a citizen participatory audit report cpa report no. …...citizen participatory audit (cpa) report...

Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Citizen Participatory Audit (CPA) Report No. 2015-01A

Pilot Audit 4: Farm to Market Road (FMR) Project in the

Municipality of Pontevedra, Province of Capiz

A CITIZEN PARTICIPATORY AUDIT REPORT

CPA Report No. 2015-01A


COMMISSION ON AUDIT


Pilot Audit 4: Farm to Market Road (FMR) Project in the


ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS……………………………………………… i

LETTER……………………………………………………………………………….. 1

1.0 BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………... 3

2.0 AUDIT FOCUS……………………………………………………………. 4

3.0 AUDIT OBJECTIVES…………………………………………………….. 6

4.0 AUDIT CRITERIA………………………………………………………... 7

5.0 AUDIT METHODOLOGY………………………………………………... 8

6.0 AUDIT PERIOD…………………………………………………………... 9

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS………………………………………………………… 10

7.1 PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING……………………………… 10

7.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION…………………………………… 11

7.2.1 BARANGAY MALAG-IT………………………………….. 12

7.2.2 BARANGAY SAN PEDRO………………………………… 14

7.2.3 BARANGAY TABUC………………………………………. 17

7.3 RESULTS OF SURVEY RENDERED BY CSO…………………… 20

7.3.1 REPORT FINDING…………………………………………. 21

8.0 AUDIT CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………….. 27

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION…………………... 28

10.0 AUDITEE’S COMMENTS………………………………………………… 29

11.0 AUDITOR’S EVALUATION/REJOINDER………………………………. 30

12.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………….. 31

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………

APPENDIX A – MAP OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF PONTEVEDRA…………

APPENDIX B – BARANGAY SAN PEDRO, FMR (1ST AND 2ND SECTIONS)..

APPENDIX C – BARANGAY TABUC, FMR……………………………………

APPENDIX D – BARANGAY MALAG-IT, FMR……………………………….

APPENDIX E – SATELLITE VIEW OF BARANGAYS SAN PEDRO, TABUC

AND MALAG-IT, FMRs FROM THE NATIONAL

HIGHWAY

APPENDIX F – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX G – CONSOLIDATED RESULT OF SURVEY CONDUCTED BY

CSO PARTNERS IN BARANGAYS SAN PEDRO, TABUC

AND MALAG-IT

TABLE OF CONTENTS


COMMISSION ON AUDIT


Pilot Audit 4: Farm-to-Market Road (FMR) Project in the


i

ABC Approved Budget of the Contract

AIP Annual Investment Plan

APP Annual Procurement Plan

COA Commission on Audit

CPA Citizen Participatory Audit

CSOs Civil Society Organizations

DILG Department of Interior and Local Government

DO Department Order

CY Calendar Year

DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways

FMRs Farm to Market Roads

GPPB Government Procurement Policy Board

HLH Hercor Lumber and Hardware

JASAC Jaro Archdiocesan Social Action Center

LGU Local Government Unit

NTP Notice to Proceed

PAPs Programs, Activities and Projects

PCCP Portland Cement Concrete Pavement

PERT/CPM Program Evaluation and Review Technique/Critical Path

Method

PICPA Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountant

PO Purchase Order

POW Program of Work

RA Republic Act

SGH Seal of Good Housekeeping

TS Technical Services

VFM Value for Money

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




1


COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Regional Office No. VI

Ungka I, Pavia, Iloilo

__________________________________________________________________________

June 30, 2015

Honorable ESTEBAN JOSE B. CONTRERAS, M.D.

Municipal Mayor

Municipality of Pontevedra

Province of Capiz

Dear Mayor Contreras,

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 audit in the Annual Audit Report, the Audit Team of the

Municipality of Pontevedra, Capiz conducted a performance audit of Farm-to-Market Road

(FMR) implemented by administration 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 therefore”. 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 Audit Team and Members of the Civil Society

Organizations, namely, Jaro Archdiocesan Social Action Center (JASAC) and Philippine

Institute of Certified Public Accountants (PICPA) 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.

LETTER

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




2

In addition the survey was conducted to determine whether the purpose of the FMR Project is

achieved by the Local Government Unit (LGU) 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.

LETTER

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




3

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, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes.

Pertinent portion of the said RA 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 the

infrastructure requirements in accordance with this Act. 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 road projects in country-side development that will

help uplift the lives of farmers and fisherfolks 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 VI, among the six (6) Provinces, the Province

of Capiz had the most number of FMR projects involving large amount of money implemented

in CY 2014, hence, selected FMRs were subjected to CPA.

1.0 BACKGROUND

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




4

The audit focused on FMR projects completed during CY 2014 adopting the “Citizen

Participatory Audit” (CPA) approach. For this purpose, the criteria for high value in terms of

project cost and the presence of resident or advocate Civil Society Organizations (CSOs),

among others, were considered in the selection criteria of projects for evaluation.

The focus of Audit Team 4 was the FMRs located in Barangays Malag-it, Tabuc and San Pedro,

Municipality of Pontevedra, Province of Capiz. The projects covered by the audit have a total

length of 249 meters with a total population of 6,075 that accounted for 14% of the total

population of 43,525.

Barangay San Pedro

Project Cost: P389,420

Length: 75 meters

Width : 4 meters

Mode of Implementation:

By Administration

No. of Population:

1,142

Barangay Tabuc


Length: 84 meters

Width : 4 meters


By Administration

No. of Population:

3,254

Barangay Malag-it


Length: 90 meters

Width : 4 meters


By Administration

No. of Population:

1,679

Station 2 Station 1

Brgy San Pedro FMR

Brgy Tabuc FMR

Brgy Malag-it FMR

2.0 AUDIT FOCUS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




5

The entrance conference was conducted on May 22, 2015 by the Members of the CPA Team

composed of COA Auditors and CSO partners, namely, Jaro Archdiocesan Social Action

Center (JASAC) and Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountant (PICPA), with

Honorable Mayor Esteban Jose B. Contreras and his staff mainly to inform about the Citizen

Participatory Audit (CPA), a priority program of the COA founded on the premise that public

accountability can prosper only with vigilant and involved citizenry.

Entrance conference May 22, 2015 with

COA Audit Team, CSO partners and

LGU Officials

ATL discussed the FMRs covered

by CPA with the Municipal Mayor

ATL discussed the purpose of CPA

using geotagging as a tool with the

assistance of TAS and CSO partners

2.0 AUDIT FOCUS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




6

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 project costs were reasonable;

2. FMR projects were implemented in accordance with approved POW, plans and

specification and DPWH Department Orders;

3. FMR projects achieved the intended purpose

Specifically,

3.1 To validate the public awareness on the FMR projects implemented by

LGUs;

3.2 To verify access of farmers/fisher folk to market as well as arterial roads

and highways through FMR projects; and

3.3 To assess the level of satisfaction of beneficiaries on the FMR projects

implemented by LGUs in their respective barangays.

3.0 AUDIT OBJECTIVES

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




7

To achieve the audit objectives, the team 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, s. of 2012;

COA Circular Nos. 2012-003 and 2009-001 dated October 29, 2012 and

February 12, 2009, respectively; and

GPPB Resolution Nos. 018-2006, 07-2009 and 03-2011.

Compliance with POW, plans and specifications

DPWH Department Order 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;

Road links to the agricultures and fisheries production sites, coastal landing

points and post-harvest facilities to the market and arterial roads and highways;

Located within key production areas under convergence initiatives which link

these areas to higher road class system.

4.0 AUDIT CRITERIA

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




8

The Audit Team 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;

Analyzed disbursement vouchers and supporting documents;

Reviewed financial and project accomplishment reports;

Conducted ocular inspection using 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. For this purpose, the

Team adopted the format used in the previous FMR-CPA;

The consolidation, analysis and preparation of survey results were mainly done by

CSO Partners; and

Issued Audit Observation Memorandum.

5.0 AUDIT METHODOLOGY

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




9

The CPA planning was slated April 27-30, 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 June 1 to 30, 2015.

Actual inspection with CSO partners and COA Audit

Team stopped momentarily due to the outpour of heavy

rain

Capability Building April 27-30, 2015 Entrance Conference May 22, 2015

Start of Actual Fieldwork June 1-3, 2015 Processing/analysis of data with

ATL, Senior TAS June 9-10, 2015

Exit Conference June 25, 2015

6.0 AUDIT PERIOD

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




10

Cognizant of the objectives and rationale on the enactment of RA 8435, the Municipal

Government of Pontevedra committed to provide FMRs linking the agriculture production sites

to the market and arterial roads and highways. For this purpose, the Municipal Government

included in their CY 2014 APP and AIP the construction of FMRs amounting to P1.750 million

under the 20% Development Fund. Of the said amount, three (3) FMR projects costing P1.340

million were subjected to Citizen Participatory Audit. The Local Government Unit has the

capability to undertake projects by administration with one (1) Municipal Engineer assigned to

supervise the projects and available heavy equipment to be utilized, hence, the projects were

implemented by that Municipality by administration for a total amount of P1.310 million as

follow:

Project Location

Project Cost/POW

Actual Project Expenditures

Materials *Fuel Labor Total

Brgy. Malag-it 499,988.70 369,315.00 21,000.00 99,456.00 489,771.00

Brgy. San Pedro 399,998.10 289,580.00 21,000.00 78,840.00 389,420.00

Brgy. Tabuc 439,997.40 322,060.00 21,000.00 *87,550.00 430,610.00

Total 1,339,984.20 980,955.00 63,000.00 265,846.00 1,309,801.00 * Fuel consumption based on POW (supported with vale slip);

** Based on POW in the absence of Pakyaw Contract

During the audit the following deficiencies were noted:

1. Accuracy of estimates and reasonableness of project cost

1.1 The preparation of ABC and POW are detailed engineering activities required in

the implementation of infrastructure projects. 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.

1.2 Audit, however, disclosed that estimates for 3 FMR projects as reflected in the

LGUs POW were not compliant with DPWH DOs. Only the18 man-days project

duration for labor was indicated in the POW instead of period of project completion

from procurement of materials. Also, provision of a minimum of 1.5 meters

shoulder gravel surfacing was not indicated in the POW.

The approved POW and cost estimates for the implementation of Malag-it, Tabuc

and San Pedro were found to be 19.07%, 7.09% and 10.62%, respectively, above

COA evaluated cost, hence, considered excessive.

