DPWH Spa2007 03

Management Services
Report No. 2007 - 03

Sectoral Performance Audit
GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE
PROGRAM
Republic of the Philippines

Commission on Audit
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines
Telephone Nos.: 931-9235, 931-74-55
June 3, 2008
Honorable Hermogenes E. Ebdane, Jr.
Secretary
Department of Public Works and Highways
Port Area, Manila
Sir:
We are pleased to transmit the report on the sectoral performance
audit of the Governments Bridge Program. The audit was conducted pursuant
to MS/TS Office Order Nos. 2006-042 and 042A dated September 22, 2006
and March 22, 2007, respectively, and Joint MS/TS and NGS Office Order
Nos. 2006-042B and 2007-037 and 2006-042C and 2007-052 dated May 28
and September 3, 2007, respectively. The results of the audit were transmitted
to that Office for comments on March 4, 2008. Your comments were
incorporated in the report, where appropriate.
The audit was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the
governments bridge program in ensuring the provision of essential bridges
that will spur economic activities and induce socio-economic growth and
development taking into consideration project selection and process of
implementation. The audit covered the review of selected bridge projects
implemented during CYs 2002 to 2006 by the DPWH and Presidents Bridge
Program implemented by the DILG.
We look forward to the implementation of the audit recommendations
and we would appreciate being informed of the actions taken thereon within
one month from receipt thereof.
We acknowledge the cooperation and assistance extended to the team
by the officials and employees of that Department.
Very truly yours,

By Authority of the Chairman:
SUSAN P. GARCIA
Director IV
Contents
Part I
Page
Executive Summary
Introduction 2
Audit Objective 2
Audit Scope and Methodology 3
Audit Conclusion 4
Managements Reaction to Audit Observations
Recommendations 6
Part II
The Governments Bridge Program

Introduction 8
The Bridge Projects 8
Inventory of Bridges 12
Types and Classification of Bridges 13
Project Cycle Activities 14
Scope of Bridge Improvement 16
Funding Source 17
Project Cost Components 18
Accomplishments 19
Program Accountability Model 20
Construction of Bridges - Context Diagrams
Part III
21
Audit Observations
Chapter 1
Well Coordinated and Organized

Bridge Projects
25
26
Introduction 27
Observation
27
Managements Comments and
Teams Rejoinder 33
Chapter 2
Compliance with Selection

Criteria
Introduction 38
Observations 40, 45, 49
Teams Rejoinder 44, 48
37
Contents
Page
Chapter 3
Cost Effectiveness
62
Introduction 63
Observations
64, 67, 77, 79, 83, 87
Chapter 4
Effective Quality Assurance
90
Introduction 91
Observations
91, 114
Part IV
Recommendations
124
Part I
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
One of the strategies of the government to strengthen national economy and
improve the life of every Filipino is the provision of infrastructure facilities and
services deemed responsive to the needs of the people. Studies show that
investment in infrastructure does not only ensure growth but also contributes to
the realization of the economic potentials of the country.
Among the infrastructure development efforts of the government are
construction and rehabilitation of bridges. Bridges are considered vital
instruments to mainstream remote communities and provide the needed
services.
They are vital links that facilitate trade, commerce, and
communications and accelerate investments both in countryside and urban
areas.
The governments bridge projects are implemented by the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG) and concerned local government units (LGUs). These are
funded either from foreign loans or from the regular budgets of the concerned
implementing agencies. As reported, there were 7,726 national bridges as of
July 2007 and 9,190 local bridges as early as August 1998. No recent inventory
data on local bridges were made available to the team.
AUDIT OBJECTIVE
The audit was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the governments bridge
program in ensuring the provision of essential bridges that will spur economic
activities and induce socio-economic growth and development taking into
consideration project selection and implementation process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The audit covered the review of selected bridge projects implemented during
CYs 2002 to 2006 by the DPWH and Presidents Bridge Program implemented
by the DILG. The team considered the following evaluation criteria in assessing
the implementation of the governments bridge program:
Well-coordinated and
organized bridge
projects
Presence
of
an
organized
implementation plan being adopted
and/or considered by all implementing
government agencies.
Compliance with
selection criteria
Compliance with established selection

criteria.
Cost effectiveness
of projects
Implementation of projects at the least

possible cost.
Effective quality
assurance
Projects
implemented
are
in
accordance with the approved plans
and
specifications,
works
are
adequately supervised and monitored
and noted deficiencies corrected before
acceptance.
To achieve the audit objective, the team adopted, among others, the following
audit techniques:
Reviewed existing policies, guidelines and mechanism on the

implementation of governments bridge program particularly on project
preparation, project identification/selection, project costing, and
coordination among implementing agencies.
Reviewed existing monitoring and reporting system as well as

accomplishment and other relevant reports to determine project status and
assess controls on the receipt and distribution of bridging materials.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Interviewed personnel involved in the implementation of the program.
Inspected selected bridge projects to determine compliance with existing

regulations, conformity with specifications and timelines, and extent of
utilization.
The audit was conducted from April 12 to December 28, 2007 in compliance
with MS/TS Office Order Nos. 2006-042 and 042A dated September 22, 2006
and March 22, 2007, respectively, and Joint MS/TS and NGS Office Order
Nos. 2006-042B and 2007-037 and 2006-042C and 2007-052 dated May 28 and
September 3, 2007, respectively.
AUDIT CONCLUSION
The audit concluded that while a substantial number of bridges were

constructed during the period under audit, the implementation of the program
may not be considered effectively undertaken. The effectiveness of the
governments bridge program was adversely affected by the absence of well
coordinated and organized bridge program, non-compliance with existing
selection criteria, and other lapses in the process of implementation. The
bridge program is being implemented by a number of Project Management
Offices (PMOs) under different offices with varied selection and prioritization
criteria.
The absence of coordination among PMOs was apparent in the implementation
of a number of projects with overlapping scope and coverage. Thus, bridges
already selected under a certain project were again included in another project.
This then contributed in the delayed implementation of the affected projects as
selection of possible replacement sites normally took time.
The delayed
implementation in six (6) projects alone resulted in additional cost to the
government of at least US$5.23 million on account of payment of commitment
fees and surcharges on unavailed loans at the scheduled dates. The government
was also already paying amortizations on loans covering bridges which are still
for implementation or whose construction is still ongoing.
The lapses in the process of implementation were evident in the following
conditions:
While criteria for selection of bridges were established, the same were not
strictly observed. Bridging materials were issued without assessing the
readiness of the project sites and the implementing agencies. As a result, a
number of bridges with bridging materials released to the proponent agencies
as early as CY 2002 remained uninstalled due to, among others, lack of funds
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and right-of-way problems. Some of these materials were found at the project
sites covered with bushes or embedded on the ground.
There were also ten (10) bridges constructed outside the projects coverage
area of which three (3) remained closed to traffic despite completion in
December 2004 and February 2006 due to the road right-of-way problems.
Construction of a number of double lane bridges was also prioritized in places
with basically no road links or with mere single lane roads over other bridges
needing urgent replacement. These bridges then were also not being fully
utilized as the volume of traffic was minimal.
The implementation of some projects could not also be considered cost

effective. The distinct advantage of steel bridges of being quick to assemble
which would result in significant reduction in installation costs and public
disturbance was not realized. A number of projects were completed long
after the deadline. The high cost of using steel bridges was then not negated.
Some bridge projects were also awarded in excess of the approved budget for
the contract by as much as 29.95% which was not in line with the procurement
principle of securing the most advantageous price for the government. The
awarding of foreign assisted projects at present is still governed by the
procurement policies of the lending institutions.
The implementation of projects by phases also proved to be too costly while
delayed construction of 80 bridges covered in the Austrian-Assisted Special
Bridges project resulted in additional upgrading costs to the government of
about P117.54 million. The project was supposed to be completed by July 31,
2005.
The project costs under the DPWH Presidents Bridge Program were also
adversely affected by the deliveries of bridging materials not suited to the
length of steel bridges to be constructed and piling materials not needed
resulting in unused/uninstalled bridge parts and piling materials costing about
P400.627 million. These uninstalled materials could no longer complete a
bridge as certain parts were already lacking and/or no longer available.
Similarly, 15 other bridge projects under the DILG-PBP Phase II - Austrian
Assisted Bridge Project could not be started as bridging materials were no
longer sufficient to complete the construction of the said bridges. Availability
of missing parts from among excess materials is yet to be established.
The quality of the constructed bridges, the substructure in particular, was not
also assured. While the projects were relatively new, substructures of 95 out
of the 547 bridges inspected were found to be deficient or of poor
workmanship. This is manifested in the presence of cracks and settlement of
approach slabs, slope protection and wing walls, among others. The installed
superstructures in the 43 steel bridges were also not being maintained with
presence of corrosions in different bridge parts. These deficiencies and
conditions would lessen the useful lives of these bridges and compromise the
safety of the users.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MANAGEMENTS REACTION TO AUDIT OBSERVATIONS
The team forwarded the draft audit report to DPWH and DILG on March 4,
2008 for comments. The concerned PMOs of the DPWH and the DILG
generally concurred with the teams observations and recommendations and
provided justifications and explanations on the audit issues raised.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering that the construction and rehabilitation of bridges is a continuing
program of the government, the team recommended measures under Part IV of
the report to address the deficiencies noted in the implementation process.
In general, the team recommends the creation of a unit that shall coordinate and
oversee the implementation of all bridge programs. Such office will be
responsible for maintaining an updated masterlist/masterplan of bridges for the
guidance/use of all implementing agencies; monitoring compliance with the
construction specifications, selection criteria and maintenance requirements;
reassessing the existing policy requiring counterpart from the LGUs; and
initiating the formulation of rules and regulations applicable to foreign assisted
projects, among others.
In the absence of an overall program coordinator, the team recommends that
DPWH and DILG should undertake such activities in close coordination with
one another. In addition, these agencies should install control mechanisms
that would ensure the prioritization of bridges most needed, and timely and
cost effective implementation. It is further recommended that these agencies
should conduct an inventory of all available bridging materials to account for
the missing parts and identify sources of available materials needed to complete
the construction of bridges with lacking bridging materials.
Part II
The Governments Bridge Program
THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The government recognizes that infrastructure development plays a vital role

in the achievement of the social and economic development of the country.
It subscribes to the idea that aggressive implementation of infrastructure
development programs all over the country is one of the steps in realizing
the objective of winning the battle against poverty. The need is highlighted
by the fact that for the past several years, vital infrastructure facilities of the
country had been devastated by different natural calamities.
Thus, the government deemed it urgent to undertake as a priority program,
the establishment and improvement of essential transport facilities that will
spur economic activities and induce socio-economic growth and
development, particularly in linking the rural communities with the major
road networks. To address this need, the government embarked on various
road and bridge projects.
There are two major bridge programs undertaken by the government: the
DPWH Nationwide Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and the
DILGs Local Bridges Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. These
two projects are in addition to the regular bridge construction projects of the
DPWH and the local government units. Bridges are also constructed or
improved under various road projects when such bridges lie within the
projects road network.
THE BRIDGE PROJECTS
Among the bridge projects covered in the audit are as follows:

Project
Presidents Bridge Program (PBP)
PBP Phase I UK Assisted
Description/Coverage
The project, which was implemented from CYs 1996 to

2002, involved the immediate construction or
replacement of temporary and dilapidated bridges to
permanent steel structures. It covered 218 bridges with
an aggregate length of 7,302 lineal meters located in 70
provinces and 5 cities within 15 regions. Of the 218
bridges, 80 are national bridges implemented by the
DPWH and 138 are local bridges implemented by the
DILG.
8
Project
PBP Phase II AustrianAssisted
The project involved the construction of 303 (about
12,025 linear meters) local bridges in 71 provinces and
18 cities nationwide except NCR and ARMM. It also
included the construction and management of eight (8)
Regional Bridge Depots and training of national and
local engineers in the field of steel bridge design,
erection and maintenance. The National Government,
through the DILG, provided the bridging materials as
grant to the LGUs which undertook the detailed
engineering design and construction and shouldered all
costs relative thereto.
The total estimated project cost was P4.45 billion
consisting of P3.10 billion loan from the Austrian
Government and P1.35 billion National Government and
LGUs counterpart. The loan agreement with Austria
was accompanied with a Supply and Services Contract
with Waagner Biro Binder for the supply of the bridging
materials.
Tulay ng Pangulo sa
Barangay
(Bridges of Faith)
The project started in 2001 covering supply of bridging

components for 402 permanent double lane bridges
(15,282 lineal meters) nationwide except NCR and
ARMM, and 833 lineal meters of single lane bridges for
the use of the LGUs during calamities and emergencies.
The project cost of P7.46 billion was financed from a
loan from UK. As part of the loan arrangement, a
Memorandum of Agreement (Supply Contract) was
entered into by the Philippine Government with Mabey
and Johnson, Ltd. of UK for the design, manufacture
and supply of compact bridging components and
associated goods and services.
This project was initially implemented by the DILG
with LGUs as partners. Under Memorandum No. 53
dated February 18, 2002 of the Office of the President,
the implementation of the project was transferred to the
DPWH.
SZOPAD
(Bridges of Hope)
The project started in November 2003. It involved the

construction of 526 permanent double lane compact
bridges (16,132 lineal meters) in 18 SZOPAD provinces
and cities and the supply of 2,060 lineal meters of single
lane bridging materials for the use of the said provinces
and cities during calamities and emergencies. The
project included the provision of necessary equipment,
bridging material and superstructures; construction of
sub-structures; and installation of the bridging
components in the designated sites. The total project
cost was P10.59 billion which was financed from
foreign loan and local counterpart funds.
Project
Countrywide
This project involved the construction of additional 200
compact bridges nationwide and was implemented from
CYs 2002 to 2006. The project was financed from the
savings of Tulay ng Pangulo sa SZOPAD due to
currency exchange fluctuations.
Special Bridges Project

