NAIA 1 rehabilitation, MRT 3 expansion lack proper document



STATE auditors noticed that the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) reserved P5.6 billion for the rehabilitation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 1 and the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) 3 Expansion Project, considering lack of details and bidding procedures.

In the 2011 Commission on Audit (COA) report of the DOTC released last month, the audit team said that P5.6 billion fund transfer for the NAIA Terminal 1 rehabilitation and MRT 3 expansion had “deficiencies.”

According to COA, the DOTC earmarked P1.1 billion for the NAIA Terminal 1 rehabilitation project and P4.5 billion MRT 3 expansion project but these had no program of work.

Audit of the disbursement vouchers and verification of the memoranda of agreement showed that the NAIA project had not program of work and cost benefit analysis and there the bidding conducted was outside the bids and awards committee of DOTC.

For the MRT project, there was also no program of work and cost benefit analysis, it lacked Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) guidelines and there is no bidding committee resolution on the use of alternative method of procurement.

“The program of work is an indispensable requirement that indicates the scope of works to be done, equipment, materials and items to be procured, the total project cost and the basis of the Approved Budget for the Contract,” the report read.

The Commission said that the cost for both projects should have been determined first by the DOTC and their partner agencies, in this case, the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) and the Manila International Airport Authority “prior to the transfer of fund.”

Auditors also noted that there was an absence of GPPB guidelines for the MRT 3 project.

In the MRT 3 project, the LRTA agreed to be the procurement agency for the expansion project.

The DOTC “resorted” to negotiated procurement and under the the Government Procurement Reform Act, “the GPPB shall issue guidelines” to undertake the project implementation should the procurement agent, in this case the LRTA, have no proficiency to undertake such procurement.

But the Commission found loopholes.

The audit team disclosed that the GPPB guidelines “have not been issued.” Also, review of the disbursement vouchers showed that the required guidelines were not among the supporting documents attached.

In the absence of the guidelines, the Commission “inferred” that the procuring entity cannot resort to the procurement through a Procurement Agent.

“The memorandum between the DOTC and LRTA was also not supported by the cost benefit analysis . . . in order to ascertain that the project will be beneficial not only to the government but also to the passengers of the MRT 3,” the Commission said.


Please follow our commenting guidelines.

Comments are closed.