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




11

1.3 The deficiencies in the project POW which was the basis for the subsequent bidding

and award of procurement contracts for materials and labor resulted to

uneconomical and inefficient project implementation.

1.4 Notices to Proceed issued pertain to delivery of materials only. The projects were

reported completed from May 19, 2014 to November 28, 2014 or 73 to 210 days

from receipt of materials with labor component of the project completed beyond the

period stipulated in the Pakyaw Labor Contracts as follow:

2. Project implementation in conformity with POW, Plans and Specifications

2.1 Inspection conducted on June 1 to 3, 2014 revealed that the 3 FMR projects

costing P1.340 million per POW implemented by the Municipality for a total

amount of P1.309 million were not in accordance with the approved POW,

plans and specification, thus, resulted to project deficiency amounting to

P122,883.57.

Particulars

Name of Barangay

San Pedro Tabuc Malag-it

Length 75 mts 84 mtrs 90 mtrs

Width 4 meters 4 meters 4 meters

Date of NTP/PO (materials) 10/16/13 5/5/2014 9/16/14

Date of Acceptance (materials) 10/18/13 5/8/2014 -

Labor period per POW 18 MDs 18 MDs 18 MDs

Date started (Labor) 4/30/14 7/14/14 10/8/14

Pakyaw Labor Contract period 15 CD 15CD 20 CD

Date completed (Labor) 5/16/14 8/7/2014 11/28/14

Period of completion - Labor 16 24 51

Period of completion from receipt of

materials

210 91 *73

Date of Certification as 100% completed by

Project Engineer

5/19/14

8/8/2014

11/13/14

Legend: * Based on NTP issued in the absence of Acceptance Report while DR and CI were

undated

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




12

Payee/

Contractor Project Cost

Per COA

Evaluation Difference Remarks

BARANGAY MALAG-IT Concreting of 360 sq.m. Barangay Road, with 0.80m Shoulders at both sides and a carriageway of 4.00 meters x 0.15

meters thick

HLH/

Erwin

Buño

P 489,771.00 P443,726.70 P 46,044.30 Based on POW, the project has a total length of 90 meters

and width of 4 meters. Result of project validation and

evaluation disclosed that the work accomplished was only

90.60% equivalent to P443,726.70 with project deficiency

amounting to P46,044.30, computed as follow:

Item No.

Per Pakyaw Contract Per COA-TAS Evaluation

U. Cost Qty Amt. Qty Amt. Diff.

Labor 105 4 565 2,260 504.00 2,016.00 244.00

210 13 170 2,210 144.90 1,883.70 326.30

311 1,759 54 94,986 54 94,986.00 0.00

Sub-total 99,456 98,885.70 570.30

Fuel 105 210 50 10,500 92 4,600.00 5,900.00

210 210 50 10,500 115 5,750.00 4,750.00

311 - 50 - - - 0.00

Sub-total 21,000 10,350.00 10,650.00

Materials

Item 105 – item 104 used as shoulder

104 340 85 32,300 85 32,300.00 -

210 400 170 68,000 144.90 57,960.00 10,040.00

311

Cement 270 596 160,920 567 153,090.00 7,830

H.Blade 65 6 390 6 390.00 0.00

RSB,

16mm

420 32 13,440 32 13,440.00 0.00

RSB

10mm

160 7 1,120 7 1,120.00 0.00

CWN 65 5 325 5 325.00 0.00

W.gravel 918 68 62,424 58 53,244.00 9,180.00

W.sand 598 42 25,116 29 17,342.00 7,774.00

spade 980 1 975 1 975.00 0.00

Flat bar 1,260 1 1,255 1 1,255.00 0.00

R.lumber 612 5 3,050 5 3,050.00 0.00

Sub-total 369,315 334,491.00 34,824

Total 489,771 443,726.70 46,044.30

Ocular inspection of concrete pavement - Length – 90

meters, Width – 4 meters

Total Area – 504 sq. m.

Length of 90 meters and width of 4 meters or a total of

360 sq. meters in accordance with Plans and specs

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

Barangay Malag-it FMR

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




13

Payee/

Contractor Project Cost Per COA

Evaluation Difference Remarks

Start of concrete pavement measured at 360 sq. meters per

Pakyaw Contract

The deficiencies are discussed as follow:

Item 105 – Subgrade Preparation

At the time of inspection, the road was already paved, hence,

the quality of work could no longer be validated. The

accomplished area as measured was 504 sq.m. out of 565.00

sq.m per POW/Pakway Contract equivalent to 89.20% or a

variance of 61.00 sq.m amounting to P6,144.00.

Per Pakyaw Contract Sq.m. 565

Actual Accomplishment per Inspection 504

Accomplishment under/(over) 61

Labor (61 sq.m. x P4/sq.m.) P 244.00

Fuel and oil

Per POW 210 lts. @ 50/liter 10,500

Per Eval. 92 ltrs @ P50/liter 4,600 5,900.00

Deficiency P6,144.00

Item 104 was used as road shouldering materials. Actual

subgrade preparation was measured 504 sq.m. out of 565

per Pakyaw Contract.

Measurement of actual width of road shoulders at both

sides was .80 meters in accordance with Plans & Specs but

below the DPWH standard of 1.50 meters

In addition, the following observations were noted: As indicated in the road cross section detail 85.00 cu.m.

of Item 104 – Backfilling materials which were included

were under this work item and utilized as road

shouldering materials. This scope of work should have

been treated as a separate pay item. Per DPWH standard

specifications Item 104 is not suited for road shoulders;

and

Width of road shoulders at both sides per approved plan

was only 0.80 meters which was below 1.50 meters as

required under DPWH Department Order No. 11, dated

February 3, 2014.

Noted pavement cracks

during actual inspection.

Total actual

accomplishment was only

85.24% or 144.9 cu.m. of

the 170 cu.m.

Item 201 – Aggregate Base Course

The volume accomplished was only 144.9 cu.m. or 85.24% of

the required volume of 170 cu.m. per POW or a variance of

25.10 cu.m amounting to P15,116.30 computed below:

Per Pakyaw Contract cu.m. 170.00

Actual Accomplishment ( including shrinkage factor) 144.90

Accomplishment under/(over) cu.m. 25.10

Materials (25.10 x 400/cu.m.) P10,040.00

Labor (25.10 x 13/cu.m) 326.30

Fuel and oil


Per Evaluation 115 ltrs @ P50/liter

5,750 4,750.00


7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




14

Payee/ Contractor Project Cost

Per COA Evaluation Difference Remarks

\

End of concrete pavement

measured at 90 linear

meters

Measuring actual thickness

of concrete pavement in

accordance with POW

Item 311 – Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP)

The total length of concrete paved road measured was 90.00

linear meters which was in accordance with the approved

plans and POW, however, provisions for materials were

excessive by P24,784 as follow:

Material

Unit

Quantity

Diff.

Unit

Cost

Amt. PO/

PO

W

COA

Est.

Portland Cement bag 596 567 29 270 7,830

Washed Gravel cu.m. 68 58 10 918 9,180

Washed Sand cu.m. 42 29 13 598 7,774

Total cost of deficiency 24,784

Other deficiencies noted:

Standard thickness of 0.15m and width of 6.10m were not

observed; and

Scaling in concrete pavement

BARANGAY SAN PEDRO

Concreting of 300sq.m. Barangay Road, with 0.80m. Shoulders at both sides and a carriageway of 4.00 meters X 0.15

meters thick BY & Sons

Trading/E. Buno P389,420.00 P346,815.96 P42,604.04

Based on POW, the project has a total length of 75 meters




amounting to P42,604.04 computed below:

Station 1 with 34.31 and Station 2 with 39.35 linear meters

and width of 4 meters or a total of 294.64 sq. meters of the

300 sq. meters per Plans & Specs

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




15

Payee/ Contractor

Project Cost

Per COA Evaluation

Difference Remarks

Barangay San Pedro - Station 1

Length – 34.31 linear meters Width – 4 meters

Total Area – 137.24 sq. mtrs.

Barangay San Pedro - Station 2

Length – 39.35 linear meters

Width – 4 meters Total Area -157.40 sq. mtrs.

Item No.



Labor 105 5.10 450 2,295 355.42 1,812.62 482.38

210 17 135 2,295 102.18 1,737.10 557.90

311 1,650 45 74,250 44.20 72,923.40 1,326.60

Sub-total 78,840 76,473.12 2,366.88

Fuel

105 210 50 10,500 92 4,600.00 5,900.00

210 210 50 10,500 115 5,750.00 4,750.00

311 - 50 - - - 0.00

Sub-total 21,000 10,350.00 10,650.00

Materials

Item 105 – item 104 used as shoulder 104 380 68 25,840 68 25,840.00 -

210 400 135 54,000 102.18 40,872.84 13,127.16

311

Cement 255 495 126,225 473 120,615.00 5,610

H.Blade 71 5 355 5 355.00 0.00

RSB,

16mm 420 24 10,080 24 10,080.00 0.00

Item No. Per Pakyaw Contract Per COA-TAS Evaluation


RSB 10mm 160 4 640 4 640.00 0.00

CWN 60 4 240 4 240.00 0.00

W.gravel 900 57 51,300 48 43,200.00 8,100.00

W.sand 550 30 16,500 25 13,750.00 2,750.00

spade 800 1 800 1 800.00 0.00

Flat bar 1,200 1 1,200 1 1,200.00 0.00

R.lumber 600 4 2,400 4 2,400.00 0.00

Sub-total 289,580 259,992.84 29,587.16

Total 389,420 346,815.96 42,604.04

Actual inspection of FMR Project was measured at 73.66

linear meters out of 75 linear meters per Plans and Specs

Actual area accomplished for

subgrade preparation was

measured @ 355.42 sq.m.or 78.98% of the 450 sq.m.

Actual thickness was

measured at 0.15 meters



At the time of inspection, the road was already paved,

hence, the quality of work could no longer be validated.

The accomplished area as measured was 355.42 sq.m. out

of 450.00 sq.m per POW/Pakway Contract equivalent

only to 78.98% or a variance of 95.48 sq.m amounting to

P6,382.38.