UK-Assisted
This Bridge Replacement Project under the DPWH
Nationwide Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement
Program covered the replacement in CAR and Regions
V to XIII, of 215 temporary and weakened bridges along
national arterial roads into permanent bridges using steel
beam and steel truss bridge components. These bridge
materials were delivered under a negotiated contract
with UK suppliers, Balfour Kilpatrick Limited and
Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Limited.
The
project, which started in 2001 was financed from 25
million Sterling Pounds UK loan and local counterpart
funds. The financing package was composed of 35%
grant and 65% loan.
Austrian-Assisted
The project involved the construction of new/total
replacement of bridges with span length of at least 30m
and above to suit the Austrian modular steel bridging
technology. It was financed from a loan amounting to
500 million ATS extended by the Austrian Government.
This financing scheme included a supply contract with
Austrian Bridges Consortium WB+MCE, Austria as the
supplier/exporter of the bridging materials.
The project was envisioned to generate about 7,455
linear meters or approximately 132 readily usable
bridges throughout the country except NCR.
Urgent Bridges Construction Project for Rural Development

The project covered the implementation of 887 national
bridges included in the comprehensive bridge
construction project entitled Thousand Bridge
Construction Project for Rural Development. The
implementation of the project was approved on
December 13, 1999 and financed from a loan from the
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) under
the Urgent Bridges Construction Project for Rural
Development. This project was covered by a loan
agreement signed in March 2002.
10
Project
DPWH Locally Funded Bridge Projects
These included priority bridge projects identified in the

Medium Term Infrastructure Program in consultation
with the national and local officials and implemented by
the regional and district offices of the DPWH.
Road Projects with Bridges

ADB Sixth Road Project
The bridge component of this road project involved
replacement, repair and seismic retrofitting of failed and
structurally weak bridges within the national road
network on the islands of Luzon, Mindanao and Panay.
The project covered approximately 400 bridges which
were constructed from CYs 1998 to 2006.
Philippine-Japan Friendship
Highway Project (PJHL)
The Philippine-Japan Friendship Highway Project,

aimed to improve the National Arterial Road Network
with complete major arterial road links. This project,
which was financed from a JBIC loan, covered a total of
362 bridges.
Rural Road Network

Development Project Phase II
The project was intended to develop rural road network
(RRNDP-II)
in order to sustain agricultural activities and to improve

living standards of inhabitants in the selected provinces.
It covered the improvement and rehabilitation of
secondary national roads and other strategically
important roads. It was implemented by the DPWH
with financial assistance from Overseas Economic
Cooperation Fund, Japan. The project covered twenty
(20) bridges.
11
INVENTORY OF BRIDGES
As reflected in the DPWH statistics, there were 7,726 national bridges as of

July 2007 distributed to the different regions nationwide as follows:
On the other hand, a survey conducted by the DILG in 1998 disclosed that
there were 9,190 local bridges with an aggregate length of 204,213 lineal
meters. The survey covered 79 provinces and 1,476 cities and municipalities
in 15 regions, except NCR, and excluded the 218 local bridges covered in
the UK-Assisted Program.
12
TYPES AND CLASSIFICATION OF BRIDGES
Bridges are classified into several categories depending on their usages and
purposes. Generally, bridges are classified by the DPWH into:
Type
National bridge
Local bridge
Description
bridge that lies along the national
arterial roads
bridge that lies on the local roads
Bridges are also classified according to:

Classification
Description
Usage
Temporary bridge with a short life span and with

limited loading capacity and speed restriction;
needs replacements of members like a timber
trestle bridge, normally after three years.
Permanent bridge with life span of 50 years or more
before it is completely replaced, like concrete and
steel bridges.
System
of
design
Simple spans most common, consisting of separate

beams for each span supported in one end by a
pin or hinge and at the other end by a roller.
Continuous spans one with superstructure which is
continuous over one or more supports.
Cantilever span hinges are introduced in the beam to
simplify design and construction.
Suspension bridge used for spans in excess of 150
meters with roadway suspended by two or more
cables, usually passing over towers and securely
anchored at both ends.
Types of
materials
used in the
superstructure
Timber bridge this type of bridge used timber

because of its low cost.
Concrete bridges reinforced concrete or pre-stressed
concrete.
Steel bridges Steel I-Beam, Steel Truss, Panel
Bridges
13
PROJECT CYCLE ACTIVITIES
The development of infrastructure projects (e.g. roads, bridges, flood control

facilities and water supply) follows a cycle consisting of four phases as
follows:
Project
Identification
The project is usually identified and prioritized

based on a sector and/or area development surveys
and plans undertaken by the DPWH, LGUs and
other concerned entities such as the NEDA, RDCs,
etc.
Feasibility Study To find out if and to what

degree the project is desirable in technical,
economic, social, environmental, financial and
operational terms.
ICC Approval evaluates the merits of the
project in relation to set criteria (conformance
to national priorities, EIRR, inclusion in the
medium term program and budget, etc.)
IFI Appraisal to review and confirm the
projects feasibility and readiness for
implementation.
Project
Preparation
Loan Negotiations to discuss and agree on

the scope and description of the project, the
project cost, the cost to be financed from the
loan and the GOP counterpart, etc.
Fund Appropriation inclusion of the project
in the proposed annual budget submitted to the
DBM, for incorporation in the NEP.
Detailed Engineering to define the detailed
physical characteristics of the project,
according to accepted engineering standards to
an extent suitable for bidding purposes and
with a degree of details that will enable the
preparation of estimates of quantities and costs
within plus or minus 10% of the final figures.
14
Fund Releases DBM releases the funds for

the project automatically through the
Agency Budget Matrix if the project is
itemized in the GAA or through SARO if
the project is to be funded from a lump
sum appropriation in the GAA.
Right-of-Way Acquisition The right-of-way
for the project should be acquired and
cleared ahead of actual construction, and
preferably before the bidding.
The
acquisition and clearance of the right-ofway follow the provisions of RA 8974
and the guidelines for land acquisition
and resettlement agreed with the IFI.
Project
Implementation
Bidding and Contracting In general, the

project is undertaken by contract after
competitive public bidding in accordance
with the procurement guidelines of the
IFI as stated in the loan agreement or PD
1594/RA 9184.
Construction The contractor undertakes
actual construction work, subject to the
provisions of the contract. If the project is
large or complex, it will be supervised by
a special PMO. The PMO is normally
assisted by consultants for construction
supervision that are engaged in
accordance with the IFI procurement
guidelines as stated in the loan
agreement.
The PMO, with the
assistance of the consultants, is generally
responsible for all phases of project
management.
Completion and Acceptance Project
completion is the transition from the
development to the operational stage. The
PMO, with the assistance of its
consultants, is responsible for preparing
the Project Completion Report and as-built
plans. Final payment to the contractor is
made only after the PMO certifies that the
entire contract works are satisfactorily
completed, including correction of defects.
The Certificate of Acceptance is issued
after the warranty period, usually one year,
and upon correction of any defects.
15
Project
Operations
and
Evaluation
Operation and maintenance actual

maintenance of the project is undertaken
by the District Offices either by contract or
by administration. Maintenance receives
the highest priority in fund allocation to
preserve the facilities in good condition,
and thus efficiently function throughout
their economic life.
Impact Evaluation or post-project
appraisal is an attempt to assess if and to
what extent the completed facility
performs the functions as intended. It
includes an actual assessment of the actual
benefits and costs arising from the
completed project, as against those
assumed or projected during the project
study, covering the technical, economic,
social and environmental impact.
SCOPE OF BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT
The scope of works of various bridge projects covers construction of new

and improvement of existing bridges. The existing physical condition of the
bridge will determine the extent and urgency of the physical improvement
required. The various bridge improvements are as follow:
Improvement
Conversion to Permanent
Replacement
Rehabilitation
Description
Temporary bridges such as
timber, bailey and overflow
bridges are converted to
permanent ones.
For permanent bridges that are
damaged or structurally unsafe
to use that need to be totally
replaced.
The required works involve
structural repair to restore a
permanent bridge to its original
configuration/design.
16
Improvement
Upgrading
Description
The
improvement
required
involves the replacement or
conversion of a permanent
bridge to a higher level of
service, e.g., replacement or
conversion of a single lane
bridge to a double lane.
In this situation, there is
presently no existing bridge.
New Construction
FUNDING SOURCE
Majority of the bridge projects are funded from foreign loans, with the
required local counterpart funds. For projects covered in the audit, the
lending institutions/government follows:
Project
Special Bridges
UK-Assisted
Austrian-Assisted
Presidents Bridge Program:
Phase I
Phase II
TPB
SZOPAD
Countrywide
Urgent Bridges
Road Projects with Bridges:
PJHL
RRNDP
Source
Standard Chartered Bank
Bank of Austria
UK
Austrian
Deutche AJ London
JBIC
ADB
JBIC
Loan Amount
25 M *
S500 M (36.34M)
32 M
P 3.1 B
19.6 B
23.89 B
4.9 B
18.488 B (P 9.4 B)
P 1.77 B
79.774 B
12.9B
* - including 8.75 M grant
17
PROJECT COST COMPONENTS

The loan proceeds were utilized to finance the costs of the following project
components:
COST ( in billion )
Project Component
Construction/Installation/
Design and Supply of Steel
Bridge Structure
Procurement of vehicles, office
equipment and engineering
tools/construction of depots/
supply of special equipment
Consultancy Services/ Advisory
Services Fee/ Local Project
Management coordination
supervision, etc.
Contingencies/ Provisional
Sum Items
Soil Investigation, customized
engineering design
Pilot Bridge Const.
ECGD Finance Charge
Transportation/
Freight Services
Supply of materials local/
foreign
Training
Total Estimated Cost
Special Bridges (SB)

UKAustrianAssisted
Assisted
(UK)
(AA)
Presidents Bridge Program

DILG
AustrianAssisted (AA) SZOPAD
TPB
0.021
S 0.345
P 2.085
16.543
13.636
0.016
0.292
2.652
1.884
0.001
0.034
0.256
1.377
0.856
0.002
0.044
0.467
0.001
0.052
0.009
-
0.652
1.010
0.025
S0.500
2.661
0.006
23.891
2.200
0.014
19.600
P 3.100
About 69% to 84.87% of the total project costs were allotted for the
design/supply and installation of imported steel bridge structures. The cost
allocated for consultancy and other related services ranged from 4.36% to
6.80% of the total project cost. In the case of Austrian-Assisted Special
Bridges Project, the costs for soil investigation and customized engineering
design reached 10.40% of the total project cost, while the cost for the supply
of other foreign and local construction materials for TPB and SZOPAD were
about 11%.
The distribution of the total costs of five projects into the different
component is graphically presented in the next page.
18
Percentage Distribution of Project Component Costs

100%
5.75
6.8
5.7
5.76
7.39
6.06
4.36
11.13
9.61
11.10
11.22
8.80
80%
10.48
104
84.87
76.38
69.0
69.57
69.24
60%
40%
20%
0%
UK-SB
AA-SB
AA-DILG
SZOPAD
TPB
Others
Consultancy Srvs./ Advisory Srvs.Fee/ Local Proj. Mgt., coordination supervision, etc.
Procurement of vehicles, office equipt. and engg. tools/const. of depots/ Supply of special equipt.
Contingencies/ Provisional Sum Items
Soil Investigation, customized engg. design
Supply of materials - local/foreign
Design/Supply/Installation of steel bridge structure
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
As of December 2006, the reported accomplishments under each bridge

project follows:
Project
Target

Phase I UK-Assisted
Phase II Austrian-Assisted
Tulay ng Pangulo sa Barangay
Tulay ng Pangulo sa SZOPAD
Countrywide Bridge Projects
Special Bridges Project a
Austrian Assisted
UK Assisted
Urgent Bridges Construction Project
Road Projects with Bridges
PJHL
RRNDP IIb
Total
a
- as of February 2007
No. of Bridges
Accomplishment
218
306
402
526
200
213
314
411
592
200
124
256
887
112
242
0
400
362
20
3,701
138
225
20
2,467
as of March 2007
19

Governments Bridge Program
Program Accountability Model
Overall
Program
Objectives
To provide essential transport facilities that will spur economic activities and induce
socio-economic growth and development
Expected/
Actual
Effects
Faster flow and movement of people, goods and services

and mainstreamed remote communities
Overall
Program
Expected
Outputs
Improved and newly constructed identified priority local and national

bridges
Objective/s of
Program
Components
Objective/s of
Activities
Expected/
Actual
Output/s
Program
Components
To come up with a
Master Plan/Bridge
Inventory as basis
for selection of
projects.
Master Plan/Bridge
Inventory
Activities
Legend:
Construction of new and replacement, rehabilitation/repair and retrofitting of

local and national bridges
Project
Identification
To come up with the list of

projects based on
established selection criteria
and to ensure that these
projects are feasible and
technically ready for
implementation.
To implement
projects efficiently,
economically and
effectively.
Feasibility Study,
MTIP (DPWH),
Project Proposal for
Financing,
Annual Infrastructure
Program (DPWH),
Loan Agreement,
MOA
New and improved

local and national
bridges which are
implemented in
accordance with
approved plans,
specs and schedule
and are useful.
Project Preparation
Feasibility Study
Inclusion in the
MTIP and Budget
ICC Approval
IFI Appraisal
Loan Negotiations
Fund
Appropriation
Detailed Engg.
Project
Implementation
Fund Releases
Bidding and
Contracting
Construction
Completion and
Acceptance
Payment
Monitoring
To assess extent of
projects utilization
and maintenance.
Updated Inventory/
Report on the
Status/Condition of
Bridges
Project Operations
and Evaluation
Operation and
Maintenance
Impact
Evaluation
Special Bridges (UK- P 5.4 B; Austrian- P 4.9 B)

Presidents Bridge Program (Phase I - 32M, Phase II P 4.4 B, TPB - 19.6B,
SZOPAD P 10.6 B, Countrywide 4.9B)
Road Projects with Bridges (ADB P 1.77B , PJHL 51.69B, RRNDP 12.9B,
URPO 1) 5.8B & 2)$60M, IBRD $50M)
Urgent Bridges ((P 9.4 Billion)
DPWH Regular Bridge Projects
LGU Funded Bridges*
- Fully funded and implemented by LGUs

