THE Commission on Audit has thrown out the appeal of officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Davao City District Engineering Office (DCDEO) to the disallowance amounting to P11.63 million issued in 2014 based on findings that a traffic safety project was overpriced and substandard.
In a six-page decision, the COA Commission Proper denied the petition for review filed by the DPWH-DCDEO and affirmed the liability of its officials and contractor E. Gardiola Construction, noting that the adverse findings of the audit team were not contested.
Anomalies including tampering of plans, no basis for the grant of variation orders, lack of work plans, substandard/deficient construction of guardrails, road signs and foundation blocks were found by a special audit team dispatched in 2011 by then COA chairman Reynaldo Villar.
Held liable were district engineer Lorna Ricardo; assistant district engineers Gregorio Yee and Cecilia Barrientos; engineers Milagros delos Reyes, Dwight Vincent Fernandez, Emilio Sucaldito, Lilibeth Sarmiento, Perry Neil Palacio, and Ma. Gloria Sorrera; administrative officer Nelson Luayon; laboratory technician Rolly Tulayba Jr.; and contractor Elaine Gardiola of E. Gardiola Construction.
However, the COA dropped the name of head of security Restituto Mira from the list of persons held liable, noting he had minimal involvement in the transaction in allowing the contractor to use a government warehouse to store materials owned by the private contractor.
According to the contract, the project cost was P19.144 million but the audit team’s evaluation pegged it at only P7.515 million or a difference of P11.63 million.
Among the overpriced items identified in audit were guardrails with a P5.82 million price tag (only P975,513 per audit); pedestrian lane signs P513,286 (only P108,680 per audit); chevron road signs P1.22 million (only P443,080 per audit); and reflective pavements studs P6.28 million (only P971,773 per audit).
“The findings in the ND (notice of disallowance) show that the installation of the guardrails, road signs and foundation blocks was substandard and haphazardly done. These findings, which are attributable to the contractor, remain unrefuted,” the COA said.
The appellants claimed there was no basis for the disallowance since there was no criteria or standard set and absent computation as to how the disallowed amount was arrived at.
However, the COA said the issuance of the disallowance was proper because the work plans for the project did not comply with the DPWH Standard Specification.
“Failure on the part of the petitioners to controvert the findings of the SAT [special audit team] resulted in the disallowance of the transaction pursuant to Section 8.6 of the Rules and Regulations on the Settlement of Accounts,” the COA pointed out.