Per Pakyaw Contract Sq.m. 450.00

Actual Accomplishment (Sections 1 and 2) 355.42

Accomplishment under/(over) 94.58

Labor (94.58 sq.m @ P.10/sq.m.) P482.38

Fuel and oil




7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




16

Payee/

Contractor

Project Cost Per COA

Evaluation

Difference

Remarks

Side of the concrete

pavement without shoulder

due to limited carriageway


pavement with

inadequate/limited width

In addition, the following observations were noted:

Some portion of the right and left side of the road

showed no shouldering materials applied due to limited

carriageway;

Some portion of the right and left side of roadway have

loose shouldering materials which would tend to erode

at the outpour of heavy rain;

Due to observed inadequate/limited width, some

sections within the project limits were not provided with

road shoulders specifically section 2 left side, hence, the

actual area of subgrade preparation was reduced; and

As indicated in the road cross section detail 68.00 cu.m.

of Item 104 – Backfilling materials were included were

under this work item and utilized as road shouldering

materials. This scope of work should have been treated

as a separate pay item. Per DPWH standard

specifications Item 104 is not suited for road shoulders.


pavement with loose

shoulder

Measurement of actual

volume of aggregate base

course was only 75.69% or

102.18 cu.m.of the 135

cu.m.

Actual PCCP was

measured at 73.66 linear

meters of the 75 linear

meters per Plans and

Specs


The volume accomplished was only 102.18 cu.m. or 75.69% of

the required volume of 135 cu.m. per POW or a variance of

32.82 cu.m amounting to P18,435.06 computed below.

Per Pakyaw Contract cu.m. 135.00

Actual Accomplishment (including shrinkage factor) 102.18

Accomplishment under/(over) P 32.82

Materials (32.82 x 400/cu.m.) 13,127.16

Labor (32.82 cu.m. @ P17/cu.m.) 557.90

Fuel and oil 0

Per POW 210 lts. @ 50/liter 10,500 0



7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




17

Payee/

Contractor

Project

Cost

Per COA

Evaluation

Difference

Remarks


The total length of concrete paved road was measured at 73.66 linear meters of the 75.00 linear meters as programmed which is equivalent

to 98.21%. The deficiency amounting toP17,786.60 was computed, as

follow:

Per Pakyaw Contract - (75 l.m) Cu.m. 45.00

Actual Accomplishment (73.66 l.m.) 44.20

Accomplishment under/(over) 0.80

Labor cost per cu.m. P1,650.00

Deficiency - Labor P1,326.60

Material

Unit Quantity

Diff.

U. Cost

Amt. PO/

POW COA Eval.

P.Cement bag 495 473 22 255 5,610

W.Gravel cu.m. 57 48 9 900 8,100

W. Sand cu.m. 30 25 5 550 2,750

Deficiency-material P16,460

End of Brgy San Pedro FMR, from Stn 1 with 34.31 to

Stn 2 with 39.35 linear meters or a total of 73.66 liner

meters.

Barangay Tabuc Concreting of 300 sq.m. Barangay Road, with 0.80m Shoulders at both sides and a carriageway of 4.00 meters x 0.15

meters thick HLH/Erwin

Buno

P430,610.00 P396,374.77 P34,235.23

Based on POW, the project has a total length of 84 meters




amounting to P34,235.23, as summarized below.

Item

No.


U. Cost Qty Amt. Qty Amt. (Over)

/Under

Labor

105 4.56 504 2,300 477.01 2,175.16 124.84

210 15.33 150 2,300 137.14 2,102.36 197.64

311(.15m) 246.88 336 82,950 340.72 84,116.95 -1166.95

Sub-total 87,550 88,394.47 -844.47

Fuel

105 210 50 10,500 92 4,600.00 5,900.00

210 210 50 10,500 115 5,750.00 4,750.00

311 - 50 - - - 0.00

Sub-total 21,000 10,350.00 10,650.00

Length of 84 meters and width of 4 meters or a total area of

336 sq. meters

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




18

Payee/

Contractor

Project

Cost

Per COA

Evaluation

Difference

Remarks

Materials

Item 105 – item 104 used as shoulder

104 380 69 26,220 69 26,220 -

210 395 150 59,250 137.1

4

54,170.30 5,079.70

311 0

Cement 260 555 144,300 530 137,800 6,500.00

H.Blade 70 5 350 5 350 0.00

RSB,

16mm

420 26 10,920 26 10,920 0.00

RSB 10mm 160 5 800 5 800 0.00

CWN 60 4 240 4 240 0.00

W.gravel 900 63 56,700 53 47,700 9,000.00

W.sand 550 34 18,700 27 14,850 3,850.00

spade 800 1 800 1 800 0.00

Flat bar 1,240 1 1,240 1 1,240 0.00

R.lumber 635 4 2,540 4 2,540 0.00

Sub-total 322,060 297,630.30 24,429.70

Total 430,610 396,374.77 34,235.23

Actual inspection of FMR Project was measured at 85.18 meters

and width of 4.00 meters



At the time of inspection, the road was already paved, hence,

the quality of work could no longer be validated.The length of

the road as measured was 85.18 l.m. which is over by .18 l.m.

as compared with the length per POW of 85 l.m. It was also

noted that the width of the project ranged from 4.00 to 5.60m.

In view of this, some sections within the project limits were

provided with road shoulders, the actual area of subgrade

preparation accomplished was 477.01 sq.m. representing

94.64% of the area of 504.00 sq.m. per POW. Per attached

detailed unit price analysis, the fuel consumption required to

undertake the sub-grade preparation of 477.01 sq.m. is only 92

liters instead of 210.00 liters per POW with prevailing market

price of fuel @ P50, the computed cost of project discrepancy

amounted to P5,900.

Actual subgrade

preparation was measured @ 477.01 sq.m.or 94.64%

of the 504 sq.m.

Actual thickness was measured at

0.15 meters

In addition, the following observations were noted: 69.00 cu.m. of Item 104 – Backfill materials included this

pay item were utilized as road shouldering materials as

indicated in the road cross section detail. This scope of

work should have been treated as a separate pay item,

however, per DPWH standard specifications, Item 104 is

not suited for road shoulders.

Width of road shoulders at both sides as per approved

plan was only 0.80 meters which was not in accordance

with DPWH DO No. 11 dated 2/3/14 relative to the

design standrads for FMRs which requires width of 1.50

meters for road shoulder.

Actual width was measured 4 meters while road shoulders at both

sides was .80 meters which is below the DPWH standard of 1.50

meters

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




19

Payee/

Contractor

Project Cost Per COA

Evaluation

Difference

Remarks

Measurement of actual volume of aggregate base course

was only 91.43% or 137.14 cu.m.of the 150 cu.m.


The volume accomplished was only 137.14 cu.m. or 91.43%

of the required volume of 150 cu.m. per POW or a variance of

12.86 cu.m, thus the computed deficiency amounted to

P10,112.46, as tabulated below.

Materials (12.86 x 400/cu.m.) P5,143.85

Labor 218.61

Fuel and oil




End of Brgy Tabuc FMR, with an actual length of

concrete pave road measured @ 85.18 linear meters instead

of 84.00 linear meters as per POW


The total length of concrete paved road as measured was 85.18

linear meters instead of 84.00 linear meters as programmed,

having an excess accomplishment of 1.18 l.m. equivalent to

1.40%. Although, the total length of road paved is longer by

1.18 l.m., compared to the length in the plan and POW, it was

noted that the quantities of materials were found to be

overestimated thus, the materials used in the project were

purportedly less than the quantity procured by a total amount

P19,350.00 computed as follow:

Material

Unit Quantity

Diff.

Unit Cost

Amt. PO/

POW COA Est.

Portland Cement bag 555 530 25 260 6,500

Washed Gravel

cu.m. 63 53 10 900 9,000

Washed Sand cu.m. 34 27 7 550 3,850

Total cost of deficiency 19,350

Total

P1,309,801.00

P1,186,917.43

P122,883.57

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




20

EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT

7.1 RESULTS OF THE CITIZEN SURVEY

In connection with the on-going CPA of selected

FMR projects in the Municipality of Pontevedra,

the Audit Team administered survey

questionnaires on some of the residents of the

Barangays of Tabuc, San Pedro and Malag-it

where sampled FMRs were located. The survey

aimed to determine whether the primary objective

of FMR of enabling the Barangay residents to

transport farm produce, among others, to the

market efficiently, was achieved.

7.1.1 SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTOR

The survey was administered to at

least 30 respondents on each

Barangay or a total of 90

respondents with ages ranging from

20 to over 60 years on June 1, 2015, as shown on the following table:

Age

Barangay TOTAL % to Total

Malag-it

San Pedro

Tabuc

20-29 3 3 2 8 9.00

30-39 9 9 2 20 22.00

40-49 10 6 7 23 26.00

50-59 4 8 5 17 19.00

60 & above 4 4 14 22 24.00

TOTAL 30 30 30 90 100.00

Of the 90 respondents, 68 or 76 % were female and 22 or 24% were males. As such

majority were elementary and high school graduate, 76 or 84% and the remaining

percentage are college graduate. At least 18 % of the respondents are self-employed, 28

% are fisherman, 42 % are farmers, 7 % are employed either as manager or executive

Respondents from Brgy. Tabuc

filled-up the Survey questionnaire

Respondent from Brgy.

San Pedro filled-up the Survey

questionnaire

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




21

and that 80% or 72 of the respondents are earning P10,000.00 or less, which means

majority belongs to the lower echelon of the society.

7.1.2 UTILIZATION OF THE FARM TO MARKET ROAD BY THE COMMUNITY

7.1.2.1 Existing Condition before the construction of FMR

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 in the table on the

following tabulation:

Particulars/Means

Respondents TOTAL (90)

Malag-it (30) San Pedro (30) Tabuc (30)

Number %age Number %age Number %age Numbe

r %age

Handcarry 11 37 15 50 12 40 38 42

Carabao (Paragos) 4 13 1 3 3 10 8 9

Truck/Jeep 3 10 0 0 4 13 7 8

Tricycle 12 40 9 30 6 20 27 30

Motorcycle/Bicycle 0 0 5 17 1 3 6 7

Tractor/Kuliglig 0 0 0 0 4 14 4 4

TOTAL 30 100 30 100 30 100 90 100

It can be noted from the above tabulation that majority of the respondents walk

and hand carry their farm produce and other agricultural products to be able to

sell them at the market. With the above means of transportation, it usually took

the respondents maximum of 8 hours to bring their agricultural products/farm

produce to the market. This condition, however, changed with the construction

of the FMR in said Barangays. Survey showed that at least 32% of the

respondents now use tricycle and only a meager 4% resorted to walking as

shown in the following table.