- Cost of supply contracts only
- Total cost of the road project

- Amount of loan only, GOP counterpart not yet included
20
21
22
23
24
Part III
Audit Observations
25
Chapter 1
Well Coordinated and Organized

Bridge Projects
26
WELL COORDINATED AND ORGANIZED BRIDGE PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
For programs of such magnitude as the government bridge program where

various offices are involved, coordination among the implementing agencies
and an organized implementation plan are crucial for its efficient and
effective execution. Coordination and an organized plan are vital to ensure
the development of cost-effective strategies and a more responsive bridge
projects.
The plan should provide direction in the implementation of defined
activities. In the case of bridge program, the implementation plan should be
founded on a bridge master plan which clearly defined the overall program
framework, provide master list of bridges to be addressed under the program
and prescribe the roles and responsibilities of agencies involved in the
implementation. The master plan should be updated to reflect bridges that
have already been accomplished and prioritized under existing projects.
The team, however, noted that various bridge projects with overlapping
scope and coverage were being implemented by the DPWH and DILG
without proper coordination. As such, bridges already identified in one
project were still included and eventually implemented under another
project. This then resulted in the delayed implementation of the projects
necessitating several extensions of project schedules and payment of
commitment fees and surcharges on covering loans.
OBSERVATION
The different bridge projects of the government, with overlapping scope

and coverage and implemented by different PMOs, were not well
coordinated and not founded on an updated overall bridge master plan.
Thus, in some cases, a bridge already included in one project was again
included in another project. This contributed to the delayed
implementation of the projects on account of tedious process for selection
of replacement sites and incurrence of related expenses such as
commitment fees and surcharges on unavailed loans at the scheduled
dates. This also resulted in a condition where the government was already
paying loan amortizations for projects which are still on-going or for
implementation.
27
As disclosed in the 1993-1998 MTPDP, of the 40,000 lineal meters of

bridges scheduled for implementation annually, only about 8,000 lineal
meters were reportedly implemented. This problem was compounded by the
report that some 10,000 lineal meters of bridges are destroyed and weakened
annually due to natural disasters.
This condition was somehow supported by the results of surveys on local
bridges nationwide, excluding NCR and ARMM, conducted in August 1998
by the Office of the Project Development Services (OPDS), DILG in
coordination with the DILG regional, provincial and municipal coordinators.
The results of the survey disclosed that of the total 9,190 local bridges
nationwide with an aggregate length of 204,213 lineal meters, excluding the
218 local bridges covered in the UK Assisted Program, 6,923 or 75% needs
replacement, rehabilitation, new construction or conversion to permanent
ones. The distribution of local bridges by status is presented in the chart
below:
Distribution of Local Bridges By Status
As of August 1998
762
8%
1,113
12%
2,267
25%
1,000
11%
1,713
19%
2,335
25%
Permanent ones that require no improvement in the near future
New proposals (there is presently no existing bridge structure) requiring entirely new construction
For conversion to permanent ones
Damaged/structurally unsafe requiring total replacement
For upgrading
For repair/rehabilitation
The condition of national bridges was not far behind. Under the 1999-2004
MTPDP, it was disclosed that 261,969 lm. national bridges was programmed
to be 100 percent permanent by 2004. This included, among others, the
reconstruction of 29,763 lm. of temporary bridges, improvement of 38,670
lm. and construction of 4,495 lm. new bridges.
These requirements were intended to be addressed by the governments
bridge projects, primarily under the Nationwide Bridge Rehabilitation and
Replacement Program implemented by the DPWH and the Nationwide
Local Bridges Replacement/Rehabilitation Program initiated by the DILG.
28
Thus, for several years now, these agencies were undertaking massive bridge
construction funded from local sources and foreign loans. From CY 1996 to
present, the government was implementing, among others, the following
projects:
Project Covered
Funding
Source
Project
Amount
Total
Completed On-going
For
implem
entation
DPWH-PBPO
Tulay ng Pangulo sa
Barangay
UK
19,600,000,000
28,800,000,000
402 *
526/ *
200 *
380
589
200
31
3
-
1
-
DPWH Urgent Bridges

Urgent
Bridges
Construction Project
for Rural Devt.
JBIC
18,488,000,000**
196
81
115
UK
Austrian
12,829,423.10
S 1,000,000,000
143
306
143
233
38
43
16,250,000
242
186
50
36,336,417
112
21
26
65
DILG
Phase I
Phase II
DPWH-Special Bridges (As of February 2007)

UK Assisted
Phase II
Austrian Assisted
UK
Austrian
Assisted
* constructed more bridges due to deviation from bridge length per supply contract
** for Phase I only
In addition to these projects, other bridge requirements of the government

were being implemented as part of the road projects under various PMOs of
the DPWH such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Rural Road
Network Development Project (RRNDP) and the Philippine Japan Highway
Loan (PJHL).
The scope and coverage of these projects as disclosed in their respective loan
agreements and available records are as follows:
No. of bridges covered
Project
Scope
Coverage
Tulay ng
Pangulo sa
Barangay
Tulay ng
Pangulo sa
SZOPAD
Countrywide
Const. of permanent
double lane bridges
14 regions
nationwide except
NCR and ARMM
10 SZOPAD
provinces and 8
cities
Const. of permanent
double lane compact
bridges
Const. of additional
compact bridges
Const./ replacement
of temporary and
dilapidated bridges.
Const. of local
bridges
nationwide
70 provinces and
5 cities in 15
regions
Phase II71 provinces and 18
Austrian
cities nationwide
Assisted (AA)
except NCR and
ARMM
Special
Construction / replacement of bridges with
Bridges - AA span length of at least 30 m and above
Special
Replacement of
Regions V to XIII
Phase I-UK
Assisted
Period of
Per
Bridge
Per loan Accomplish Implement
Classification Agreement
ation
ment
402
411
2001-2005
526
592
2001-2006
200
200
2004-2006
National -80
Local - 138
218
80
143
1996-2001
Local
306
314
1999-2004
National
National
124
112
2002-2008*
Barangay
Local
29
No. of bridges covered
Project
Scope
Coverage
Period of
Per
Bridge
Per loan Accomplish Implement
Classification Agreement
ation
ment
Bridges-UK
temporary and
and CAR
(along arterial
Assisted
weakened bridges.
roads)
Luzon, Mindanao
Replacement/repair/
ADB Sixth
and Panay.
retrofitting of 400
Road
National
structurally weak bridges
Project
* - revised completion date
256
242
2001- 2007
400
138
1998-2006
In addition to foreign-assisted bridge projects, DPWH also implements

various locally funded bridge projects out of its regular budgets for bridges
along national roads and out of Priority Development Assistance Fund
(PDAF) for bridges along local and national roads. On the other hand, the
local government units, particularly the provincial governments, also
implement bridge projects along provincial, city, municipal and barangay
roads.
Records, however, revealed that various projects with overlapping scope and
coverage were being implemented simultaneously by the different
implementing agencies without coordination. Moreover, the overall bridge
master plan which was used as basis for identifying bridge projects to be
implemented was not being updated. The master plan of local bridges which
was prepared by DILG in 1999 was not being updated to reflect the bridges
already covered in previous projects and/or already addressed by the
concerned LGUs. It maybe mentioned that the PBP was covering local
bridges which are also being addressed by the concerned LGUs, to some
extent. Even the different bridge projects implemented by the DPWH were
not coordinated.
In view of apparent lack of coordination, a number of bridges identified in
one project were also included in another project implemented by the same
or another implementing agency.
This condition affected the
implementation of the project on account of the need to look for replacement
sites as disclosed below:
Name of Bridge
Proposed
Reg. Under/IA
Implemented
by
Ambitakay
AA/
DILG
LGUMun of
Agoo
Suyo
AA/
DILG
JICA
Remarks
This project was already completed by the
Municipality of Agoo but still considered as
bridge for implementation by the DILG as of
Sept. 2007. The Provincial Government of La
Union is then looking for possible replacement
site as bridging materials were already released
to the Province.
Considered in the list of priority bridges for
implementation by the DILG but already
constructed by JICA. The bridging materials for
this bridge were instead used for the construction
of Casilagan Bridge.
30
Name of Bridge
Malinao
ImpleProposed mented
Reg. Under/IA
by
XI
AA/
PBP
DILG
SZOPAD
PBP/AA DPWH
Phase II/ and
DILG
DILG
Lugum and Baobo
DPWH
Sawangan
Pastor Kimpo
XII
Biak na Bato and

Calapnagan
VI
Bugnay, Igcawayan
Mantasic and Nagay
Consuegra
Malobago 1 & 2,
Dakit,
Fajardo,
Lawis,
Lucsoon,
Tabunok1
and
Tugas
Amolong, Bananao,
Cassag, Dao Galap 1,
Lubo Magnas,
Mambolo Masablang
Salagunting 3 and
Tuga
Bacong, Bubog
Malbog1 and
Malbog2
Garden, Muslum 2
Bito CSW, Cabano
Cuartero, Langab
Mandalagan
Agpangi Calunagan,
and Surop
Maatot and
Ibong
VI
SZOPAD
IBRD
UK
Assisted
Phase II/
Special
Bridges JBIC
VIII
V
&
VIII
CAR
JICA
VI
ADB
CAR
V
VI
VIII &
XI
Locally
Funded
Projects/
DPWH
CAR
JBIC Prog.
/DPWH
Remarks
Bridging materials for this project were reallocated to other LGUs as this bridge was
already constructed under the SZOPAD Project.
These bridges were included both in the list of
projects to be implemented by DILG under PBP
Phase II and under Various Infra Projects of
DPWH.
When the DPWH was already
implementing these projects (15% complete), the
DILG requested suspension of these projects.
The DPWH continued with the construction of
the Lugum Bridge and allowed DILG to
continue the construction of Baobo Bridge in
coordination with the Province of Compostela
Valley. The bridging materials for Lugum
Bridge were then used for the construction of
Concepcion Bridge.
This bridge was included in the list of priority
bridges for implementation by the DILG but was
already constructed by the DPWH. Thus, the
LGU concerned requested that the bridging
materials be transferred to Andap and
Binugsayan bridges, both located in Compostela
Valley.
Still reported as bridge for implementation in the
Status Report of DILG as of Sept. 2007 while
already constructed under SZOPAD. Bridging
materials for this bridge were already released to
the LGU. Thus, the LGU is still looking for
replacement site to install the bridging materials.
These bridges were included in the original list
of bridges proposed for implementation under
the UK-Assisted Special Bridges Project but
were rejected by the consultant as these were
also included in other bridge projects. In the
case of bridges in Regions V and VIII, the
consultant claimed that it would be economical
to build box culverts than bridges on the
proposed sites.
31
Name of Bridge
Proposed
Reg. Under/IA
Malinao
Implemented
by
Remarks
Regular
Infra
DPWH
DPWH/Rehabilitation
of Halsema
DPWHPJHL
Tulay ng
Pangulo sa
Barangay
Guerilla
Ellet
Binantuan
VI
AA/
DILG
Borongotan
Not
ind.
Mati
XI
UK
Assisted
Phase I/
Special
Bridges
ADB
Sixth
Road
Project
SALAM
DPWH
Regional
Office
Still reported as bridge undergoing construction

in the Status Report of DILG as of September
2007 but was already completed on March 25,
2005 under the Tulay ng Pangulo sa Barangay.
Already completed under the SALAM Bridge
project.
Improvement of this bridge was already

undertaken by the DPWH Regional Office prior
to its inclusion in the ADB Sixth Road Project.
As noted by the NEDA-ICC in its review of the proposed extension of UK

loan, the implementing agency had to re-evaluate the replacement sites. The
conduct of pre-survey detailed engineering alone for the replacement bridge
took about ten (10) months. While the selection process was being
undertaken, the duration of loan agreements had to be extended.
Due to delayed implementation of the projects, the duration of the following
loan agreements were extended for a number of times as illustrated below:
Project
Loan
Amount
Tulay ng Pangulo sa
SZOPAD
Y28.8 B
Special Bridges UK
Assisted Phase II
16.25M
DILG
Austrian
Assisted Phase II
S1B
PBP
Phase I-UK
Assisted
16.546M
ADB Sixth Road
Project - Loan No.
1473-PHI and JEXIM
$327 M
Untied Loan
Loan
Date
Original
Expiration
Date
Loan
Duration
(months)
Final
Expiration
Date
No. of
extension
granted
9/13/01
9/13/05
48
4/30/06
3/30/01
4/30/04
37
3/31/06
7/23/99
12/31/02
41
6/30/04
7/5/96
6/30/98
24
6/30/01
12/24/97
6/30/02
54
5/30/06
Despite extensions of loan agreements, the government just the same had to
comply with the provisions requiring payment of commitment fees and
surcharges in case the project was not implemented as scheduled.
32
Records show that as of December 31, 2006, the government had so far
incurred unnecessary cost of US$5.23M for payment of commitment fees
and surcharges due to several extensions and/or delays in the implementation
schedule.
Loan
Amount
Project
Special Bridges
UK Assisted P II
Special
Bridges
Austrian Assisted
PBP Phase I UK
Assisted
Tulay ng Pangulo sa
Barangay
Tulay ng Pangulo sa
SZOPAD
ADB Sixth Road
Project
Total
Loan
date
Completion Commitment
date
Fee
Surcharges
Total
16.25 M
3/31/01
3/31/06
US$177,000
US$177,000
36.336 M
2/28/02
10/31/04
59,000
59,000
16.546 M
07/5/96
6/30/01
14,000
US$9,226
23,226
Y19.6 B
9/22/00
9/00/04
25,000
25,000
Y28.8B
9/13/01
4/30/06
127,000
127,000
$327. M
12/24/97
5/30/06
4,815,000
US$5,217,000
4,815,000
US$ 9,226 US$5,226,226
This also resulted in a condition where the government has to repay the
loans even when the full benefits from the projects are yet to be enjoyed by
the constituents as some bridges are still on-going, for implementation or
could not be implemented at once for one reason or another as tabulated
below:
Status of Bridges
No. of
bridges
covered Completed On-going
st
Date of 1 loan
repayment
Project
Tulay
Pangulo
Barangay
SZOPAD
ng
sa
Special Bridges
UK Assisted
ADB
Sixth
Road Project
Semi-annual payment
of
Y833,000,000
starting Jan. 2004
Semi-annual payment
of Y1,015,409,001
starting Jan. 2004
Semi-annual payment
of 812,500 starting
August, 2003
Semi-annual payment
of
US$12.525M
starting Nov. 15,
2001
Repayment
Not yet
implemen
ted
Y7,938,000,000
411
380
31
Y 10,829,636,004
593
589
4,062,5000.00
242
178
58
$40,221,920.85
138
81
39
18
131
25
Total
Managements Comments
Teams Rejoinder
Response provided by Special Bridges PMO, DPWH

