natutuwa)
38
( ) Not satisfied at all (hindi natutuwa) 27. Kung hindi, bakit? (if no,why?)
PART VI: LEVEL OF COMMUNITY SATISFACTION WITH THE USE OF FARM TO MARKET ROAD
28. Ikaw ba ay nasisiyahan sa proyekto? (Are you satisfied with the project)
Check ( ) one ( ) Yes (Oo) ( ) No (Hindi)
29. Kung oo, gaano ka nasisiyahan? (if yes, how satisfied are you?)
Check ( ) Applicable answer ( ) Very Satisfied (tuwang-tuwa) ( ) Satisfied (natutuwa) ( ) Somewhat satisfied (medyo natutuwa) ( ) Not satisfied at all (hindi natutuwa)
30. Kung hindi, bakit? (if no, why?)
31. Kung bibigyan mo ng marka ang proyekto anong marka ang ibibigay mo? (If you will be asked to assess the project, how will you rate it?
Check ( ) Applicable answer ( ) Very Satisfied (tuwang-tuwa) ( ) Satisfied (natutuwa) ( ) Somewhat satisfied (medyo natutuwa) ( ) Not satisfied at all (hindi natutuwa)
32. Ano ang maimumungkahi mo para mapabuti pa ang proyekto? (What are your recommendations to improve the project?)
Specify here (isulat dito):
IMPORTANT: To be filled up by the enumerator
Name of Enumerator
Address
Mobile Number
E-mail (if applicable)
Interview Notes (if applicable)