Particulars/Means



Number %age Number %age Number %age Number %age

Handcarry 0 0 1 3 3 10 4 4

Carabao (Paragos) 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1

Truck/Jeep 8 27 9 30 10 33 27 30

Tricycle 16 53 13 43 0 0 29 32

Motorcycle/Bicycle 6 20 6 20 12 40 24 27

Tractor/Kuliglig 0 0 1 4 4 14 5 6

TOTAL 30 100 30 100 30 100 90 100

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




22

Likewise, at least 94% of the respondents informed that after the construction of

the FMRs, it took them only one to two (1-2) hours to travel from their

Barangays to the market to sell their farm produce/agricultural products, as can

be seen on the table below:

Particulars/

Travel Time

(No. of Hrs.)




1-2 30 100 25 83 30 100 85 94

3-4 0 0 3 10 0 0 3 3

5-6 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1

7-8 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1

TOTAL 30 100 30 100 30 100 90 100

This manifests that, the construction of the FMR projects in the said Barangays

have favorably affected the lives of the respondents-residents economically or

otherwise. Result of survey disclosed that 99% were satisfied with the project/s.

However, their level of satisfaction vary from somewhat satisfied (4%) to very

satisfied (50%) as shown on the following:

Particulars/Level of

Satisfaction

Respondents

TOTAL (90)

Malag-it (30)

San Pedro (30) Tabuc (30)

Number %age Number %age Number %age

Numb

er %age

Very Satisfied 15 50 15 50 15 50 45 50

Satisfied 12 40 15 50 13 43 40 44

Somewhat Satisfied 2 7 0 0 2 7 4 4

Not Satisfied 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 2

TOTAL 30 100 30 100 30 100 90 100

Further, as to the respondents’ assessment of the FMR projects, generally, they

are satisfied, but again, the degree of satisfaction vary from somewhat to very

satisfied summarized as follows:

Particulars/ Level

of Satisfaction




Very Satisfied 14 47 7 23 11 37 32 35

Satisfied 10 33 17 57 15 50 42 47

Somewhat Satisfied 6 20 6 20 4 13 16 18

Not Satisfied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 30 100 30 100 30 100 90 100

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




23

In general, the FMR projects in the barangays provide access from the farms and

fish ponds/fishing areas to the market/business center of the Municipality where

the farmers/fisher folks 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

as shown in the tabulation below:

Benefits Derived




Passage in

transporting goods

to the market 12 40 9 30 18 60 39 43

Good access from

place devoid of

livelihood 8 27 4 13 10 33 22 24

Access from areas affected by calamity 6 20 9 30 2 7 17 19

Passage from Agri-

tourism 1 3 4 13 0 0 5 6

Passage for economic progress 2 7 3 10 0 0 5 6

No benefit for

barangay livelihood 1 3 1 4 0 0 2 2

TOTAL 30 100 30 100 30 100 90 100

Moreover, majority of the respondents, about 72%, responded that the

constructed FMR which apparently is now being used, is contributory to the

increase in their family income. As a result, at least 98% informed that said

project was beneficial to them and their family. As mentioned earlier, benefits

derived from the project, among others were, better access road which brought

comfort and convenience not only in transporting goods to the market, but also,

in commuting to and from their works. As such, respondents informed that they

are satisfied with the project and assessed the benefits therefrom as excellent

(36%), good (53%), slightly good (10%) and a very low 1% says the project has

no effect in their lives, as shown in the table that follow:

Particulars/

Level of

Satisfaction




Excellent 12 40 8 27 12 40 32 36

Good 16 53 16 53 16 53 48 53

Slightly Good 2 7 5 17 2 7 9 10

No Effect 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1

Bad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 30 100 30 100 30 100 90 100

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




24

Details of the results of survey administered by the team are shown in Appendix G.

While the FMRs provide the barangay residents engaged in farming and fishery

access to transport their produce, linkage of the projects to the main road was not

achieved. Prioritization and proper sectioning was not done as one section is not

linked to the other section. As such, the residents still have to traverse undeveloped

pathways/sections in order to reach the continuation of the road sections until the

national highway is reached. Thus, efficiency in transporting products to the

market was not maximized as envisioned

under RA 8435.

As contained in pertinent portion of RA 8435,

otherwise known as the Agriculture

Modernization Act of the Philippines, 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 nations resources in the most

efficient and sustainable way possible by

establishing a more equitable access to assets,

income, basic and support services and infrastructure.

As such, Section 52 of the above RA provides that the Department of Public Works and

Highways (DPWH) shall coordinate with the LGUs and the resident-farmers and fisher

folk in order to identify priority locations of farm-to -market roads 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 agricultural and fisheries products produced in the

area.

Further, Section 46 of the 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 (referring to Departmentof Agriculture) to

address the infrastructure requirements in accordance with this Act, 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.

National Highway

Brgy Malag-it FMR

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




25

Ocular Inspection of the FMR

project in Barangays San Pedro

disclosed that the project is divided

into two road sections. The first

section with a length of 34.31 (sta.

0+ 000 to sta 0+ 034.31), begins one

(1) kilometer from the National

Highway. It is located 20 meters

away from the Barangay Hall where

motorcycle/bicycle is the usual mode

of transportation. The 2nd section

continues 150 meters from the first

section, passing through a few small

houses, until it reached and ends at

the coastal area where the Capiz State University fishponds connect other two (2)

coastal barangays surrounded by farms and aqua farms, namely, Guba and Manapao.

The FMR has a total length of 300 sq. m., with 0.80 shoulders on both sides, roadway

of 4.00 x 0.15 meters and at least one (1) kilometer from the main road leading to the

market where small retail stores and a number of construction and service industries

centered. As discussed earlier, majority of

the residents manifested satisfaction with

the FMR project, however, they emphasized that the road be interconnected/linked and

concreted from the farm to the market access to enhance and/or improve even more the

manner/way of transporting the produce of farmers and fishermen.

Tabuc - Pontevedra

FMR

2nd Road Section

1st Road Section

Barangay San Pedro, FMR

Barangay Tabuc, FMR

National Highway

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




26

This would even more help them to improve/uplift their lives economically or otherwise.

COAns and CSO partners dialogue with respondents of Barangay Tabuc

7.0 AUDIT RESULTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




27

In terms of the implementation of the FMR projects selected for CPA, they were in

consonance with the AIP of the Municipality sourced from the 20% Development Fund

amounting to P1.750 million. The bidding process was undertaken for the procurement of

materials only in compliance with the Revised Implementing rules and Regulations of RA No.

9184 and other pertinent laws, rules and regulations. Further, the selected projects costing a

total of P1.340 million were implemented. Actual project expenditure was P1,309,801.

However, evaluation and ocular inspection of the said FMRs disclosed that actual

accomplishments were not in accordance with plans, specifications and POW as manifested in

the deficiencies noted costing P122,883.57, due to quantity and/or volume of work

accomplished for PCCP was less than the quantity/volume as implemented by LGU. The width

constructed was not in accordance with the standard set by DPWH Department Order for

FMRs and some work items were not done. During inspection, major scaling, cracks and some

portion of the right and left side of the road showed no shouldering materials applied due to

inadequate/limited width. These conditions will unfavorably affect the life span of the FMRs.

Despite the above deficiencies, 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 and reportedly

have increased their income. 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. 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.

8.0 AUDIT CONCLUSIONS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




28

In the preparation of ABC, POW and detailed cost estimates, we recommend that

Management:

1. Direct the concerned Municipal Official 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. Require the refund of the cost of project

deficiencies amounting to P122,883.57;

2. Indicate the project completion from the procurement of materials instead of project

duration of labor. Likewise, provide a minimum of 1.5 meters shoulder gravel

surfacing in the preparation of POW;

In the implementation of FMR projects, we recommend that Management:

3. 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;

4. Provide readily available construction equipment to continuously supply the needed

requirement in carrying out simultaneous construction of FMRs; and

On the level of satisfaction with the use of FMRs, we recommend that Management consider

the construction of FMR in priority sites linking farm/fishpond areas to the main road as

envisioned in RA 8435, thus, increasing job opportunities and maximizing the efficient and

most convenient way of transporting farm/fish products to the market, thus, improving the

people’s lives in the countryside (barangay folks).

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




29

The Audit Team discussed the findings/observation and recommendations with the Municipal

Mayor and concerned staff in an exit conference conducted on June 25, 2015. Their comments

are summarized as follows:

1. The Municipal Government informed the team that they have corrected the noted

deficiencies of P122,883.57 by increasing the length of 4.5 meters in the three

concrete projects as contained in the “As Built POW and Plans”;

2. Henceforth, preparation of POW, plans and specifications, and cost estimates shall

be strictly observed in accordance with DPWH standards including the provision of

1.5 meters shoulder gravel surfacing of all FMRs;

3. Timely procurement of labor and materials shall be considered in the

implementation of FMRs to ensure effective and efficient use of government

resources;

4. Proper scheduling of personnel and construction equipment to carry out

simultaneous construction operations shall be strictly observed in the future FMR

projects; and

5. With respect to the construction of FMR in priority sites linking farm/fishpond areas

to the main road, the management informed the team that it is the DILG through its

Performance Challenge Fund that identified areas to be prioritized as an incentive in

valuing the fundamentals of good governance having passed the Seal of Good

Housekeeping (SGH) assessment, and in some, garnered the Gawad Pamana ng Lahi

award.

10.0 AUDITEE’S COMMENTS

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




30

The team appreciates the actions taken/to be taken by the Municipal Government. However,

validation of corrective actions on the project shall be made to ensure that the deficiencies are

corrected by the concerned LGU staff.

Likewise, compliance with the standards set/requirements for FMRs on the preparation of

POW, detailed estimates, among others, shall be checked by the team.

While it is true that the DILG is mandated to address the infrastructure requirements and to

identify the priority location of FMR as provided in Section 52 of Republic Act 8435, the

Comprehensive Development Plan should be formulated at the LGU level, which includes

among others, the Programs, Activities and Projects (PAPs) for the achievement of Medium

Term Development Goals (e.g. school buildings, rural health units/health centers, birthing or

lying-in facilities, water and sanitation, and housing and settlements), Maintenance of Core

Road Network to Boost Tourism and Local Economic Development (e.g. core local roads and

bridges, farm-to-market roads, drainage), Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (e.g. flood

control, reforestations, storm drainage, dikes, seawall and related flood protection measures and

slope protection, evacuation centers, rainwater collection facility, early warning system/devices

and rescue equipment) and Ecological Solid Waste Management (e.g. sanitary landfill, material

recovery facilities, sewerage system).