This PMO concurs in with the COA
observation.
However, it is worth
mentioning that the PMO is mainly
involved in the implementation of the
bridge projects. Identification of bridges
The team recognized that the PMOs

involvement started only after the list
of bridge projects had been approved.
As it is evident that the Planning
Service is not capable of overseeing
33
Teams Rejoinder
for
inclusion
in
any
bridge
project/program is an undertaking done
by the Planning Service of the DPWH
before the list of bridge projects is
approved for inclusion in the Supply and
Services Contract for implementation.
The PMOs involvement started only
after the Supply and Services Contract
was approved during which validation of
the actual condition of bridges has to be
made prior to its detailed engineering and
construction. This undertaking is done
jointly by the Planning Service, this PMO
and Consultant, in coordination with the
concerned implementing offices.
and coordinating the implementation

of all bridge projects, the team
recommends the creation of a unit
that will handle this responsibility.
The remarks in the report is correct, but

the PMO as mentioned is only involved in
the validation of bridges after they were
identified by the Planning Service, basing
on the Bridge Masterlist submitted to
NEDA prior to the approval of every loan
project. During the validation, the UK
Consultants decision governs over the
DPWH recommendation, since there is a
35% grant in the project cost that
necessitated the services of a Consultant
from the Department for International
Development (DFID) of UK Government,
to approve all the design statements of the
bridges identified in the Supply and
Services Contract prior to actual
implementation.
UK-Assisted Phase II
The loan for this bridge project covers the
contract for the supply of steel truss and
beam bridges with the provision of
advisory services to the DPWH. There
are 242 bridges programmed under this
project package, which consist of four (4)
phases (Phases 1A, 1B, 2 and 3).
However, there are some pre-conditions
that have to be achieved before the
DPWH can place an order to
manufacture/fabricate the steel bridging
The delays due to pre-conditions

before DPWH could place an order
to the Supplier to manufacture could
have been avoided had proposed
project sites subject to confirmation
by the UK Consultants been properly
selected/screened before submitting
the same for evaluation.
34
Teams Rejoinder
materials. Unfortunately, because of the

delayed releases and/or lack of GOP
counterpart funds from CY 2001 to 2004
coupled by unforeseen events, these preconditions were not met, hence, the delay
in the order to manufacture/fabricate the
bridging materials. In view of this, the
Supplier had not able to fully accomplish
their obligation to supply and deliver the
required steel bridging materials in 30
April 2004 (original closing date). Such
situation prompted the DPWH to request
for an extension of the loan until 31
March 2006 for the completion of
delivery of bridging materials under
Phase 3 of the project, including the
necessary documentation for the payment
of delivered materials from the loan/grant
proceeds.
Copy of the approved
extension by NEDA is attached.
Further, in the Audit Observations
[DPWH-OSEC-AOM-029-2007(102)]
dated 12 March 2007 of Atty. Aristoteles
P. Ilarde, State Auditor V, Supervising
Auditor and Ms. Sonia B. Sigua, State
Auditor IV, Audit Team Leader, it is
informed that only US$2,701.86 or
Php140,734.48 commitment fee was
incurred in the project, not US$177,000
per your report.
The PMOs
comment/reply dated 15 March 2007 on
the matter is also attached.
The US$2,701.86 or Php140,734.48

commitment fee cited in the
mentioned audit observation only
covered CY 2006. The amount of
US$177,000 presented in the report
represents accumulated commitment
fees for UK-Assisted Phase II as of
December 31, 2006 which was
provided by the Bureau of Treasury.
Austrian-assisted
The loan had extended from 31 October
2004 (original) to 31 July 2005 (revised)
because of the loan balance for payment
due to the Supplier, which had been
provided only in the CY 2005 DPWH
Budget, and because of the additional
construction of one (1) pilot bridge (from
2 to 3 bridges) on a turn-key basis
utilizing the balance of the contingency
fund. This is the reason why this project
incurred an additional commitment fee
per your report.
The team took note of the reasons for

loan extension.
35
Teams Rejoinder
Response provided by DILG

Bridge projects then were simultaneously
implemented by DPWH and DILG.
Under the Tulay ng Pangulo, bridges
were constructed without requiring
counterpart fund from the LGUs. Thus
some LGUs opted to have their bridges
constructed under the Tulay ng Pangulo
program at the same time availing of the
AAPBPPII materials for realignment to
other sites.
As pointed out in the report, to

ensure successful implementation,
coordination
among
the
implementing agencies is vital
especially for projects with the same
scope and coverage.
Delay in implementation was primarily

due to the inability of the LGUs to put up
counterpart fund for the construction of
the substructures. Several options were
undertaken to assist the LGUs in
addressing this issue:
The team appreciates managements

efforts to resolve the issue of delayed
implementation due to inability of
the LGUs to provide counterpart
fund. In future projects however,
DILG should strictly consider and
evaluate the capability of the LGUs
to provide counterpart funds before
including their projects in the list of
projects to be funded from loans.
approval of the Bridge Construction

Acceleration Program where 30
turnkey bridges were constructed
within the loan amount;
coordination
with
several
Congressmen/women for the use of
the congressional fund to cover the
LGU counterpart funds;
coordination with LGUs for the
provision of their counterpart funds;
and
continuous
assistance
from
Central/Regional Offices for the
completion of all AAPBP Phase II
bridges.
OPDS will resume/continue updating on a

regular basis, the bridge inventory
together with the local roads inventory
database established within the office.
The team appreciates DILGs

commitment to continue updating the
bridge inventory as this is vital
document in determining future
actions.
36
Chapter 2
Compliance with Selection Criteria
37
COMPLIANCE WITH SELECTION CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION
As the number of bridges needing replacement and/or repair and for
construction could not be addressed at the same time, there is a need to
prescribe certain criteria for selection. This is to ensure that the bridge
most in need of replacement and/or repair or for construction was given
priority concerns. Thus, the DPWH deemed it necessary to define a set of
criteria that will be used in prioritizing bridges nationwide under its
Nationwide Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement Program.
The DILG, for its Nationwide Local Bridges Replacement/Rehabilitation
Program also set selection criteria to prioritize the bridges for
implementation under the program. The selection criteria for the two
programs are as follows:
DPWH Nationwide Bridge
Rehabilitation and Replacement
Program
DILG Nationwide Local Bridges

Replacement/Rehabilitation
Program
Road Integrity (10 points) the bridge lies

along the North-South Backbone (NS), existing
East-West Laterals (EWe), other roads of
strategic importance (ORa), new link East-West
Laterals (EWn), agricultural development support
roads(Orb), and National Secondary Roads (2N).
Importance of bridge in road network

(max. 4 points) give priority to bridges
lying along higher category roads in
terms of functional classification (e.g.,
provincial bridges should be given higher
priority than municipal/city and barangay
bridges).
Volume of traffic (max. 4 points)
higher priority to bridges with higher
traffic volume. In view of the absence of
updated and complete traffic data for all
local bridges, DILG instead utilized the
income level of the municipalities.
Physical condition of the bridge (max.
4 points) bridges for replacement or for
conversion to permanent ones are
considered more urgent and should be
given higher priority as against bridges
for repair-rehabilitation upgrading or
those involving construction of an
entirely new bridge.
Supportive of other national programs
(2 points) local bridges that are within
the area of coverage of national
programs such as the Agrarian Reform
Communities Development Program of
DAR and the Regional Agri-Industrial
Growth Centers.
Location Endowment (10 points) directly

correlates traffic volume with the level of income
and population of the municipality where the
bridge is located.
Physical Condition of the Bridge (2 points)

determines the extent of physical improvement
that a particular bridge requires, either for total
replacement or repair/rehabilitation, based mainly
on an initial ocular inspection.
Development Policy Concern (10 points) the

bridge improvement project in a particular site
will help provide access to basic services and
human needs which are not otherwise accessible
to end-users; will facilitate the development of
economically and socially depressed areas; or
will
support
agricultural
or
industrial
development.
Social Development Support (2 points)
proposed bridge sites located in any one of the 20
provinces identified in the Social Reform Agenda
as the poorest areas using the Minimum Basic
Needs (MBN) Index Approach.
Social development support (max. 4

points) bridges located in the 20 most
depressed or underdeveloped provinces
using the Minimum Basic Needs (MBN)
Indices.
38
DPWH Nationwide Bridge

Rehabilitation and Replacement
Program
DILG Nationwide Local Bridges

Replacement/Rehabilitation
Program
Environmental Aspect (2 points)

bridge site has an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) or
Certificate of Exemption, as some
bridges are located in watershed and
rainforests.
Total Maximum Points = 36
LGU priority project (2 points) local

bridges which are identified and included
in the Development Plans of the LGU.
Total Maximum Points
20
In addition to the above general criteria, the loan agreement entered into
for a specific bridge project also required and/or prescribed certain
selection criteria. As reflected in the project proposal, aside from the
specific requirements as to location and urgency, the bridges under the
following projects should be selected based on the following criteria:
Criteria set
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY / PROJECT

DPWH
DILG
Locally
Special
PBP
TPB/TPS
Urgent
Funded
Bridges
Phase II
With considerable socio-economic effects:

Living
conditions and economic
activities improved
Traffic volume improved
.Annual Average Daily Transport must
be more than 100 vehicles per day
New projects leading to population/
institutional/production centers
Appropriateness of the project

Bridge size is appropriate (bridge
length is 15m to 200 m)
Bridge is suitable for modular steel
construction
The proposed replacement or new
bridges are cost effective, technically
appropriate (In particular the number
of lanes
be appropriate
to
actual/anticipated traffic flows)
Validation of bridge project to suit
technical requirements.
Availability of counterpart funds
Funds available to ensure completion

of link routes within 2 years of bridge
construction
Financial capability of the LGUs to
provide counterpart funds
Technical Aspect
Resettlement needs, road closures and

diversions are adequately considered
in relation to affected communities
and
appropriate
compensation
provided.
There should be no right-of-way
problem and no existing structure to
be demolished.
39
Criteria set
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY / PROJECT

DPWH
DILG
Locally
Special
PBP
TPB/TPS
Urgent
Funded
Bridges
Phase II
The project must cover a usable

structure.
Bridge must be along the existing road.
On-going/committed under the local
funds, JBIC, IBRD, ADB, Kuwait and
Austrian assisted not to be considered
in this project
Maintenance Commitment
The Local Government Unit should

commit to take care of maintenance
after project acceptance/statement
As maybe noted, the selection criteria were varied with some projects
requiring stringent selection criteria than others.
The audit, however, disclosed that while sets of criteria were established to
ensure selection of the bridge most in need of replacement, repair or
immediate construction, the criteria were not strictly observed. Bridging
materials were issued to the proponent without assessing the readiness of
the project sites and the proponents. Thus, some bridging materials
remained uninstalled and unprotected at project sites.
OBSERVATIONS
1. The readiness of the project sites and the implementing agencies were
not assessed prior to the issuance of bridging materials. Thus,
bridging materials delivered to the project proponents for quite a time
remained uninstalled due to lack of funds and/or right-of-way
problems.
Under the loan agreement for the Presidents Bridge Program, the
super structure components, known as the bridging materials to be
delivered by the foreign supplier will be charged against the loan
proceeds. As a counterpart, the Philippine Government shall provide
funds for the following:
Acquisition and payment of road right-of-way, access road and the

like on the proposed bridge site, if applicable;
Relocation of affected utilities and demolition of existing structure,
i.e., existing old bridge, electric post, water lines, drainage, etc.;
40
Construction of substructure including wing wall and ballasts;

Construction of 5m of slab and concrete barriers with traffic paint
and sign post in both approaches; and
Installation of the bridge superstructure.
To ensure that the required counterpart fund will not be a problem,

DPWH and DILG included in the selection criteria of the bridges to be
prioritized the following:
Financial capability of the LGUs to provide counterpart funds

Absence of right-of-way problem and structures for demolition.
Evaluation of records, however, revealed that while compliance to

these criteria are crucial and pre-requisite to the installation of
superstructures, the same were not being assessed prior to the release
of bridging materials. It was observed that bridging materials were
released to the project proponents without even evaluating if the
project sites were already ready or counterpart funds to address these
concerns were already available.
As a result, construction of a number of bridges were not started or
completed though bridging materials were already released to the
concerned LGUs due to, among others, lack of counterpart funds and
right of way problem. Meantime, as observed during inspection of
selected sites, the bridging materials were left at project sites
unprotected as illustrated below:
Name of Bridge/Location
Bridge
length
(l.m.)

