Re-gravelling of

BANAO-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

Engr. Alberto R. Oga, Sr.

Arch. Claro L. Magnaye

Engr. Jillson E. Padilla

Engr. Benecio S. Sazon

Engr. Marilou C.

Engr. Bernardino S. Levina

Engr. Efren C. Manalo

Matamorosa