norte - coa.gov.ph · pdf filemethods required therefor”. ... july 2013; simplified...

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


COMMISSION ON AUDIT


Implementation of Farm to Market Road Projects

A Citizen Participatory Audit Report

February 24, 2016

1


COMMISISON ON AUDIT


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



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



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



Remarks:

Pothole was noted on the PCCP at the middle of the road

pavement with an approximate diameter of 3 inches.

Latitude: 8.428886



Remarks:

Transverse crack was noted on the right lane of the

pavement at with a length of 3 meters.

10



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


Remarks:



Latitude: 8.312555



Remarks:



Latitude: 8.31278



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



Remarks:

Pothole on the pavement was observed at Sta. 0+737, left

lane, with an approximate diameter of 3 inches.

Latitude: 8.312932



Remarks:


at Sta. 0+742 with a length of 1.58 meters.

Latitude: 8.312979



Remarks:



11



Latitude: 8.313011



Remarks:



Latitude: 8.313044



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



Remarks:



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



Remarks:

Major scaling on the PCCP was observed covering both left

and right lanes and about 5 meters in length.

Latitude: 8.510776



Remarks:

Meander crack was noted at the left lane of PCCP.

12



Latitude: 8.510264



Remarks:

Major scaling on the PCCP was observed covering 2 blocks

at the right side lane of the road.

Latitude: 8.508116



Remarks:

Meander crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement


Latitude: 8.606564



Remarks:

Longitudinal crack was noted on the PCCP at the left lane of

the pavement with a length of 22 meters.

Latitude: 8.505879



Remarks:

Diagonal crack was noted on the left lane of the pavement


Latitude: 8.505714



Remarks:

Minor transverse crack was noted on the right lane of the

pavement with a length of 2.20 meters.

Latitude: 8.505089



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)


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.


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.


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)


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?


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.


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


Length: 960 meters

Width: 6.0 meters

Population: 4,355

32

APPENDIX “B.3”

Satellite of FMR at Manukan



Width: 6.0 meters

Population: 2,525

33

APPENDIX “B.4”

Satellite of FMR at La Libertad



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?)


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?)


13. Napapaligiran po ban g mga taniman at sakahan ang inyong lugar? (Is your place surrounded with agricultural plants/farms?)


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?)


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?)


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?


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?)


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)


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)