Bacayao Bridge Pangasinan 60.96
Date of
release of
BMs
Remarks
08-17-02
Bridging materials issued in 2002
remained uninstalled due to lack of
funds. These were found by the team
stocked in a private warehouse in
Dagupan City in July 2007. The items
inventoried by the team could no
longer build a bridge.
41
Bridge
length
(l.m.)
Tanglaw Bridge
Davao del Norte
Date of
release of
BMs
No
information
available
Abutment A (Installed H-piles)
Remarks
Per teams inspection on October 22,
2007, the bridge was found unfinished
and already abandoned. Found at site
were
installed materials for
abutments A and B. The bridging
materials issued by the PBPO were no
longer found at site. The team was
informed by the PBPO that other
bridging materials intended for this
project were utilized for the
construction of the detour bridge to
be used while the construction of
Tuganay Bridge in Carmen, Davao del
Norte is ongoing. As reflected in the
May 2002 Validation Report prepared
by Region XI Project Monitoring
Committee (RPMC), the project has a
right-of-way (ROW) problem. The
Municipality of B.E. Dujali is
reportedly yet to negotiate with the
owners of a banana plantation for a
portion of land to link the road to the
bridge.
Abutment B (Installed H-piles and rebars for the

footings)
Phase II Austrian Assisted
Sabangan, Sinait
Ilocos Sur
20
07-15-05
This project is reported as still for
implementation. It was also reported
that about P500,000 were spent in
hauling materials from Regional
Bridge Depot I to project site and
some materials are still to be hauled
from Visayas and Mindanao Depots.
Interview
with
the
provincial
government officials disclosed that the
project could not be implemented due
to lack of funds.
Large bridging materials were already
covered with grass while some small
bridge parts were already embedded
on the ground.
Furthermore, corrosion on gusset
plates, nuts and bolts as well as on the
steel trusses were noted during the
teams inspection in July 2007.
42
Pagsanaan,
Ilocos Sur
Magsingal,
Bridge
length
(l.m.)
Date of
release of
BMs
60
07-15-05
Remarks
The project is reported as still for

implementation. It was also reported
that about
P500,000 were spent
in hauling materials from Regional
Bridge Depot I to project site and
some materials are still to be hauled
from Visayas and Mindanao Depots.
Interview
with
the
provincial
government officials disclosed that the
project could not be implemented due
to lack of funds.
Corrosion was already noticeable on
some bridging parts during teams
inspection in July 2007.
Biloca-Dariwdiw,
Ilocos Sur
Batac,
35
04-20-05
As reported, the proponent is still
looking for available funds.
Bridging materials were already
covered with grasses with corrosion
noted on gusset plates and main
bearings.
Arimit Bridge, Adams,

Ilocos Norte
Masi/Baset
Bridge,
Adams, Ilocos Norte
20
06-01-05
100
06-09-05
Besong Bridge, Kayapa,

Nueva Vizcaya
25
05-05-05
Mangandingay-Sto.
Domingo
Bridge,
20
12-14-04
As reflected in the Status Report as of

September 2007, the bridging
materials are stored in the Provincial
Motorpool and awaiting funds from
the provincial government.
September 2007, the engineering
works is yet to be started and the
funds are still being requested from
the provincial government.
Not yet implemented due to
insufficient fund per reply to the
43
Bridge
length
(l.m.)
Date of
release of
BMs
20
20
04-13-05
02-08-05
San Antonio-Agos Bridge,

Iriga City, Albay
Budlaan Bridge, Cebu City
60
08-18-05
20
10-04-05
San Jose Bridge, Palo,

Leyte
60
06-23-05
Sadpodon Bridge, Carmen,

Davao del Norte
Kinabjangan,
Nasipit,
Agusan del Norte
Dona Telesfora Bridge,
Tubay, Agusan del Norte
Ambahan-Cabayawa
Bridge, Tubay, Agusan del
Norte
Banban Bridge, Tagana-an,
Surigao del Norte
Taytay Bridge, Malimono,
Surigao del Norte
Anahao-Daan-Bag-O
Bridge, Surigao del Sur
Cabangahan Bridge,
Iligan City
30
01-06-06
40
10-20-05
45
10-12-05
25
10-20-05
Still
sourcing
implementation.
45
12-03-05
Still for inclusion in the LGUs

supplemental budget.
25
11-29-05
50
11-08-05
Pastor Kimpo Bridge,

Cotabato City
25
11-02-05
Culat Bridge,
Casiguran, Aurora
60
5-16-05
Cabarroguis, Quirino
Campamento-Guinagat
Sto. Rosario Br., Minalin,
Pampanga
80
The project site had been identified
and
validated
before
each
consignment order. Under AAPBPII,
this situation occurred after the loan
closing date on June 30, 2004 where
the LGUs were advised to withdraw
their bridging materials from the
Remarks
teams confirmation by the concerned
LGU.
September 2007, the project was not
yet started and still awaiting for the
release of provincial counterpart
funds.
Awaiting release of SARO from the
CDF.
Requesting funds from the CDF of a
Senator.
Not yet implemented, awaiting
allocation of counterpart funds from
the LGU.
counterpart funds from the LGU.
counterpart funds.
funds
for
LGU has no counterpart funds yet to

implement the project.
Still requesting funds from the
provincial
government
for
substructure.
Still requesting counterpart funds
from the LGU.
The bridging
materials are stored at the City Engg.
Office.
Construction
done
by
phase
depending on the availability of funds
from the provincial government.
Teams Rejoinder
Apparently, the representation of
the LGUs that funds are available
was not at all verified and
validated.
Ironically, while
availability
of
certificate of
funds
and
44
Teams Rejoinder
depots with the submission of

Certificate of Availability of Funds
and commitment to implement the
project. The depots are supposed to
be turned-over to the host LGUs and
also to transfer the responsibility of
securing the materials to the recipient
LGUs.
commitment to implement the

project were claimed to have been
required prior to withdrawal of the
bridging
materials
by
the
proponent LGUs, lack of funds is
the very reason for failure of the
LGUs to implement the project.
While it is true that some bridging

materials are not properly stocked, it
is evident in all of the depots, that
materials are placed high above the
ground with the use of sleepers and
the nuts and bolts were placed in
crates in a covered storage area to
avoid corrosion.
The unprotected bridging materials

noted in the report were those left
behind at the project sites.
Prior to the release of materials,

LGUs are advise to properly stocked
the bridging materials.
As evident on conditions presented

in the report, the LGUs failed to
properly stock bridging materials
as these were already covered with
grass with small items embedded
on the ground. However, proper
storage would not be an issue had
availability of LGUs counterpart
fund to construct the bridge been
ensured.
2. A number of bridges were constructed outside the projects coverage

area. Of these bridges, ten (10) were constructed in Metro Manila of
which three (3) remained closed to traffic due to right-of-way
problems. Moreover, the benefits from three (3) other bridges are yet
to be maximized.
Records disclosed that some bridge projects were intended to address

the needs of specific areas only. Considering that one of its objectives
is to mainstream remote communities, the bridge projects, particularly
the Presidents Bridge Program, focused on rural areas.
45
Validation, however, revealed that a number of bridges were constructed

outside the bridge projects coverage area with some constructed in
places considered to be not badly in need and appropriate under the
circumstances as illustrated in the following cases:
Selection
criteria
Remarks
The nationwide
implementation
of the barangay
bridges covers
all
regions
except
NCR
and ARMM.
Among
the
criteria
for
selection
follow:
Considerable
socioeconomic
effects:
- improved
living
condition and
economic
activities
- improved
traffic
volume
Funds
available for
the
construction
of road links
within two
years upon
bridge
construction
The audit disclosed that while NCR was specifically excluded from the
coverage of this project, nine (9) bridge projects were nonetheless
constructed within this area. Moreover, six (6) of these projects apparently
did not also comply with two other criteria requiring considerable socioeconomic effects and construction of road links.
Three (3) of these
bridges are not yet open to traffic despite completion as early as December
2004 while the benefits for other three (3) are yet to be maximized as these
are being used only for a limited time during the day.
In reply to the teams query, PBPO claimed that bridges located within
NCR were included upon the special instruction of the President and the
strong representations of the concerned LGUs. It was further claimed that
prior to their inclusion, the criteria for eligibility were applied.
Inspection conducted by the team on July 18 to19, 2007 and September 6,
2007 revealed the condition of the following six (6) completed bridges.
Congressional I & II Bridges
The two (2) double lane bridges were completed in February 2006 but
remained closed to traffic as the bridge approaches and road links were not
yet started. The works were stopped due to right-of-way problems. Informal
settlers are still found occupying the area and the bridges are being used as
parking area.
Culiat Bridge
Austin Bridge- Fairview, Quezon City
The bridge was completed in

December 2004. The approach/access
road after the bridge going to
Tacloban St. is still occupied by
informal settlers. In view of the roadright-of-way (RROW) problem, the
bridge is not fully utilized. The funds
for the RROW and relocation of
The bridge was completed on

November 15, 2006. The bridge is
leading to a road going to West
Fairview E/S and NICA Office
with few residential houses. The
bridge is often used by tricycles in
ferrying students/teachers to the
school about a hundred meters after
46
Selection
criteria
Remarks
affected squatters are yet to be
provided by the DPWH.
the bridge.
Santibanez Bridge- Paco, Metro Manila.
Dunhill BridgeEast Fairview, Q.C.
The bridge is for the exclusive use of the

Procurement
Services
clients
and
customers with a steel gate being closed
after office hours.
The bridge links the subdivision

(Barangay East Fairview) to La Mesa
Dam Eco Park serving people going to
the park. A steel gate was installed
before the bridge and a security guard
outpost was placed at the middle of the
bridge. Interview with the guard on duty
revealed that the gate at the bridge
approach is closed after 6:00 pm and
opens at 6:00 am as a security measure.

EO No. 371
Based on the accomplishment report for Tulay ng Pangulo sa SZOPAD,
identifying the
out of the 593 bridges constructed, 210 were constructed outside the
provinces and
SZOPAD area:
cities covered
under SZOPAD.
Province
No. of bridges
Agusan del Norte
Agusan del Sur
Bukidnon
Cagayan de Oro City
Compostela Valley
Davao City
Davao del Norte
Davao Oriental
Misamis Occidental
Misamis Oriental
Ozamis City
Surigao del Norte
Surigao del Sur
Zamboanga Sibugay
Total
2
50
3
13
5
10
2
2
8
41
1
2
4
67
210
Special Bridges-Austrian Asssisted Project

The
project Despite exclusion of NCR from the coverage, the Estrella Pantaleon
covered
all Bridge in Makati-Mandaluyong, Metro Manila with length of 200 l.m. was
regions except constructed under this project.
NCR.
Concreting of 127m (1 lane)
bridge
approach
at
Mandaluyong City side of the
bridge
(with
bridging
materials on stock beside the
pavement).
47
Selection
criteria
Remarks
Ongoing construction of
bored piles at Abutment B,
Piers 2 and 3 (Mandaluyong
side) as of January 2008.
DILG-Presidents Bridge Program Phase II-Austrian Assisted

Target
The targeted distributions were not observed as LGUs with counterpart
distribution of funds were given priorities.
number
of
bridges
per
Actual
OnNot yet
Region based
Region Target
Completed going
started
Total
Diff.
on Approved
CAR
1025
815
320
0
1,135
110
Project
I
770
530
60
275
865
95
Proposal.
II
920
585
130
190
905
-15
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
Caraga
Total
700
755
880
1265
760
1080
860
860
860
860
1015
12,250
450
740
750
530
880
890
555
1,005
290
300
480
8,800
60
0
195
920
115
230
135
205
110
0
0
2,120
60
0
60
115
135
245
160
140
30
25
230
1,665
570
740
1,005
1,205
1,130
1,365
850
1,350
430
325
710
12,585
-130
-15
125
300
370
285
-10
490
-430
-535
-305
335
Teams Rejoinder

Admittedly, NCR is not included as a
recipient of steel bridging materials in the
Supply and Services Contract. However,
in order to utilize the amount of Austrian
Schilling of 43,749,462, Item 6 of the
original contract (Contingencies to be
sourced from Austrian origin), additional
lengths of 825 linear meters of bridging
materials were made available, which was
evidently found to be more advantageous
to the Philippine Government. From this
additional 825 l.m., Estrella-Pantaleon
Bridge was included as it was one of the
sites identified to be badly in need of a
new bridge in order to ease the heavy
Selection criteria are primarily

established to identify the bridges
that are to be included under the
project.
To accommodate the
construction of other bridges that
do not conform with the selection
criteria may affect the efficient
implementation of the project.
48
Teams Rejoinder
traffic congestion in the MakatiMandaluyong area. This inclusion had

been approved by President Gloria M.
Arroyo, (Annex 9).
3. Construction of a number of double lane bridges was prioritized in

places with basically no road links or with just single lane roads over
other roads with double lane links or bridges needing urgent
replacement. These bridges then were not being fully utilized due to
minimal volume of traffic while in three instances, single lane bridges
were constructed in double lane road links.
Records also revealed that apparently, the general criteria to give priority
to bridges lying along higher category roads in terms of functional
classification and with higher traffic volume was not observed.
Construction of a number of double lane bridges under the Presidents
Bridge Program was prioritized in places with basically no road links or
with mere single lane roads over other roads with double lane links or
bridges needing urgent replacement.
Out of 176 double lane bridges inspected by the team, 82 or 47% were
constructed in sites without road links appropriate to the size of the
bridge constructed while only single lane bridges were constructed in
three (3) sites with double lane road links.
The two lane bridges
constructed were then not being fully utilized due to minimal volume of
traffic while vehicle movements in the three (3) double lane roads with
single lane bridges were likewise affected. While one of the selection
criteria under the program is availability of funds for the construction of
road links within two years upon bridge construction, compliance with
this criterion was apparently not also monitored.
The two lane roads with installed single lane bridges follow:
Reg.
I
Name of
Bridge/Location
Nagsanga Bridge,
Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte
49
Reg.
VII
Name of
Bridge/Location
Cangmano
I
Bridge,
Catigbian, Bohol
(implemented by DILG)
Cangmano
II
Bridge,
Catigbian, Bohol
(implemented by DILG)
On the other hand, the installed double lane bridges without fully
developed road links follow:
Region/
Province
Region I
La Union
No. of double No. of bridges w/o

lane bridges fully developed
inspected
road links
23
17
8
5
Sudipen Bridge, Sudipen
The bridge remained linked to a 4

meter PCCP road.
Cupang
Bridge in Sto. Tomas is also still
linked to a 4m PCCP road.
Pangasinan
6
4
Agdao Bridge, San Carlos City
This was completed on March 20,

2004 but remained connected to a
pathway measuring 2m and being
used as human trail only.
Observations/Remarks
Palintucang Bridge, Bauang
The bridge remained linked to a 3

meter road.
Other bridges still linked to a single
lane road are Carmay Bridge and
Pideg Bridge.
San Antonio Bridge, Sto.Tomas
This was completed on September 7,

2004 but being used only as human
trail especially on rainy days.
50
Region/
Province

inspected
road links
Other bridges in Pangasinan under similar condition:

1. Gueteb Bridge
- 4 m rough road- 2nd approach
2. Baug Bridge
- 3 m rough road
Ilocos Sur
1
Labut Bridge, Masingal
The bridge remained linked to about

3m rough road.
Ilocos Norte
San Roque Bridge, Sarrat
The bridge was completed

on
July
18,
2005.
Inspection conducted two
years later revealed that it
remained linked to a 3m
earth road.
7
Francisco Bridge, Dingras
The bridge remained linked

to 4 meter rough/gravel
road.
Cabuayaan Bridge, Burgos
Bridge was completed on

February 25, 2005. More
than
2
years
after
construction, only pathway
is still linking the bridge
approach of approximately
50 meters.
Other bridges under similar condition follow:

1. Banban
2. San Juan
3. Sto. Santiago
4. Santiago-Barcelona
Region VII
Cebu
24
16
8
5
Punod Bridge- Pinamungaan
Bridge remained linked to a

single lane asphalted road.
Cambinocot Bridge
The bridge remained connected to a

single lane rough road.
51
Region/
Province

inspected
road links
Zaragoza Bridge, Alonguisan
Tampaan Bridge, Alonguisan
This double lane

bridge
remained linked to a single lane
asphalted road.
This bridge is still linked to a single

lane road.
Also still connected to a single lane road is Tulay 2 Bridge.