11.0 AUDITOR’S EVALUATION/REJOINDER

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




31

We acknowledge the cooperation and assistance extended to the CPA Team by the officials and

staff of the Municipal Government of Pontevedra, 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.

The report shall be made available at the COA website at http://www.coa.gov.ph and the COA

CPA website at http://www.i-kwenta.com.

12.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

http://www.coa.gov.ph/

http://www.i-kwenta.com/

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




32

Submitted in compliance with COA Regional Office No. VI Office Order No. 2015-088

dated May 18, 2015.

DAVE D. ADRICULA PRISCILLA M. MUYUELA

Team Member – CSO (JASAC) Team Member – OIC-TS

RICHARD S. BIONA JUNMAR D. NATANAUAN

Team Member – CSO (JASAC) Team Member

DENMARK L. LLANERA HANNAH D. MARCELINO

Team Member – CSO (PICPA) Team Member

MARILOU P. SUMCAD

Team Leader

RIZALDE P. DIZON

Team Supervisor

Reviewed by: Approved by:

LINA R. MACARAIG EVELYN P. REYES

Director III Director IV

`


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




0

APPENDIX A – MAP OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF PONTEVEDRA

APPENDIX B – BARANGAY SAN PEDRO, FMR (1st and 2nd SECTIONS)

APPENDIX C – BARANGAY TABUC, FMR

APPENDIX D – BARANGAY MALAG-IT, FMR

APPENDIX E – SATELLITE VIEW OF FMR AT BARANGAYS SAN PEDRO,

TABUC AND MALAG-IT FROM THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY

APPENDIX F – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX G – CONSOLIDATED RESULT OF SURVEY CONDUCTED BY

CSO PARTNERS AT BARANGAYS SAN PEDRO, TABUC

AND MALAG-IT

APPENDICES

` Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON AUDIT




APPENDIX A: MAP of the Municipality of Pontevedra


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




APPENDIX B: Barangay San Pedro, FMR (1st and 2nd Sections)


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




APPENDIX C: Barangay Tabuc, FMR


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




APPENDIX D: Barangay Malag-it, FMR


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




1ST station

2nd station

APPENDIX E: Satellite View of FMRs from the National Highway


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




National Highway

APPENDIX E: Satellite View of FMRs from the National Highway


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




This survey is conducted with the following objectives:

1. To check if the Farm to Market Road Project is in accordance with the pertinent provisions of

Republic Act No. 8435 and its implementing Rules and Regulations

2. To check if the purpose of the FMR Project is achieved by the LGU through proper identification of

priority locations of FMRs that takes into account the number of farmers and fisherfolk and their

families who shall benefit therefrom and the amount, kind and importance of agricultural and fisheries

products in the area.

"Farm to Market Roads" refers to roads linking the agriculture and fisheries production sites, coastal

landing points and post-harvest facilities to the market and arterial roads and highways.

This activity is in line with the Commission on Audit's (COA) Citizen Participatory Audit (CPA)

project implemented with the Philippine Institute of Certifie Public Accountant (PICA) and Jaro

Archdiocesan Social Action Center (JASAC) , and support from the Land Bank.

TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ENUMERATOR:

Date of Interview: Start Time: End Time:

PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Pangalan(Name):

3. Kasarian(Gender): Check (/) one:

[ ] Male (lalaki)

[ ] Female (babae)

2. Tirahan(Address):

4. ___________________(refer to COA Cell list)

5. Distrito(District):

PART II - SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

6. Ano ang saklaw ng edad mo? (What is your age

range?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] 13-19

[ ] 20-29

[ ] 40-49

[ ] 30-39

[ ] 50-59

[ ] 60 and above

7. Anong antas ng edukasyon ang natapos mo? (What

is your highest educational attainment?

Check (/) one:

[ ] Elmentary

[ ] Highschool

[ ] College

[ ] Masters

APPENDIX F: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




8. Anong trabaho mo? (What is your occupation?) Check (/) one:

[ ] Self Employe

[ ] Professional

[ ] Manager (executive)

[ ] Administrative / clerical

[ ] Magsasaka

[ ]Housewife/Husband (maybahay)

[ ] Househelp (kasambahay)

[ ] Student

[ ] Retired (reterado)

[ ] Mangingisda

9. Ilang miyembro ng inyong sambahayan ang

may pinagkakakitaan? (How many member/s

of your household is/are earnings?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] 0

[ ] 1

[ ] 2

[ ] 3

[ ] 4

[ ] 5

[ ] 6 or more

10. Magkano ang total na kita ng sambahayan niyo

buwan-buwan? (What is your total monthly

household income?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] P10,000 or less

[ ] P10,0001 to P20,000

[ ] P20,001-P30,000

[ ] P30,001-P40,000

[ ] P40,001-P50,000

[ ] 50,001 and up

[ ] Don't Know

PART III: COMMUNITY AWARENESS OF THE FARM TO MARKET ROAD PROJECTS

11. Narinig mo na ba ang batas na RA No. 8435?

(Have you heard about RA 8435?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

12. Alam mo ba ang batas na RA No. 8435 na

naglalayon na magkaroon ng Farm to Market

Project? (Are you aware of RA No. 8435

providing for the construction of farm to market

project?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

13. Alam mo ba ang Pamahalaan ay nagpagawa ng

proyekto na farm to market road sa

_______________(lugar)? (Are you aware that

the Government is implementing a construction

project of farm to market road in

___________________? (location).

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

[ ] Don't Know (Hindi alam)



COMMISSION ON AUDIT




14. Alam mo ba kung ilan ang resindente na nakatira

o malapit sa barangay kung saan ipinagawa ang

FMR na proyekto? (Are you aware of the number

of residing near or living in the barangay where

FMR project was constructed?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)


If Yes, how many? kung Oo ilan?

[ ] 50 to 100

[ ] 101 to 200

[ ] 201 to 300

[ ] 301-400

[ ] 401 to 500

[ ] Over 500

15. Alam mo ba kung saang lugar itinayo ang FMR

na ipinagawa ng Pamahalaan? (Are you aware of

the location where the FMR was constructed by

the Government?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

If Yes, Where? kung Oo, Saan?

16. Alam mo ba kung kailan ginawa ang FMR na

ipinagawa ng Pamahalaan? (Are you aware of the

date when the FMR was constructed by the

government? Kailan nasiimulan ang proyekto?

(When was the project started?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

If yes, when? Kung Oo, Kailan?

17. Natapos na ba ang pinapagawang FMR na

proyekto? (Had the FMR project been

completed?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)


18. Kailan natapos ang pinapagawang FMR na

proyekto? (When was the estimated date of

completion? Kung o, kailan? (If when)?

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

Petsa (Date):

19. Ito bang FMR na proyektong ito ay ginagamit na?

(Is the FMR Project now being used?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)


20. Sa paanong paraan mo nalaman ang ipinagawang

FMR na proyekto? (In what way were you able to

learn about FMR Project?)

Check (/) all answers that apply,.

[ ] Work nearby (malapit lang ang trabaho)

[ ] This is my usual path (Ito ay aking

dinadaanan madalas)

[ ] Good access to transit of goods (Ito ay

nagdudulot ngmagandang daan para sa

byahe ng aming kalakal)

[ ] Provincial assembly (Pagpupulong sa

Probinsya)

[ ] Municipal assembly (Pagpupulong sa

Munisipyo)

[ ] Barangay assembly (Pagpupulong sa

Barangay)

[ ] Distribution of flyers/leaflets by province

(Pamamahagi ng flyers/leaflets ng probinsya



COMMISSION ON AUDIT




21. Alam mo ba kung ang Pamahalaang local

ay may tamang anunsyo tungkol sa mga

ipinapagawang proyektong FMR sa iyong

komunidad? (Do you know if the LGU

provides adequate posting and publicity on

the construction of FMR Project?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

22. Alam mo ba kung anong ahensya ng

gobyerno ang nagpapagawa/nagpapatupad

ng FMR? (Do you know what agency of the

government implements the construction

and rehabilitation of FMR?) Kung Oo, Sino

ang gumawa ng/nagpapatupad ng proyekto?

(If yes, what agency implements the

project?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

Check one:

[ ] Provincial Govenrment (Pamahalaang Probinsya)

[ ] Municipal Government (Pamahalaang

Munisipyo)

[ ] Barangay

[ ] DPWH

[ ] Dept. of Agriculture

[ ] Others: (Mag iba pa)

23. Paano ninyo nalaman kung sino ang

nagpapagawa ng proyekto? (How did yo

you know the implementing agaency of the

project?)

Check (/) applicable answer:

[ ] Posting/Billboard

[ ] Balita ng kaibigan o kabrgy.

[ ] Others (Mag iba pa)

24. Alam mo ba kung sino ang kontratista ng

proyekto? (Do you know the contractor of

the project?) Kung OO, Sino ang

kontratista? (If Yes, Who is the contractor?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

Name of Contractor/Company: (Pangalan ng

Kontratista/Kompanya)

25. Paano mo nalaman kung sino ang

kontratista? (How did you know the

contarct of the project?)

Check (/) all answers that apply:

[ ] Posting/Billboard

[ ] Neighbor/resident of the brgy. (Kapitbahay/

barangay)

[ ] Others: (Mga iba)

26. May nakalagay bang panagalan ng opisyal

ng pamahalaan sa anunsyo? (Was there a

name of government official in the

billboard/posting?)

Kung Oo, Kaninong pangalan ng opisyal

ang nakalagay sa anunsyo? (If Ye, whose

name was indicated in the billboard?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] None (Wala)


Name (Pangalan)

27. May litrato ba ng opisyal/mga opisyal ng

pamahalaan sa anunsyo? ( Was there a

picture of government official/s in the

billboard?)

Kung Oo, Knainong litrato ang nakalagay

sa anunsyo? (If Yes, whose picture

was printed in the billboard?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] None (Wala)


Name (Pangalan)



COMMISSION ON AUDIT




28. Ano ang mga kagamitan na ginagamit

sa proyekto? (What are the equipment

used in the project?)

