8/10/2019 AOM 2 Continue

1/3

A close analysis of the de-clogging/de-

silting activities resulted in the followingobservations:

1. Both the drawings of the two sets

of as-built plans did not indicate

de-silting activity along the main

canal of Manuel Roxas Avenue,

meaning, there was no accomplishment to

be paid;The COA Observation is wrong. The as-built plans

did indicate the de-silting activity. This fact is even

admitted by the COA Audit Team under paragraph

3 hereunder wherein it said that, to wit:

"3. Both the two sets of as-built plans indicated de-

silting/de-clogging activities on lined canals..."

3.

The first set of as-built plan

attached to the DV lacked the

necessary computation of the

volume of silt extracted.

However, in the second set of

as-built plans, it was included in

the computation containing a

total of 1,544.80 cubic meters of

silt extracted and such activitywas described in both sets of

plans as a heavy line in the

legend;

Both the two sets of as-built

plans indicated de-silting/de-

clogging activities on lined

canals along Padre Faura,

Padre Gomez and Padre

Zamora Streets. The cross-

sectional dimensions of the said

lined canals however, were not

in the as-built plans, rendering it

impossible to obtain the correct

quantities of silts extracted

The COA Observation is wrong and lacked basis

for its assumption that the as-built plan submitted

is false. Contrary to what the abovecited

observation says, the total volume of de-silting/de-

clogging did not exceed 1,707.30 cu. m. The total

volume of silt extracted was as follows:

@Holy Child Section

Volume 1 = (112.50)(2)(0.70)Volume 1 = 157.50 cu.m.

@Open Canal Along Roxas Avenue

L1 = 99.50 m

L2 = 103.00 m

L3 = 225.00 m

L4 = 81.00 m

Total Length = 508.50 m

Volume 2 = (4+3)/(2)

(0.80)(508.50)

= 1,423.80 cu.m.

@Box Culvert along 3 Intersections (Aurora

St., Padre Faura St., & Padre Gomez St.)

Volume 3 = (5)(0.70)(12)(3)

Volume 3 = 126.00 cu.m.

Total Volume = 1,707.30 cu.m.De-clogging activity along small

canals which has a bottom width

of only 0.50 meters should have

a separate and lower unit cost

than the de-silting activity, if any,

along the concrete-lined main

canal in Manuel Roxas Avenue

which has a bottom width of 4

meters. De-silting employs

heavy equipment like backhoe

to extract silt deposits and dump truck to

haul the same to a designated place, while

de-clogging merely employs man-power to

clear up the passage containing debris and

rubbish;

The two activities were joined into one

activity since the de-silting activity is to be

employed only on those a portion of the

canals on which de-clogging is not

8/10/2019 AOM 2 Continue

2/3

possible. Hence, de-silting was integrated with the de-clogging activity.

7. In the succeeding two pages

of photograph log, it

appeared that no substantial

silt deposits have been

extracted along Manuel

Roxas Avenue's main canal.

In fact, the photos showed a

very negligible quantity.

Besides, the areas allegedly

affected looked undisturbed.

Considering that 1,549 cubic

meters of silt or an equivalent

of 516 truckloads of silt

deposits using a mini dumptruck as stated in the quantity

computation was reported to

have been extracted, the

canal banks and sloping

sides should have been

splattered and littered with

muck, rubbish, water and silt

marks indicating heavy

extraction, yet only two

pictures

showed

accomplishment, with one

The photograph does not entirely depict the

whole duration of the activity. It represents

only a fraction of the activity undertaken by

the Contractor. As for the photo of the

backhoe bucket partially submerged but

unable to reach the middle part, the same

is not conclusive considering that it is only

a still photo.

8. In the sets of photographs log, which

reportedly took place in Padre Zamora

Street, it seemed odd that all the

pictures taken were "during" the time

the activities were allegedly undertaken;

It is just but natural that the photographs

submitted were all taken at the time when

the activity was being done. This is

because the activity is a de-silting/de-

clogging activity. It does not involve the use

of any material or equipment apart from a

backhoe and a truck. . , .

9. On the other hand, the

photograph, although taken

during the day time, did not

show similar angles on the

photos taken "before", "during"j

and "after" the alleged de-

clogging activity;

The abovecited COA Observation is

contradictory to paragraph 8 wherein it

said that the photograph submitted were

all on the "during" phase of the activity

and not the "before" or "after" phase.

10. Similarly, along Padre Faura

Street, the same situation

appears where the alleged

project site has been occupied

by residential houses and

commercial establishments

rendering de-clogging as indicated in

the as-built plan not possible. Interviews

made with the occupants along that

street revealed that it is the City

Engineer's Office of the Davao City

Government thru the intercession of the

8/10/2019 AOM 2 Continue

3/3

Punong Barangay and not the

DPWH that does the de-

clogging of the small stretch of

the canal which is partlyunderground culvert.

The COA Observation is wrong.

There are portions along Padre

Faura Street wherein de-clogging was

possible. In addition, it is not entirely

11.Upon actual measurements

conducted by the Audit Team,

the following volume was

derived:

Holy Child Section = 112.50m

(length) x 1.50 m (width) x

0.50m (depth)

Volume 1 = 84.40 cubic

meter

12.Based on the foregoing

quantities derived, the total

amount for this item shouldhave been P 38,374.15,

hence an overprice of P

737,704.85 was incurred in

this activity;

R. All in all, the total amount of the

extra work order as determined by

the audit team should have been

only P 173,333.40. The total

overprice therefore, amounted to P

1,956,577.91.

The COA Observation is erroneous. There is no

overpricing in this project. All the quantities derived

in the computation were all based on the

measurements taken from the existing field

conditions. DCDEO has not and will not undertake

the implementation of a project that is not in

conformity with the law.