Bohol
8
Hin Ilaud
7
Cantaongon Bridge
These double lane bridges remained linked to about 2 meters width

human trail/ pathway.
Other bridges remaining linked to a single lane roads follow:
1. Lapacan Norte
2. Singculan
3. M. Cabigahan
4. Bangi
5. Lunoy-Consuhay
Negros Or.
8
Cambajao Bridge
4
Tampojangin Bridge, Amlan,
A double lane bridge remained

linked to a concrete road on one end
and rough road leading to a coconut
plantation on the other end.
This
double
lane
bridge
remained linked to a single lane
rough road on one end and a foot
trail on the other end.
Other
bridges
under
similar
condition are: Iniwasan and Bago
Bridges.
.
52
Region/
Province
Region XI
Davao del Sur

inspected
road links
129
51
84
41
Ticulon Bridge, Malita
Glamang Bridge, Magsaysay,
Still connected to a 3m rough

road.
Has no road opening after the 2nd

bridge approach.
Tinongtungan Bridge, Bansalan Ondol Quick Bridge, Magsaysay,
Still connected to a road link of about 3m rough road.

The following 37 bridges located in Davao del Sur are also under similar
conditions:
Name of Bridge
1. Kalimango-Bansalana
2. Anonang-Bansalan
3. Tubod-Dolo Bansalan
4. Upper-Dolo Bansalan
5. Sibayan Bansalan
6. Libertad ,Bansalan
7. Sto.Nino, Bansalan
8. Mabuhay, Bansalan
9. Marber, Bansalan
10. Tongkaling Bansalan
11. Kanapulo, Magsaysay
12. Ruelo-Palaton, Magsaysay
13. Danol Creek, Magsaysay
14. Gesim Creek, Magsaysay
15. RIBAC Creek I, Magsaysay
16. Relatados Creek, Magsaysay
17. Manual , Kiblawan
18. Latian, Kisulan
19. Balasiao-Sitio Alah, Kiblawan
20. Maraga A
21. San Jose-Curbade
22. Rizal, Bansalan
23. Lanuro, Hagonoy
24. Teresa, Malalag
25. Dalagbong, Malalag
26. Poblacion
27. Ibo, Malalag
28. Talogoy
Roadlink
3 m rough road
3 m rough road
4 m rough road
4 m rough road
3 m rough road
4 m rough road
4 m rough road
4 m rough road
4 m rough road
3 m rough road
4 m rough road
4 m rough road
4.10 m rough road
4 m rough road
3 m rough road
3 m rough road
3 m rough road
3.5 m rough road
4 m rough road
4 m rough road
4 m rough road
3 m rough road
4 m rough road
3 m rough road
4 m rough road
3 m gravel road
4 m gravel road
3.2 m gravel road
53
Region/
Province

inspected
road links
29. Poblacion-Babac
30. Kamandag, Malalag
31. Bolton, Matanao
32. Savory, Bangkal
33. Mal,Matanao
34. Mabo, Matanao
35. Riverside, Digos City
36. Napan, Digos City
37. Igpit II
Davao del
Norte
Davao Oriental
9
7
3 m gravel road
4 m gravel road
4 m gravel road
3 m gravel road
3 m gravel road
3 m gravel road
4 m gravel road
4 m gravel road
4 m gravel road
2
Mahayag Bridge
Still connected to about 3m rough

road link.
Tigbauan Bridge, Caraga, Davao
Oriental is also still linked to a 3m
rough road.
Davao City
Compostela
Valley
14
15
8
Calamocan Bridge, New
Bataan
Still connected to a single lane

rough road.
Mahayag Bridge, Mawab
Still linked to about 3m rough road.
Other bridges in Compostela Valley under similar condition follow:
Total
Name of Bridge
1. Camculangan Bridge
2. Concepcion Bridge
3. Banglasan
4. Aurora Siocon Bridge
5. Banay-banay Bridge
6. Torillo Bridge
176
82
Road link
3 m rough road
4 m rough road
3 m rough road
3 m gravel road
3.3 m gravel road
4 m gravel road
54
While the needs of these areas for bridges could not be discounted, such
could be addressed by constructing only single lane bridges which was
noted also to be part of the project. The Tulay ng Pangulo sa
Countrywide covered construction of 80 single lane bridges. It was even
noted that the road links in areas with installed single lane bridges were
better off than the road links in some areas with installed two lane
bridges as depicted on these pictures:
Region
I
Bridge Name/Location
Remarks
Pindangan Bridge,
Sison, Pangasinan
Single lane bridge installed along 5 m

width approach and 3 m width concrete
road links.
Balayang
Bridge,
Alaminos Pangasinan
Single lane bridge with concrete road

links.
Sobol
Bridge,
San
Fabian, Pangasinan

links.
Baucanag Bridge, Sison,
Pangasinan

links.
55
Region
Bridge Name/Location
Remarks
San Tiburcio Bridge,

Salcedo, Ilocos Sur
Single lane bridge installed along 3m

width graveled road.
Bubuos Bridge, Solsona,
Ilocos Norte

link.
VII
Caaking Bridge, Bilar,

Bohol
Single lane bridge installed along 2.5 m

width graveled road.
Balugo Bridge, Valencia,
Negros Oriental
Single lane bridge with asphalt road link.
It was further noted that while construction of a number of bridges were

prioritized in areas without apparent immediate need, inspection
disclosed that a number of bridges along developed barangay roads need
immediate replacement and/or conversion to permanent ones. The
principle that bridges for replacement or for conversion to permanent
ones are considered more urgent and shall be given higher priority over
bridges for repair/rehabilitation or for construction was not also
56
observed. The needs to replace the following bridges along local roads
were already apparent:
Type of
Bridge
Physical Condition/Remarks
Region XI
Banag-banag Bridge,
Montevista, Compostela
Valley
Bailey
Rusty railings and deteriorated planks and

running boards. This old bridge is located
along barangay road.
Pilian Bridge, Tubotubo,

Monkayo, Compostela
Valley
Rusty/Corroded steel railings and deteriorated running

boards and planks. The structure is buttressed underneath by
equally depreciated materials and a detour road was already
constructed beside the bridge. The bridge is located along
local/ barangay road.
Pangi Bridge, Pangi,

Maco, Compostela Valley
Bailey
Still being used but with improvised steel pipe

railings; portions of wooden running boards,
floorings/planks and transoms are rotten. The
bridge is located along barangay road.
Malangog Bridge,
Sta. Maria, Davao del Sur
Still being used by motorcycles but four-wheel vehicles

often uses a detour road beside the bridge for safety reasons.
Steel panels and transoms are corroded. Wooden running
boards are rotten. This bridge is located along barangay
road.
57
Barangay Marahan
Davao City
Type of
Bridge
Bailey
A detour road beside the bridge was

constructed for heavy vehicles. Steel panels
are heavily corroded and portions of flooring
and running boards are rotten. This bridge is
along a barangay road.
Salaysay Bridge,
Davao City
Steel panels corroded and not aligned

anymore. Portions of wooden flooring are
rotten. This bridge is along a barangay road.
Aguibawa
Bridge
II,
Compostela, Compostela
Valley
An old bailey bridge on a provincial road.

Region VII
Ninbuyan Bridge
Bohol
Timber
This bridge along provincial road is with

signage of load limit of 2T and no entry for
heavy vehicles/equipment. Steel panel not
aligned and corroded.
Buko-Buko Anay Bridge,

Danao,
Bohol
Timber bridge along provincial road with

deteriorated running boards and planks.
58
Agahay Brige, Maribojoc,
Bohol
Type of
Bridge
Timber bridge along local road with

dilapidated railings and deteriorated running
boards and planks.
There were even bridges along national roads which need immediate
attention as illustrated below:
Type of
Bridge
Region VII
Caimbang Bridge,
San Isidro, Bohol
Bailey
The steel panels of this bailey bridge along

national road are heavily corroded and
portions of flooring and running boards are
decayed/rotten.
Tangbo Bailey Br.,

Samboan, 4th ED, Cebu
One lane bailey bridge with steel railings and

wooden boards and planks along the national
road.
Binalayan
Bridge,
Samboan, 4th ED, Cebu
A one lane bailey bridge along national road

with rusty steel railings that show signs of
sagging. Wooden planks and running boards
are dilapidated.
59
Vito Bridge,
Balamban, Cebu
Type of
Bridge
Bailey
This bailey bridge along national road is not

used. Temporary detour road beside the bridge
was constructed.
Region XI
Balagonan
Carmen, Tagum
Bridge,
Bailey,
temporary
Bailey bridge along national road with steel

railings that are corroded. Its wooden planks
and running boards have deteriorated.
Odiongan Bridge, Cateel,

Davao Oriental
Bailey
Old bailey bridge that manifests advanced

signs of deterioration: rusty steel railings and
rotten running boards and planks. The bridge
is located along national road.
Cagdinaw Bridge, Cateel,

Davao Oriental
Bailey bridge along national road with steel

railings that are corroded. Its wooden planks
and running boards have deteriorated.
Moreover, the team observed that the bridge priority ranking or scoring
tabulated in the Inventory of Local Bridges prepared by DILG was not
totally followed in the selection of bridges for implementation. Bridges
with lower scores were given priority in the construction as illustrated in
the following cases:
60
Type of Bridge
existing length
bridge
(m) Score
Remarks
Region I
San Jose Bridge, Sudipen, La Union
Antipangol Bridge San Carlos City, Pang.
Balucanag Bridge, Sison, Pangasinan
Garcia Bridge, Batac Ilocos Norte

Nanca Bridge, Batac Ilocos Norte
Nagrebcan Bridge, Batac, Ilocos Norte
Cabittaogan Bridge, San Juan, Ilocos Sur
Panpinitpit Bridge, Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur
Pagsanaan Norte Bridge,Magsingal IlocosSur
Pagsanaan Bridge, Magsingal Ilocos Sur
Alinaay Bridge, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur
Sabangan Bridge, Sinait, Ilocos Sur
Aringay Bridge III, Aringay, La Union
Las-ud SGO Sur Bridge, Caba, La Union
Laquicia Bridge, Caba, La Union
San Cornelio Bridge, Caba, La Union
Dimmsu Bridge, Rosario, La Union
Quiray # 3 Bridge, Aguilar, Pangasinan
Quiray # 4 Bridge, Aguilar, Pangasinan
Masagnim Bridge, Aguilar, Pangasinan
Guibang Bridge, Dagupan City
Namkwang Bridge,,Urdaneta, Pangasinan
Asinan Pantal Bridge, Bugallon, Pangasinan
Polong San Francisco Bridge, Bugallon,Pang.
Bobonot Bridge, Dasol, Pangasinan
Dorongan Bridge, Lingayen, Pangasinan
Namolan Bridge, Lingayen
Madriaga Bridge, Manaoag, Pangasinan
Casnicolasan Bridge, Rosales, Pangasinan
Taloy Bridge, San Fabian, Pangasinan
Maninding-Vent. Bridge, Sta. Barbara, Pang.
Region VII
Cabatang Bridge, Alicia, Bohol
Cambao/La Hacienda Bridge, Alicia, Bohol
Songculan Bridge, Daois, Bohol
Concrete 30.48
None
30.48
concrete 21.34
Bailey
Timber
Bailey
Timber
Bailey
Timber
26
25
25
22
28
48
20
120
45
30
40
20
20
55
25
34
36
22
24
45
60
27
150
120
40
45
65
58.5
Bailey
Concrete
21.3
27.4
Timber
39.6
12
Implemented
under
Tulay ng Pangulo sa
Barangay
Implemented
under
Tulay ng Pangulo sa
Barangay; double lane
bridge linked to one
lane rough road.
Implemented
under
Countrywide
Bridge
Project.
Not implemented
14
12
14
12
14
12
Implemented
Countrywide
Project.
Implemented
TPB.
under
Bridge
under
The team also noted that in a number of instances, the constructed

bridges in Regions I, VII and XI were not included in the
masterplan/inventory list of local bridges.
Since selection criteria were intended to identify priority bridges, non
compliance with these criteria would result in selection of bridges with
practically no urgent needs of construction/replacement.
61
Chapter 3
Cost Effectiveness
62
COST EFFECTIVENESS
INTRODUCTION
The governments efforts of improving the life of every Filipino through