Check (/) applicable answer: (Piliin ang naayon na Sagot)

[ ] Dump truck

[ ] Water truck (Truck na pandilig)

[ ] Road Roller (Pison)

[ ] Cement/concrete mixer (Panghalo ng semento)

[ ] Transit Mixer

[ ] Vibrator (Pansiksik ng semento)

[ ] Others (Mga iba)

29. Ano ang mga ginagawa sa pagsasagawa

ng proyekto? (What are the items of

works done in the project? )

Check (/) applicable answer: Piliin ang naayon na sagot)

[ ] Piles of soil (Tambak ng lupa)

[ ] Piles of stone (Tambak ng bato)

[ ] Cement/concrete (Semento/konkreto)

30. May nagtratrapik ba sa ginagawang

proyekto? (Was there a flagman to

control the traffic in the

construction/project area?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] None (Wala)


PART IV – LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BARANGAY) AWARENESS OF THE FARM TO MARKET

ROAD PROJECT

31. Alam mo ba kung may naganap na

general assembly sa lokal niyong

pamahalaan para sa annual

development projects? (Are you aware

of any general assembly held in your

LGU for annual development projects?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)


32. Sa anong paraan mo nalaman na ang

FMR Project ay isa sa mga proyekto na

nakapaloob sa Annual Investment Plan

(AIP) ng lokal na pamahalaan? (How

did you know that FMR Projects is one

of the projects included in the AIP in

your locality?)

Note: Dito nalalaman din natin kung

may pagsasaliksik na ginawa ang LGU

para malaman kung saan ilalagay ang

FMR Project. (With this, we will be

able to know if the LGU conducted a

study where the FMR Project willbe

constructed.)


[ ] City/Municipal assembly (pagpupulong sa

city/Municipal hall)

[ ] Baranagy assembly (Pagpupulong ng Barangay)

[ ] Distribution of fliers fliers/leaflets/Mun. Hall

(pamamahagi ng fliers/leaflets ang city/Municipal

Hall)

[ ] Distribution of fliers fliers/leaflets by the barangay

(pamamahagi ng fliers/leaflets ng barangay hall)

[ ] Home visit by city/mun. official (pagbisita ng mga

opisyal mula sa city/mun. hall)

[ ] Home visit by barangay officials (pagbisita ng mga

opisyal mula sa barangay)

[ ] Poster/tarpauline

[ ] Radio/television (radio/telebisyon)

[ ] Others (sa iba), specify: ___________



COMMISSION ON AUDIT




33. Alam mo ba o may kilala ka ba na 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)

34. Napapaligiran po ba ng mga taniman at sakahan ang

inyong lugar? (Is your place surrounded with

agricultural plants/farms?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

35. Marami po bang dumadaan na sasakyan dito 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. Traktora

i. Kuliglig

Yes No

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

[ ] [ ]

36. Alam nyo ba na may pinagawang daan (FMR) sa inyong

lugar?(Are you aware that an FMR has been constructed

in your area/locality?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

37. Alam mo ba kung may opisina sa lokal na pamahalaan

na nagpapatupad ng tamang pamamahala ng contruction

ng FMR Project? (Are you aware if there's any in your

locality (LGU) Offices which implementing the

construction of FMR?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)


38. Sa inyong pagkakaalam sino ang nagpapatupad ng

tamang pamamahala ng construction ng FMR

Project?(Who is implementing and managing the

construction of the FMR Project?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] City/Municipal Government

[ ] Barangay Officials (Opisyal ng

barangay)


[ ] Others, (Iba), pls.

specify_______________

PART V - UTILIZATION OF THE FARM TO MARKET ROAD BY THE COMMUNITY

39. Sa iyong 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 the FMR?)


[ ] Vegetable (Gulay)

[ ] Meat (Karne)

[ ] Fish (Isda)

[ ] Rice (Bigas)

[ ] Animals (Hayop)



COMMISSION ON AUDIT




40. Noon pong wala pang kalsada dito, paano niyo po

dinadala ang mga kalakal sa palengke o tindahan? (Prior

to the construction of the FMR, how did you transport

your agricultural produce to the market/store?)


[ ] Handcarry (Lakad/Buhat)

[ ] Carabao (Kalabaw)

[ ] Horse (Kabayo)

[ ] Truck

[ ] Jeep

[ ] Karitela

[ ] Bus

[ ] Tricycle

[ ] Motor/Bisikleta

[ ] Paragos

[ ] Traktora

[ ] Kuliglig

41. Paano naman po ngayon na may kalsada na? (How about

after construction of the FMR?)


[ ] Handcarry

[ ] Carabao

[ ] Horse

[ ] Truck

[ ] Jeep

[ ] Karitela

[ ] Bus

[ ] Tricycle

[ ] Motor/Bisikleta

[ ] Paragos

[ ] Traktora

[ ] Kuliglig

42. Noon pong wala pang kalsada dito, ilang araw/oras po

inaabot ang pagdadala ng mga kalakal sa palengke o

tindahan? (Prior to the construction of the FMR, how

many days/hours did it take for you to bring your

agricultural produce to the market/store?)


[ ] 1-2 hrs

[ ] 3-4 hrs

[ ] 5-6 hrs

[ ] 7-8 hrs

43. Paano naman po ngayon na may kalsada na? (How about

after construction of the FMR?)


[ ] Less than 1 hour

[ ] 1-2 hrs

[ ] 3-4 hrs

[ ] 5-6 hrs

[ ] 7-8 hrs

44. Nagagamit mo ba ang FMR sa pagbabyahe ng mga ani at

produkto mula sa sakahan/bagsakan papunta sa palengke

o pamilihang bayan?(Are you using the FMR in

transporting farm produces and fish ports to the market?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)



COMMISSION ON AUDIT




45. Sa iyong palagay, nakatulong ba ang kalsada sa pagtaas

ng inyong kita?(In your opinion, did the FMR improve

your income?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

46. Kung Oo, Gaano ka nasisiyahan? (If yes, how satisfied

are you?)


[ ] Very Satisfied (tuwang-tuwa)

[ ] Satisfied (natutuwa)

[ ] Somewhat Satisfied (medyo natutuwa)

[ ] Not Satisfied at all (hindi natutuwa)

47. Kung Hindi, Bakit? (If No, why?)

PART VI - LEVEL OF COMMUNITY SATISFACTION WITH THE USE OF FARM TO MARKET

ROAD

48. Ikaw ba ay nasisiyahan sa proyekto? (Are you satisfied

with the project?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

49. Kung Oo, Gaano ka nasisiyahan?(If yes, how satisfied

are you?)






50. Kung Hindi, Bakit? (If No, why?)

51. Kung bibigyan ng marka ang proyekto anong marka

ang ibibigay mo? (If you will asked to assess the

project, how will you rate it?






52. Ano ang maimumungkahi mo para maipabuti pa ang

proyekto? (What are your recommendations to improve

the project?)

Specify here: (Isulat dito)

53. Alam mo ba kung nakatulong s ainyong

pangkabuhayan ang itinayong FMR na proyekto sa

inyong komunidad? (Do you know if potential

livelihood benefits were derived by your community

from the completed FMR Project?)

Check applicable answer:

[ ] resulted to good access road/passage in

the transit of goods to market. (Nagdulot

ng ugnayan mula sa mga

bukirin/palaisdaan papunta sa mga

pamilihan o merkado)



COMMISSION ON AUDIT




[ ] resulted to good access road/passage from the

areas void of livelihood and

experiencing poverty capaign to eliminate

poverty. (Nagdulot ng daanan mula sa mga lugar

na salat sa kabuhayan/karalitaan ayon sa

kampanya ng pamahalaan sugpuin ang kahirapan)

[ ] resulted to good access road/passage from the

areas affected by calamity. (Nagdulot ng daanan

mula mga lugar na napinsala ng kalamidad)

[ ] resulted to good access road/passage for

agricultural tourism. (Nagdulot ng daanan para sa

turismong pangsakahan)

[ ] resulted to good access road/passage for

economic progress. (Nagdulot ng daanan para sa

ikauunlad ng ekonomiya)

[ ] No potential benefit derived for the barangay

livelihood. (Walang idinulot na benepisyong

potensyal sa pangkabuhayanng barangay)

54. Nakatulong ba sa inyong kabuhayan/kita ang

ginawang FMR? (Did your income increase

with the help of completion of FMR?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)


Comment/Remarks (Puna): _____________

55. Nagkaroon ba ng mabuting epekto sa iyong

sarili at sa iyong pamilya ang pagkagawa ng

FMR proyekto sa probinsya? (Had the FMR

Project constructed been beneficial to

yourself and to your family?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

[ ] Don't Know

Comment/Remarks:

56. Masasabi mo ba kung ano ang mga

pansariling epekto o benepisyo na nakuha mo

sa ipinagawang FMR Proyekto? (Can you

cite the effects of benefits that you have

personally derived from the FMR Project?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] resulted to better access road in going to work

everyday (Nagbigay ng mabilis na daanan sa

aming gawain/trabaho araw-araw)

[ ] accelerated&brought comfort/convenience in our

daily livelihood (Nagpabilis ng takbo at nagdulot

ng kaginhawaan sa aming pang araw-araw na

kabuhayan)

[ ] no benefit derived in our daily livelihood.

(Walang idinulot na benepisyo sa aming araw-araw na

pangkabuhayan)



COMMISSION ON AUDIT




57. Ikaw ba ay natutuwa sa ipinagawang FMR

Proyekto? (Are you satisfied with the FMR

Project?) If yes, how satisfied are you?) Kung

OO, gaano ka natuwa? Kung HINDI, bakit? (If

no, why?)


[ ] Very Satisfied (tuwang tuwa)

[ ] Satisfied (Natuwa)

[ ] Somewhat Satisfied (Medyo natuwa)

[ ] Not Satisfied at all(hindi natuwa)

Check applicable answer (piliin ang naaayon na

sagot)

[ ] Not beneficial (walang idinulot na maganda)

[ ] Wrong location (mali ang lugar ng FMR na

proyekto)

[ ] Poor quality and workmanship (mali ang

pagkakagawa)

[ ] others (mga iba)

58. Kung bibigyan mo ng marka ang kabutihang

idinulot ng FMR Proyekto, anong marka ang

ibibgay mo? (If you will assess the benefits of the

FMR Project to your community, how will you

rate it?)

