Re-gravelling ofBANAO-COLIAT FMR and Concreting

The re-gravelling of Banao-Coliat FMR was overtaken by the Concreting also of this road

and again, special items, item 200, item 201, and item 508 were again included in the POW of

the Concreting Project. Again the Audit Team called this “OVERLAPPING” but we disagree and

protest and maintained that all these works were done by the contractors concerned.

Again we reiterate that this project was pre-audited and the explanation in the other

project is adopted in toto to prove that the implementation of the project was in consonance

with the plans and specifications.

Appellants hereby admit that indeed both POW contained special items, Sub-base

Preparation and Base Preparation and removal of unsuitable materials. However, these works

were in place from the time the concreting works were implemented by ALRO Construction and

Development Corporation and that the latter also complied with their obligation under the

contract by delivering the materials above-cited.

The truth of the matter is that the site of the project is mountainous and in fact there

were boulder mattings in order to strengthen the road and made it accessible. DNK

Construction which implemented the re-gravelling actually delivered all the materials and had a

finish contract as certified by the Project Inspectors and Project Engineer, but it is of record that

the weather condition prevailing at the site was not good hence after its completion the said

road became muddy and almost impassable in a span of only weeks. The destruction was

aggravated by the sledge used as means of transportation. ALRO Construction and

Development Corporation who was to start works will never be able to start unless the items

above stated were delivered and in place in order for their equipment to pass the muddy

portion thereof. The Audit Team failed to consider this despite explaining to them these factors.

Both contractors had complied what was in their contract and there have been no case of

payment of works not done.

In both cases, that is concreting of the two (2) FMR there is a question of fact and law.

We believe all the documentary and physical condition of the road were not taken into

consideration but were the result of inferences, surmises, and conclusions as appearing in the

report.

The report must always be based on established rules and should not deviate from it

and the disallowance can be treated as a case of “mistrial” as the report were not fully

supported by facts. A re-investigation is proper is this case and that also the stakeholders

thereat be included as their testimonies are very material and relevant in the decision making

of the Auditors. The residents can openly describe and narrate how it was done as most of

them had worked in the re-gravelling and concreting project.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the decision of the audit team on the

Audit Disallowance be set aside and/or a new order be issued for re-investigation.

Appellants further pray for other reliefs just and equitable under the premises.

Legazpi City, April 12, 2012

Engr. Romeo B. Franca

Arch. Claro L. Magnaye

Engr. Benecio S. Sazon

Engr. Bernardino S. Levina

Engr. Efren C. Manalo

Engr. Alberto R. Oga, Sr.

Engr. Jillson E. Padilla

Engr. Marilou C. Matamorosa