quality infrastructure would only be meaningful if funds were efficiently and
effectively managed and projects were implemented at the least possible
cost.
Most of the bridge programs undertaken by the government are financed
through foreign loans with varied conditions and provisions. Each loan is
covered by specific project proposal and implementation schedules,
non-adherence thereto would entail additional expenses on the part of the
national government in terms of payment of certain fees. Each proposal
presents various types of bridge technology with associated costs. In one of
the project proposals, it was claimed that steel bridges are not cost effective
for bridges with length of less than 20 meters. Thus, selection of certain
bridge technology considered appropriateness and cost effectiveness. To
ensure that maximum benefits from a selected bridge technology are
realized, the implementation of the project should be efficient.
The team noted that construction of bridge projects may not be considered
cost effective. Apparently, the government gave preference to speedy
installation which was not even a priority condition. Thus, it opted for steel
bridges over other types of bridges even for shorter bridges despite studies
reflecting the same to be a costly choice. Moreover, the distinct advantage of
steel bridges of short installation period was not realized. The costly
installation was therefore not negated.
Furthermore, a number of contracts were also awarded in excess of
Approved Budget for the Contract and not all delivered materials were put in
place due to deviations from programmed bridge length. Excess bridging and
construction materials could not even be properly accounted for while a
number of other projects could not be started due to lacking bridging
materials. The delayed completion of projects also resulted in unnecessary
costs.
63
COST EFFECTIVENESS
OBSERVATIONS
1. The distinct advantage of steel bridges of being quick to assemble

which would result in significant reduction in installation cost and
public disturbance was not realized. A number of projects were
completed long after the deadlines. The high cost of using steel bridges
was then not negated.
Generally, the DPWH selects the type of superstructure most suited for
certain bridge lengths using certain factors. Under the DPWH Bridge
Master Plan, the two factors to be adopted in deciding the type of bridge
technology are as follows:
Cost of
the
bridge
the
bridge
with the
least
cost requirement
should be selected
Suitability
to site
conditions
the technology to be used

should be in accordance
with specific geo-technical
aspect of the location of the
bridge
The assessment of financial and economic aspect of certain type of

bridge in relation to its technical merits is also applied in the technical
studies for foreign assisted projects. Thus, in various foreign assisted
projects, cost comparisons between modular steel bridge and concrete
bridge were undertaken as in these cases:
In the DILG Austrian-assisted project, the modular steel bridges were

selected for bridge spans of more than 20 meters as this type was
evaluated to be more economically advantageous compared to
reinforced concrete deck girder (RCDG).
In the case of UK-Assisted Special Bridge Project, the use of steel

bridging materials, was recommended for bridge spans which are 12
meters or above as it is claimed that it is more economical to replace
short span bridges using local concrete bridging technology.
In the financial cost comparison between Austrian-assisted modular

steel bridges and OECF-funded RCDG/PCDG prepared by ICCNEDA in aid of its review of Austrian-assisted Presidents Bridge
64
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Program II (DILG Component), it was disclosed that the RCDG bridge

is cheaper than the Austrian modular steel bridge. At 15% discount
rate, the present value of costs of the Austrian steel bridge is higher
than RCDG by 18% to 23%.
The cost comparison conducted by the DPWH between Waagner-Biro

Modular Bridge System of Austria and RCDG/PSC Girder Bridge
Local Technology also shows that the cost of modular bridge is higher
by 23% to 49% when compared with RCDG/PSCG as tabulated
below:
Bridge
Span
(m)
20
30
40
50
WaagnerBiro
(modular)
P 5,880,047
9,214,257
13,335,177
20,002,756
DPWH
RCDG/PSCG
(concrete)
P 3,946,651
7,488,085
10,201,455
15,402,846
Unit Cost (P/m)

Modular
Concrete
P 294,002
P 197,333
307,142
249,603
333,379
255,036
333,379
256,714
% age
49%
23%
31%
30%
In the Joint Study conducted by the DPWH and Japan International

Cooperation Agency (JICA) published in the document titled Roads in
the Philippines, 2003 Edition, bridges made of concrete are more cost
effective when compared with steel bridge by 20% to 46% as
illustrated below:
Year (cost per linear meter )
Materials
2000
Steel
Pre-stressed concrete
girder
Reinforced concrete
deck girder
Difference
P 96,669
57,539
78,343
76,665
2001
2002
Ave.
cost/l.m.
% lower to
Steel
P 370,000
P 390,000
P 410,000
P 390,000
295,000
310,000
330,000
311,667
20 %
200,000
210,000
220,000
210,000
46 %
As cited in the Local Bridges Master Plan, the DPWH recommended the
following span lengths for concrete and steel superstructures:
Type of Superstructure
Concrete Bridge:
1.
Reinforced Concrete Precast slab
or Reinforced Flat Slab
2.
Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder
(RCDG)
3.
Reinforced Concrete Box Girder
4.
Prestressed Concrete Bridge
Channel Beams
Tee Beams
Beams
Box Girders
Steel Bridges:
1.
Composite I-Beam
2.
Steel Plate Girder
3.
Bailey Bridge
4.
Steel Truss
Recommended for
(bridge length)
6.00 m
8.00 to 21.00 m
22.00 to 30.00 m
11.00 to 13.40 m
15.80 to 18.90 m
9.00 to 42.68 m
30.00 and over
15.00 to 30.00 m
20.00 to 50.00 m
9.00 to 30.00 m
36.50 to 128.00 m
65
COST EFFECTIVENESS
The audit, however, disclosed that despite results of such studies

demonstrating the cost effectiveness of concrete bridges over steel
bridges, especially for short span bridges, the government still opted for
the construction of bridges of various lengths under different bridge
projects using modular steel. These projects included the construction of
a number of short span bridges.
Project
DPWH-PBP
Tulay ng Pangulo
Barangay
Tulay ng Pangulo
SZOPAD
Countrywide
DPWH-Special Bridges
UK Phase I
UK Phase II
DILG-PBP
UK Phase I
sa
sa
Length
No. of
Bridges
15.240
18.288
9.144
12.192
15.240
18.288
15.240
18.288
3
5
72
48
106
4
1
17
15.240
18.288
12.000
14.000
16.000
18.000
11
14
13
22
26
25
15.200
18.300
26
11
It was claimed that, while steel bridges may be considered costly, the
cost may be compensated by its speedy installations. It was perceived
that as steel materials are pre-fabricated, construction time on site will
be minimized; road closure time will be reduced; disturbance to the
public using the road network will be minimized and benefits to be
derived therefrom will immediately be enjoyed.
As further indicated in the Approved Project Proposal, the modular steel
bridge was reported to have been selected for the Presidents Bridge
Project as the need is urgent and it is more appropriate. It is claimed to
be very quick to assemble and is unlikely to suffer from poor quality
workmanship as all components are pre-fabricated to high standards.
The audit, however, disclosed that while the government apparently
sacrificed cost effectiveness for speedy installation, this advantage of
being able to address the need on time did not materialize. Steel bridges,
which should have been completed within 65 to 210 calendar days, were
actually completed within 196 to 339 days as tabulated in the next page.
66
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Project
TPB
Region
I
VII
C-wide
TPB
VII
XI
Name of Bridge
San Antonio
Trinchera-Libertad
Tagubong Bridge
Cambinocot
Tulay 2
Ilawig
Iniwasan
Libtong
No. of
days to
complete
per POW
135
140
135
135
135
210
150
65
Actual no.
of days
completed
267
228
208
313
290
339
319
196
Difference
132
88
73
178
155
129
169
131
This condition contributed to delay in project implementation that

necessitated project extension. As discussed in Chapter I, the validity of
loan agreements had to be extended for as many as three times covering
as long as three years as the construction works could not be completed
on time. As it is, the government is paying loans for bridges that costs
more as the compensating benefits were not realized.
Comparison of the actual costs incurred by the DPWH in constructing
steel and concrete bridges revealed significant variances. The
comparison was made on bridges of the same or approximate lengths
constructed almost at the same time. Results of comparison revealed
that the cost of superstructure using steel was higher by 94% to 203%
than the cost of superstructure using concrete as illustrated below:
Concrete
Bridge
length
(m)
ADB
Steel
Tulay ng
Pangulo sa
Barangay
30
P 4,256,073* P 8,241,220
42
3,859,939
11,461,310
55
4,820,065
14,616,734
Note: * Prestressed I Girder Type IV-B
Countrywide
Bridge
Project
Tulay ng
Pangulo sa
SZOPAD
P 8,247,220
P 11,363,310
Difference
Amount
(lowest cost of
steel bridge less
cost of concrete
bridge)
%
P 3,985,147
7,503,371
9,796,669
94
194
203
2. Out of the total 36,871.67 lm bridging materials delivered under the

DPWH-PBP, only 35,451.36 were reportedly installed manifesting
excess bridging components of 1,420.30 lm costing about P384.84
million. The excess materials, which were not even accounted for,
may have been due to deliveries of bridging materials not suitable to
the bridges to be constructed. On the other hand, 15 bridge projects
issued/allocated to LGUs under the DILG-PBP Phase II could no
longer be completed as the bridging materials were no longer
sufficient to complete these bridges. The loan covering this project
was closed on June 30, 2004.
67
COST EFFECTIVENESS
As provided in the Supply Contracts for the three bridge projects under
the Presidents Bridge Program implemented by the DPWH, a total of
1,128 bridges are to be constructed at an estimated total cost of
48,400,000,000.
Project
Countrywide Bridges
Total
Amount of Supply
Contract
Y 19,600,000,000
Y 28,800,000,000
Y 48,400,000,000
No. of bridges
covered
402
526
200
1,128
The bridging components under these contracts to be delivered by

Mabey & Johnsons Ltd. varied in lengths which ranged from 9.144 to
176.784 meters. The number of sets to be delivered for each bridge
length is based on the needs provided by the Philippine Government
represented by the DILG for the Tulay ng Pangulo sa Barangay.
The bridging components for each bridge length, accounted in terms of
number of bays (1 bay equals 3.048 meters), is embodied in the Bridge
Manual for the Project. Under the Manual, additional bridging
components are required for multi-span bridge or bridge of at least
51.816 meters long (21 bays). Based on the summary of invoices
provided to the team by the PBPO, the Supplier was able to deliver all
contracted bridging materials equivalent to 36,871.67 l.m. in the
required lengths.
Review of PBPs accomplishment report as of December 31, 2006
revealed that out of the total 36,871.67 l.m. bridging materials delivered,
only 35,451 lineal meters were installed. It would appear then that
bridging materials equivalent to 1,420 lineal meters estimated to cost
about P384.84 million were uninstalled as tabulated below:
Equivalent lineal meter
Bridge Project
Tulay ng Pangulo
sa Barangay
Tulay ng Pangulo
sa SZOPAD
Countrywide
Total
Unaccounted/
Uninstalled
Est. Cost
Qty.
(million)
Contract
Delivery
Accomp.
Report
15,282.67
15,282.67
14,563.34
719.33
P 164.55
16,224.00
5,365.00
36,871.67
16,224.00
5,365.00
36,871.67
15,901.47
4,986.55
35,451.36
322.53
378.45
1,420.31
95.90
124.39
P 384.84
The presence of excess materials may have been due to deliveries of

bridging materials not suitable to the bridges to be constructed. Out of
the total 1,128 sets of bridging materials delivered, only 672 sets
68
COST EFFECTIVENESS
representing 59.60% meets the actual needs. The rest were used to
construct either shorter or longer bridges as tabulated below:
Per Contract
Length
9.144
12.192
15.240
18.288
21.336
24.384
27.432
30.480
33.528
36.576
39.624
42.672
45.720
48.768
51.816
54.864
56.028
60.960
64.008
65.172
67.056
67.638
70.104
73.152
73.734
79.248
79.830
82.296
83.460
85.334
89.556
91.440
92.604
95.652
109.008
109.728
118.872
121.920
123.666
124.830
131.064
142.536
176.784
237.744
Total
Per Accomplishment Report
Number of sets of
bridging materials
delivered
CTPB SZOPAD wide Total
136
27
28
18
18
18
14
5
5
32
24
77
402
70
48
105
47
24
55
10
14
33
4
11
3
13
6
4
12
1
17
7
10
12
16
4
526
80
120
200
70
48
105
47
240
82
38
152
51
22
25
8
18
6
4
44
25
77
17
7
10
12
16
4
1,128
Number of bridges
constructed
(1)
5
3
37
41
42
68
30
49
77
14
8
11
1
3
1
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
412
72
48
106
4
52
32
36
55
36
31
68
8
9
11
1
1
2
1
4
1
5
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
592
1
17
86
18
24
38
2
12
2
200
72
48
112
24
175
91
102
161
68
92
147
22
17
22
2
4
1
5
1
4
4
3
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1,204
Number of bridges
constructed in accordance
with the Contract
37
27
28
18
18
18
14
5
5
3
3
-
70
48
105
4
24
32
10
14
33
4
11
3
9
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
80
38
--
70
48
105
4
141
59
38
70
51
22
25
8
14
6
1
4
3
1
1
1
-
172
379
118
672
Number of bridges
constructed not in
accordance with the
Contract
TPB SZOPAD C-wide
(1)
(5)
(3)
99
(14)
(14)
(50)
(12)
(31)
(63)
(9)
(3)
(11)
(1)
29
(1)
21
77
(4)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(10)
(2)
(1)
43
(28)
23
(26)
(41)
(3)
(27)
(57)
(5)
4
(5)
3
11
(1)
(1)
(4)
16
(5)
6
(2)
9
12
(1)
(2)
16
(1)
4
(1)
66
Apparently, the bridge lengths were determined and decided without

first identifying the feasibility, actual requirements and needs of the
bridges included in the list. Thus, materials actually delivered and
installed did not match about 40% of the existing conditions at project
sites.
The DPWH-PBPO claimed that the DILG did not provide listing of
projects covered under the program when the oversight function for
these projects was transferred from DILG to DPWH-PBP. Thus, the
69
(1)
(17)
(6)
(18)
(24)
82
(2)
(12)
(2)
-
COST EFFECTIVENESS
DPWH-PBPO selected bridges for construction from among the requests

received from the LGUs or endorsed by RDCs, PDCs or DPWH District
Offices. It was only during this stage that the PBPO was able to
determine the length requirement of a particular bridge project which
may or may not conform with the length of bridging materials delivered
under the supply contract.
The deviations/discrepancies between the actual bridging materials
delivered and the needs of the bridges reported accomplished resulted in
shortfall or excess of some bridge parts. The shortfall in bridge
components was remedied by requiring deliveries of additional parts
amounting to Y1,385,678,793.27 and Y242,396,038.58 for Tulay ng
Pangulo sa Barangay and SZOPAD, respectively. On the other hand,
the excess materials were not even accounted for. Evaluation conducted
by the team revealed that among the excess materials are expansion
junction parts amounting to about P242.94 million as computed below:
Deliveries per Supply
Contract
Item
Code
Description
Qty
Excess or
Unutilized
Qty.
Utilized
Qty.
Estimated
Cost
Remarks
A. Tulay ng Pangulo sa Barangay

