FOUR years after completing the construction of the two-story Public Market in Barangay Calantas, Casiguran, the contractor can finally expect to collect payment.
In a decision released this week, the Commission on Audit partially granted the petition of Edfrobon Construction Services Inc. for payment of compensation on the turnover of the public market to the municipality of Casiguran on October 19, 2019.
In its petition, the contractor said the provincial government refused to release payment even as it did not deny the obligation.
Records showed Edfrobon won the contract after being declared as the Single Calculated Responsive Bid on its offer of P9,995,000 as evidenced by the Notice of Award dated December 13, 2018 followed by the Notice to Proceed dated February 6, 2019.
In support of its claim, the builder also submitted a copy of the certificate of acceptance from the municipality of Casiguran represented by then-mayor Ricardo Bitong acknowledging that the public market was turned over in good order.
Despite several requests, Edfrobon said the province withheld payment on the grounds that the supposed approved budget for the contract was only P9.863 million, which was lower than the approved budget of P9.995 million.
Then Governor Gerardo Noveras explained that while he is willing to pay, the disparity between the approved budget and the winning bid is a potential headache as the COA had earlier ruled that the contractor who submitted a bid higher than the ABC should have been automatically disqualified and the contract considered void ab initio.
Edfrobon countered that it merely acted in good faith since the Invitation to Bid indicated the budget for the project was P10 million.
In granting the petition, the COA Commission Proper said the project underwent regular processes and the contractor won it through competitive bidding.
“On the above premises, this Commission is convinced that Edfrobon should be compensated. The certifications issued by the province on the completion of the public market by Edfrobon, as well as the fact that it was already being used, as confirmed in the ocular inspection conducted by the audit team, show that the claim should be paid,” the COA pointed out.
It added that disqualifying the contractor and denying payment would violate the rules against unjust enrichment.