Check (/) applicable answer (Piliin ang sagot)

[ ] Excellent (Napakabuti)

[ ] Good (Mabuti)

[ ] Slightly good (Medyo mabuti)

[ ] No effect (walang ibinuti)

[ ] Bad (masama)

Comments/Remarks (Puna)____________

59. Ano ang maimumungkahi mo para mapabuti ang

pagpapagawa ng mga sumusunod na FMR

Proyekto ng probinsya sa mga darating na

panahon? (What are your recommendation/s to

improve construction of future FMR Projects by

the Province?)

Recommendation/s (Mungkahi/Mga

mungkahi)________________________

60. Alam mo ba na pwede mong ipaalam ang iyong

mga reklamo tungkol sa FMR proyekto sa

pamamagitan ng pagkuha ng litrato at

pagpapadala nito sa www.Ikwenta.com?(Do you

know that you can report complaints on poor and

inferior FMR Projects by submitting photographs

to www.Ikwenta.com?)

Check (/) one:

[ ] Yes (Oo)

[ ] No (Hindi)

IMPORTANT: To be filled up by the enumerator

Name of the Interviewee:

Signature of Interviewer:

Address:

Mobile Number:

Email (if applicable):

Signature of the Enumerator:

Interview Notes (If applicable):


http://www.ikwenta.com/


COMMISSION ON AUDIT




LOCATION : Concreting of

Brgy. Roads, Brgy.

Malag-it

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. San Pedro

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. Tabuc

GRAND TOTAL

Responses Total

Respon-

dents

% to

Total

Total Respon

-dents

% to

Total

Total Respon-

dents

% to

Total

Question No. 30 33.33 30 33.33 30 33.33 90 100.00

% Total % Total % Total Total Respondents

PART I GENERAL INFORMATION

3

Gender

Male 20 6 27 8 27 8 24.44 22

Female 80 24 73 22 73 22 75.56 68

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

PART II SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS

6

Age

20-29 10 3 10 3 7 2 8.89 8

30-39 30 9 30 9 7 2 22.22 20

40-49 33 10 20 6 23 7 25.56 23 50-59 13 4 27 8 17 5 18.89 17

60< 13 4 13 4 47 14 24.44 22 No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

Education

Elementary 43 13 37 11 53 16 44.44 40

7

High School 53 16 33 10 33 10 40.00 36

College 3 1 30 9 13 4 15.56 14

Masters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

8

What is your occupation?

Self-Employed 10 3 10 3 33 10 17.78 16

Professional (Doctor, Engr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 Manager, Executive, etc. 10 3 0 0 10 3 6.67 6

Admin, Clerical,

Secretaray

0

0

3

1

0

0 1.11 1 Farmer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

Housewife/Husband

Maybahay

57

17

37

11

33

10 42.22 38 Househelp/Kasambahay 3 1 0 0 0 0 1.11 1

Student 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

Retired 0 0 0 0 10 3 3.33 3 Fisherman 20 6 50 15 13 4 27.78 25

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

9

How many member of your household is earning?

0 37 11 3 1 10 3 16.67 15

1 30 9 77 23 57 17 54.44 49

2 7 2 20 6 33 10 20.00 18

3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1.11 1

4 7 2 0 0 0 0 2.22 2

5 3 1 0 0 0 0 1.11 1

6 or more 13 4 0 0 0 0 4.44 4

100

30

100

30

100 30 100.00

90

APPENDIX G: CONSOLIDATED RESULT OF SURVEY


COMMISSION ON AUDIT





Brgy. Roads, Brgy.

Malag-it

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. San Pedro

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. Tabuc

GRAND TOTAL

Responses

Total

Respon-

dents

% to Total

Total

Respon

-dents

% to

Total

Total

Respon-

dents

% to Total

Question No.

30 33.33 30 33.33 30 33.33 90 100.00


10

How much is your total monthly income?

10,000 or less 80 24 90 27 70 21 80.00 72

10,001-20,000 0 0 10 3 0 0 3.33 3 10,001-20,000 0 0 10 3 0 0 3.33 3

20,001-30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

30,001-40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 DONT KNOW 20 6 0 0 30 9 16.67 15

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

PART 111

COMMUNITY AWARENESS OF THE FARM TO MARKET ROAD PROJECT

11

Have you heard about RA 8435?

YES 10 3 7 2 7 2 7.78 7

NO 90 27 93 28 93 28 92.22 83

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

12

Are you aware of RA No. 8435 providing for the construction of FMRs?

YES 37 11 37 11 30 9 34.44 31

NO 63 19 63 19 70 21 65.56 59 No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

13

Are you aware that the government is implementing a construction project of FMRs? YES 80 24 77 23 77 23 77.78 70

NO 17 5 20 6 7 2 14.44 13

DN 3 1 3 1 17 5 7.78 7

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

14

Number of residentsresiding near or living in the barangay where the FMR project was constructed.

50-100 27 8 40 12 3 1 23.33 21

101-200 3 1 17 5 3 1 7.78 7

201-300 30 9 0 0 3 1 11.11 10

301-400 0 0 0 0 3 1 1.11 1

401-500 3 1 0 0 7 2 3.33 3

Over 500 27 8 3 1 3 1 11.11 10

DN 7 2 40 12 20 6 22.22 20

No Answer 3 1 0 0 57 17 20.00 18

15

Are you aware of the location where the FMR was constructed?

YES 87 26 83 25 63 19 77.78 70

NO 13 4 17 5 37 11 22.22 20 IF YES, WHERE?

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

16

Are you aware of the date when the FMR was constructed? YES 43 13 37 11 23 7 34.44 31 NO 57 17 63 19 77 23 65.56 59

If yes, when?

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

17

Had the FMR Project been completed?

YES 43 13 67 20 63 19 57.78 52

NO 50 15 20 6 30 9 33.33 30 DN 7 2 13 4 7 2 8.89 8

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90



COMMISSION ON AUDIT





Brgy. Roads, Brgy.

Malag-it

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. San Pedro

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. Tabuc

GRAND TOTAL Responses

Total Respon-

dents

% to

Total

Total Respon

-dents

% to

Total

Total Respon-

dents

% to

Total

Question No.

30 33.33 30 33.33 30 33.33 90 100.00


18

Do you know when was the estimated date of completion?

YES 3 1 17 5 7 2 8.89 8

NO 97 29 83 25 93 28 91.11 82

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 If yes, when?

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

19

Is theFMR project now being used?

YES 93 28 17 5 100 30 70.00 63 NO 7 2 83 25 0 0 30.00 27

DN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

20

In what way were you able to learn about the FMR project?

I work nearby 23 7 23 7 7 2 17.78 16

Usual Path 23 7 60 18 67 20 50.00 45 Good Access to Transit 23 7 7 2 0 0 10.00 9

Provincial Assembly 3 1 0 0 0 0 1.11 1 MunicipalAssembly 3 1 3 1 13 4 6.67 6

Barangay Assembly 23 7 7 2 13 4 14.44 13

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

21

Do you know if the LGU provides adequate posting and publicity on the construction of FMR project? YES 47 14 60 18 57 17 54.44 49

NO 53 16 40 12 43 13 45.56 41

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

22

Do you know what agency of the government implements the construction and rehab of FMR?

YES 30 9 23 7 23 7 25.56 23 NO 70 21 77 23 77 23 74.44 67

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

If yes, what agency? Municipal Government 27 8 7 2 5 2 52.17 12

Provincial Government 0 0 7 2 5 2 17.39 4

Barangay 3 1 3 1 3 1 13.04 3

DPWH 0 0 7 2 5 2 3.45 4

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

23

How did you know the implementing agency of the project? Posting / Billboard 43 13 10 3 33 10 28.89 26

Kabarangay 20 6 63 19 20 6 34.44 31

Others 37 11 27 8 47 14 36.67 33

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

24

Do you know the contractor of the project? YES 0 0 93 28 0 0 31.11 28

NO 100 30 7 2 100 30 68.89 62

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

25

How did you know the contractor of the project? Neighbor 17 5 40 12 37 11 31.11 28

Billboard 0 0 13 4 10 3 7.78 7

Others 83 25 47 14 53 16 61.11 55

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

26

Was there a name of government official in the bilboard/posting? YES 37 11 17 5 23 7 25.56 23

NO 57 17 47 14 20 6 41.11 37

DN 7 2 37 11 57 17 33.33 30

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90



COMMISSION ON AUDIT





Brgy. Roads, Brgy.

Malag-it

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. San Pedro

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. Tabuc

GRAND TOTAL

Responses

Total

Respon-dents

% to

Total

Total

Respon-dents

Total

Respon-dents

% to

Total

Question No.

30 33.33 30 33.33 30 33.33 90 100.00


27

Was there a pictureof government official in the billboard?

YES 53 16 17 5 20 6 30.00 27 NO 47 14 43 13 33 10 41.11 37

DN 0 0 40 12 47 14 28.89 26 Who's on the picture? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

28

What are the equipments used in the project?

Dump Truck 17 5 27 8 20 6 21.11 19 Water Truck 13 4 7 2 17 5 12.22 11

Road Roller 20 6 7 2 10 3 12.22 11

Cement/Concrete Mixer 20 6 17 5 20 6 18.89 17 Transit Mixer 7 2 7 2 7 2 6.67 6

Vibrator 3 1 3 1 7 2 4.44 4

Others 20 6 33 10 20 6 24.44 22 100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

29

What are the items of works done in the project?

Piles of soil 40 12 27 8 40 12 35.56 32

Piles of stone 23 7 27 8 20 6 23.33 21 Cement/concrete 37 11 47 14 40 12 41.11 37

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

30

Was there a flagman to control the traffic in the construction/project area?

YES 47 14 60 18 67 20 57.78 52 NO 37 11 40 12 27 8 34.44 31

DN 17 5 0 0 7 2 7.78 7

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

PART IV

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS OF THE FARM TO MARKET ROAD PROJECTS

31

Are you aware of any general assembly held in your LGU for annual dev't. Projects?

YES 23 7 73 22 57 17 51.11 46

NO 67 20 13 4 10 3 30.00 27 DN 10 3 13 4 33 10 18.89 17

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

32

How did you know that FMR projet is one of the projcts included in the AIP in your locality (LGU)?

City/Municipal 0 0 7 2 50 15 18.89 17 Barangay 30 9 47 14 0 0 25.56 23

Distribution of fliers by the

city/municipality 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.00 0 Distribution of fliers by the

barangay 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.00 0

Home visit by city/mun 0 0 3 1 3 1 2.22 2 Home visit bt brgy 3 1 23 7 7 2 11.11 10

Poster/tarpaulin 20 6 0 0 3 1 7.78 7

radio/television 0 0 0 0 37 11 12.22 11 Others 47 14 20 6 0 0 22.22 20

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

33

Are you aware of any government officials living or has property within the area?

YES 10 3 20 6 50 15 26.67 24 NO 90 27 80 24 50 15 73.33 66

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90



COMMISSION ON AUDIT





Brgy. Roads, Brgy.

Malag-it

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. San Pedro

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. Tabuc


Total

Respon-dents

% to

Total

Total

Respon-dents

% to

Total

Total

Respon-dents

% to

Total

Question No.

30 33.33 30 33.33 30 33.33 90 100.00


34

Is your place surrounded with agricultural plants/farms/aquafarms? YES 83 25 100 30 83 25 88.89 80

NO 17 5 0 0 17 5 11.11 10

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

35

Is this area accessible to transportation like: Truck 7 2 7 2 13 4 8.89 8

Jeep 7 2 7 2 17 5 10.00 9

Karitela 7 2 27 8 3 1 12.22 11

Bus 3 1 10 3 3 1 5.56 5

Tricycle 27 8 13 4 13 4 17.78 16

Motor/bisikleta 23 7 10 3 13 4 15.56 14

Paragos 10 3 10 3 7 2 8.89 8

Traktora 7 2 7 2 0 0 4.44 4

Kuliglig 10 3 10 3 30 9 16.67 15

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

36

Are you aware that an FMR has been constructed in your locality?

YES 83 25 93 28 87 26 87.78 79

NO 17 5 7 2 13 4 12.22 11

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

37

Are you aware if there's any in your locality (PGU) offices which is implementing the construction of an FMR?

YES 47 14 63 19 57 17 55.56 50

NO 23 7 27 8 20 6 23.33 21

DN 30 9 10 3 23 7 21.11 19

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

38

As far as you're concerned, wh is implementing and managing the construction of the FMR project?

Brgy. Officials 87 26 0 0 0 0 28.89 26

Barangay Officials 3 1 63 19 47 14 37.78 34

Don't know 10 3 37 11 50 15 32.22 29

Others 0 0 3 1 1.11 1

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

PART V

UTILIZATION OF THE FARM TO MARKET ROAD BY THE COMMUNITY

39

Based on your observation, what are the various agricultural products being transported using this FMR?

Vegetable 27 8 30 9 33 10 30.00 27

Meat 7 2 13 4 10 3 10.00 9 Fish 17 5 13 4 17 5 15.56 14

Rice 30 9 30 9 23 7 27.78 25

Animals 20 6 13 4 17 5 16.67 15 100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

40

Prior to the construction of the FMR, how did you transport your agricultural produce to the market/store? Handcarry 37 11 50 15 40 12 42.22 38

Carabao 13 4 3 1 10 3 8.89 8

Horse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

Truck 7 2 0 0 10 3 5.56 5

Jeep 3 1 0 0 3 1 2.22 2

Karitela 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

Bus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

Tricycle 40 12 30 9 20 6 30.00 27

Motor/bisikleta 0 0 17 5 3 1 6.67 6

Paragos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

Traktora 0 0 0 0 3 1 1.11 1

Kuliglig 0 0 0 0 10 3 3.33 3

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90



COMMISSION ON AUDIT





Brgy. Roads, Brgy.

Malag-it

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. San Pedro

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. Tabuc

GRAND TOTAL

Responses Total

Respon-

dents

% to

Total

Total Respon

-dents

% to

Total

Total Respon-

dents

% to

Total

Question No.

30 33.33 30 33.33 30 33.33 90 100.00


41

How about after the construction of the FMR?

Handcarry 0 0 3 1 10 3 4.44 4

Carabao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

Horse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 Truck 3 1 13 4 20 6 12.22 11

Jeep 20 6 13 4 13 4 15.56 14

Karitela 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 Bus 3 1 3 1 0 0 2.22 2

Tricycle 53 16 43 13 40 12 45.56 41

Motor/bisikleta 20 6 20 6 13 4 17.78 16

Paragos 0 0 0 0 3 1 1.11 1

Traktora 0 0 3 1 0 0 1.11 1

Kuliglig 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

42

Prior to the construction of the FMR, how many days/hours did it take for you to bring your produce to the

market/store? 1-2 HOURS 100 30 83 25 100 30 94.44 85

3-4 HOURS 0 0 10 3 0 0 3.33 3

5-6 HOURS 0 0 3 1 0 0 1.11 1

7-8 HOURS 0 0 3 1 0 0 1.11 1

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

43

How about after the FMR has been constructed?

15-30 MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

1-2 HOURS 100 30 93 28 100 30 97.78 88 3-4 HOURS 0 0 7 2 0 0 2.22 2

5-6 HOURS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

7-8 HOURS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

44

Are you using the FMR in trasporting farm produce and fish to market?

YES 73 22 100 30 87 26 86.67 78 NO 27 8 0 0 13 4 13.33 12

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

45

In your, opinion, did the FMR improve your income?

YES 100 30 67 20 67 20 77.78 70

NO 0 0 33 10 33 10 22.22 20

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

46

If yes, how satisfied are you?

Very Satisfied 50 15 50 15 50 15 50.00 45

Satisfied 40 12 50 15 43 13 44.44 40

Somewhat Satisfied 7 2 0 0 7 2 4.44 4 Not Satisfied 3 1 0 0 0 0 1.11 1

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

47 If Not, Why? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

PART VI

LEVEL OF COMMUNITY SATISFACTION WITH THE USE OF FMR

48

Are you satisfied with the project?

YES 100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90



COMMISSION ON AUDIT





Brgy. Roads, Brgy.

Malag-it

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. San Pedro

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. Tabuc

GRAND TOTAL Responses Total

Respon-

dents

% to Total

Total

Respon

-dents

% to Total

Total

Respon-

dents

% to Total

Question No.

30 33.33 30 33.33 30 33.33 90 100.00


49

If yes, how satisfied are you?

Very Satisfied 50 15 30 9 57 17 45.56 41

Satisfied 50 15 57 17 40 12 48.89 44 Somewhat Satisfied 0 0 13 4 3 1 5.56 5

Not Satisfied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

50

If not, Why?

Not Finished 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

51

If you will be asked to assess the project, how will you rate it?

Very Satisfied 47 14 23 7 37 11 35.56 32 Satisfied 33 10 57 17 50 15 46.67 42

Somewhat Satisfied 20 6 20 6 13 4 17.78 16

Not Satisfied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 If Not, Why? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

52

What are your recommendations to improve the project?

Finish the Project 30 9 33 10 17 5 26.67 24 More Improvement 20 6 17 5 17 5 17.78 16

More FMR Project 17 5 27 8 33 10 25.56 23

Do the Project Properly 20 6 10 3 20 6 16.67 15 Do Maintenance 7 2 7 2 7 2 6.67 6

Continue the Project 7 2 7 2 7 2 6.67 6

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

53

Do you know if potential livelihood benefits were derived by your community from the completed FMR project?

Resulted to good access

road/passage in the transit

of goods to market

40

12

30

9

60

18 43.33 39 Resulted to good access

road/passage from the areas

void of livelihood and experiencing poverty

campaign to eliminate

poverty

27

8

13

4

33

10 24.44 22 Resulted to good access

road/passage from areas

affected by calamity

20

6

30

9

7

2 18.89

17 Resulted to good access

road/passage for

agricultural tourism

3

1

13

4

0

0 5.56

5 Resulted good access

road/passage for economic

progress

7

2

10

3

0

0 5.56

5

No potencial benefit

derived for the barangay

livelihood

3

1

3

1

0

0 2.22

2 100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

54

Did you income increase with the completion of FMR?

YES 72 21 42 21 62 23 72.22 65

NO 24 7 58 9 38 7 25.56 23 DN 4 2 0 0 0 0 2.22 2

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90



COMMISSION ON AUDIT




Prepared by:

DAVE D. ADRICULA RICHARD S. BIONA DENMARK L. LLANERA

CSO (JASAC) CSO (JASAC) CSO (PICPA)

Reviewed by:

MARILOU P. SUMCAD

Team Leader


Brgy. Roads, Brgy.

Malag-it

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. San Pedro

Concreting of

Brgy. Roads,

Brgy. Tabuc


Total

Respon-

dents

% to Total

Total

Respon

-dents

% to Total

Total

Respon-

dents

% to Total

Question No.

30 33.33 30 33.33 30 33.33 90 100.00


56

Can you cite the effects or benefits that you have personnaly derived fron the FMR project?

Resulted to better access

road in going to work everyday

48

14

30

15

35

13 46.67 42

Accelerated and bought

comfort/convenience in our daily livelihood

55

16

28

14

41

15 50.00 45

No benefit derived in our

daily livelihood

0

0

2

1

5

2 3.33 3

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

57

Are you satisfied with the FMR project?

YES 100 30 97 29 83 25 93.33 84

NO 0 0 3 1 17 5 6.67 6 DN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

No Answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

58

If you will assess the benefits of the FMR project to your community, how will you rate it?

Excellent 40 12 27 8 40 12 35.56 32

Good 53 16 53 16 53 16 53.33 48

Slightly Satisfied 7 2 17 5 7 2 10.00 9 No Effect 0 0 3 1 0 0 1.11 1

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

59

What are your recommendationsto improve consruction of future FMR projects?

More FMR 40 12 50 15 33 10 41.11 37 Concrete All Roads 27 8 20 6 17 5 21.11 19

Do the Project Correctly 17 5 10 3 27 8 17.78 16

Get A Good Engineer 17 5 7 2 20 6 14.44 13 Continue the Project 0 0 13 4 3 1 5.56 5

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90

60

Do you know that you can report complaints on poor and inferior FMR projects by submitting photographs to

www.ikwenta.com?

Yes 33 10 33 10 30 9 32.22 29

No 67 20 67 20 70 21 67.78 61

100 30 100 30 100 30 100.00 90


a citizen participatory audit report cpa report no. …...citizen participatory audit (cpa) report...

Documents