MC4A
840
236
604
840
236
604
MC234
Pin Safety
Bearing Block
SJ
Span Junction
Pin
840
236
604
MC315
Male SJ Post
840
236
604
MC336
Female SJ Post
840
236
604
MC361
Deck SJ
1,470
413
1,057
MC377
420
118
302
210
59
151
NLC9035
Kerb SJ
Swaybrace SJ
LW
Swaybrace SJ
RW
210
59
151
NLC9036
Tie Bracket
210
59
151
B. Tulay ng Pangulo sa SZOPAD

MC4A
Pin Safety
708
176
532
MC70
Bearing Block SJ
708
176
532
MC234
Span Junction Pin
708
176
532
MC315
Male SJ Post
708
176
532
MC336
Female SJ Post
708
176
532
MC361
Deck SJ
1239
308
931
MC377
Kerb SJ
354
88
266
NLC9034 Swaybrace SJ LW
177
44
133
NLC9035 Swaybrace SJ RW
177
44
133
MC70
NLC9034
P 121.24 M Based on the requirements

prescribed in the launch or
erection manual, the excess
junction parts can be used for 75
bridges of 21-bay multi-span.
The cost of P121.24 million was
derived by deducting the cost of 3
spans of 7 bays with that of the 21
bays
with
the
difference
representing the cost of expansion
junction parts. To illustrate:
Cost of 21 bay Y 46,228,000
Less: Cost of
3 spans of 7 bay
(Y14,020,000 x 3) 42,060,000
Difference/bridge Y 4,168,000
Multiply by
75 bridges
Total difference Y 312,600,000
Divided by
162.44
Amount in GBP 1,924,402.86
Amount (Peso) P121,237,380.18
============
P 121.70
Using the same formula, the

excess junction parts can be used
to connect 133 bridges of 18-bay
multi-span consisting of 2 of 9
bays. To illustrate:
Cost of 18 bay
Y 48,184,200
Less: Cost of
2 spans of 9 bay
(Y22,920,750 x 2) 45,841,500
Difference/bridge Y 2,342,700
Multiply by
133 bridges
Total difference Y 311,579,100
70
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Deliveries per Supply

Contract
Item
Code
NLC9036
Description
Tie Bracket
Qty
Excess or
Unutilized
Qty.
Utilized
177
44
Qty.
Estimated
Cost
Remarks
Divided by
181.7808
Amount in GBP 1,714,037.46
Amount (Peso) P121,696,659.38
============
133
Total
P242.94 M
In reply to the teams query on the status, condition and future plans on
excess materials, the PBPO informed the team that unutilized
components are no longer sufficient to construct a bridge.
In addition to the junction parts discussed above, the PBPO claimed that
the following excess materials were stored in different depots:
Mark No.
NCL 19030
NCL 19031
MC 222
MC 236
MC 300
MC 304
MC 307
MC 307 A
MC 312
MC 317
MC 318
MC 331
MC 358
MC 360
MC 363
MC 378
MC 379
MC 411
MC 412
MC 418
MC 419
MC 430
MC 431
MC 433
MC 436
MC 457
MC458
MC451
MC15
MCF285
NLC12076
NLC12093
NLC16617
NLC20074
NLC21062
Description
Fixed Beraring-Single
Sliding bearing-single
brace-vertical
Plate-bearing
Kerb
Reinforcement chordheavy
Pin-panel
Clip-panel-pin
Frame-Vertical-200457/406
Post-end-male-200
Post-end-female-200
Swaybrace-7.35m
Frame-Bracing-730
Deck-1050-compact
EOB-Unit-7.35m
Screw Deck Clamp
Nut-Deck Clamp
Panel-200-Super
Panel-200-Super-High
Shear
Vertical Frame-730
Beam-Tie-EOB-730
Bolt-bracing-short
Bolt-transom
Bolt-Chord-Short
Nut-flange-M24
Transom-1050-7.35m
Raker 200 457/406
Transom-1050-3.15M
Swaybrace-Std
Post End Female
Frame Bracing 730
Deck Compact 1050
EOB-Unit-7.35m
Nut Deck Clamp M20
Panel C200 heavy super
TPB
Country
-wide
TPS
Total
184
534
578
456
862
10
260
134
134
232
232
194
794
944
456
1,228
153
8,666
12,315
2,840
3,340
6,680
2,993
12,006
18,995
87
44
2,593
490
1,547
9,716
9,716
1,958
10
12
268
394
469
4
3,724
3,724
342
396
202
744
2
2,960
2,960
518
97
56
3,257
1,086
2,760
6
16,400
16,400
2,818
486
454
32
30,701
15,757
6,204
39,114
403
264
8
12,069
2,171
6,192
133
200
1,752
11,360
10,683
98
32
18
34
3,767
82
196
1,762
582
90
486
918
40
42,770
19,680
17,564
55,989
634
32
18
34
3,767
82
196
1,762
582
90
71
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Mark No.
NLC21102
NLC21145
NLQ15013
NLU14675
NLC21152
Description
Frame Vertical 730TRS
610
Bolt transom
Bolt Chord Short
Nut Flange M24
Transom 7.35m
TPB
TPS
-
4
56
19
21
44
Country
-wide
Total
4
56
19
21
44
The specific depots storing these materials were not disclosed in their
reply. The team was also not provided with inventory report of excess
materials per depot despite repeated requests.
During the teams inspection on July 19, 2007, undetermined quantities
and amounts of various bridge components were found stored at the
DPWH-PBP Depot at Morong Bataan. These excess materials belonged
to the Tulay ng Pangulo sa Barangay Project which was already
completed/closed last August 2004.
Selected Bridging/Construction Materials
High Shear
Chord Heavy
Junctions
Splicing Plates
Piling materials
72
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Selected Bridging/Construction Materials

Angle Bars
Reinforcing Steel Bars
In the course of the teams inspection, excess bridging materials under

the Presidents Bridge Program were also found at the project sites of
completed bridge projects unprotected:
Name of Bridge
Dulacac BridgeAlaminos City
Pangasinan
(TPB)
Pindahan
Bridge- Tayasan,
Negros Oriental
(TPB)
Project/Program
Items/Particulars
1. Super panel
2. Transom
3. Reinforcement
Chord
4. End Post Male
1. Super panel
2. Sway brace
3.Rollers-launching
No. of
pcs.
10
3
3
4
4
6
2
73
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Name of Bridge
Malamudao
Bridge,
Compostela
Valley (Phase II
Austrian Assisted
Program)
Project/Program
Items/Particulars
1. Top Chords
No. of
pcs.
14
The implementation of the PBP by the DILG was also not cost effective.
It was noted that 15 projects could not be implemented as the required
bridging materials were no longer complete. The list of the projects in
nine (9) regions with missing parts follows:
Reg.
CAR
Bridge Name
Balluyan
Masi/Baset
Ambitakay
III
Subsub
VI
Bridge
Location
Flora, Apayao
Adams, Ilocos
Norte
Agoo,
La
Union
Length
(lm)
40
100
20
Dingalan,
Aurora
20
Gawahon
(formerly
Mambiranan)
Camaligan
Banate, Iloilo
Aklan
30
50
VII
Burgos
Mandaue City
30
VIII
Hibulwangan
Catarman,
Northern
Samar
San
Jose,
Tacloban City
60
Burayan II
IX
XIII
Balwatin
(formerly
Mahayahay)
Mandulog
Putadon
(formerly
Manan-ao)
Dona
Telesfora
AmbahanCabayawa
Zamboanga
del Norte
Iligan City
Nunungan,
Lanao del
Norte
Tubay,
Agusan
del
Norte
30
50
80
40
45
25
Remarks
Lacking bridging materials
(BM) requested from other
depot.
Lacking BMs; UFP 15G
(19 pcs.)
Lacking BMs not identified but
available at Regional Bridge
Depot (RBD) 8, Davao
Reported that some BMs are
missing
Lacking BMs for confirmation
from other depot
Lacking BMs are to be sourced
from RBD 8, Davao
Lacking BMs to be sourced
from RBD 6
from other depot
from supply depot
Lacking BMs being sourced
from other depot
Lacking BMs with pending
request at RBD 6, Tacloban
Lacking BMs fabricated

Lacking BMs; BGB23KN-1 pc.
(gusset plate)
Lacking BMs; AD 28E-4 pcs
(diagonal)
74
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Reg.
Bridge Name
Anahao-DaanBag-o
Bridge
Location
Surigao del
Sur
Length
(lm)
50
Remarks
Lacking BMs available at other
depot.
The DILG Regional Office personnel claimed that the missing parts
could still be sourced out from excess parts in other depots or issuances
from other projects. The respective depots with available excess parts
are, however, yet to be determined.
Under this project, bridging materials delivered were based on the
proposed bridge length for construction. The delivered materials were
reportedly inspected upon delivery and stored in various depots until
issued to proposed projects proponents. A set of bridging materials
required for each bridge length is expected to be properly maintained
and issued intact to the proponent to ensure that bridges could be
constructed as planned.
During the effectivity of the loan agreement, the DILG Central Office
was responsible in the documentation of the movement of bridging
materials while the host LGU personnel manning the depots were
responsible in the safekeeping of the bridging materials for the Project.
The DILG Central Office would then issue the Release Order (RO) and
the corresponding Materials Issue Receipt (MIR). These documents
were the basis for the issuance of bridging materials to the recipient
LGU.
It was observed that issuances of bridging materials to the proponents
took a long time as tabulated below:
Bridge Name
Length
Bannagao
Campamento-Guinagat
Arimit
Masi
Culat
Padol
Calaocan
San Gregorio
Sto. Domingo
Jones
Balluyan
Santor
Pagsanaan
San Antonio-Agos
Magaogao
30
20
20
100
60
50
30
30
20
60
40
30
60
60
50
Delivery
Date
Date of actual
withdrawal
No. of years at
Depot
11/29/2000
03/16/2005
04/13/2005
06/01/2005
06/09/2005
05/16/2005
05/05/2005
03/29/2004
07/14/2004
12/14/2004
12/06/2004
09/01/2005
06/25/2004
07/15/2005
08/18/2005
10/20/2004
4 years & 3 mos.

4 years & 4 mos
4 years & 6 mos
4 years & 2 mos
4 years & 1 mo.
4 years & 1 mo.
2 years & 4 mos.
2 years & 8 mos.
3 years
2 years & 10 mos.
3 years & 8 mos.
3 years & 5 mos.
3 years
3 years & 1 mo.
2 years & 4 mos.
4/2/2001
11/21/2001
1/27/2002
6/7/2002
75
COST EFFECTIVENESS
This may have been one of the reasons why some bridging parts were
already lacking when these materials were finally issued to the recipient
LGUs. Apparently, the depots were not able to keep the materials intact
considering that when these were delivered by the supplier, these were
supposed to be complete.
The loan was closed on June 30, 2004. As of loan closure, 138 bridges
were completed, 63 bridges were undergoing construction and 105
remained unimplemented. The remaining activities of the PBP-Phase II
Austrian Assisted Program including the issuance of Release Order
documents and the approval of reallocation of bridging materials and
realignment of bridge projects were turned over to the DILG Regional
Offices pursuant to a Memorandum dated May 30, 2005. The bridging
materials for the unimplemented projects were either at the project site
or still at the depot.
Generally, funding constraint is the
main reason why the LGUs cannot
start its implementation.
The
identified lacking parts are still
available as per inventory of parts
except for some small parts, i.e.,
UA21AD (conn. Angle end) which
can be locally fabricated.
The
approach undertaken to resolve the
issue of lacking parts is to give
priority to on-going construction of
bridges. In fact, 2 out of the 15
bridge projects with lacking parts
have been resolved. Once the LGU
undertake the installation, they will
be provided with the required parts.
The final list of 402 projects (as of

Jan. 18, 2002 project update) under
Tulay ng Pangulo Phase III is not yet
available at the time of turn-over
except for the list of bridges endorsed
by the RDCs. The responsibility of
finalizing the list should already be
Teams Rejoinder
This is a clear indication that the
DILG did not strictly enforce its
criteria that funds should be
available before withdrawal of
bridging materials.
To some
extent, the lacking parts of one
bridge project may be sourced
from uninstalled bridging materials
of another bridge project. This
means then that there will still be
bridges that could not be
completed as not all lacking parts
can be sourced. Moreover, if
lacking materials is not an issue as
this can be easily sourced as
claimed, these projects could have
been completed by now. It may be
mentioned that the loan agreement
covering this project was closed as
early as June 2004.
This only confirms that the lengths
of
the
contracted
bridging
materials were not based on needs.
Ideally, the bridge lengths should
have been determined and decided
by identifying the feasibility,
actual requirements and needs of
76
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Teams Rejoinder
assumed by PBPO/DPWH after the

transfer per Memo Order #53 dated
February 18, 2002.
the bridges included in the list. In

the absence of such bridge list, the
requirements
could
not
be
accurately
established,
thus
resulting in the deliveries of
bridging materials not suitable to
the actual needs. As discussed in
the report, this further resulted in
excessive bridging components
which remained unutilized and
unaccounted for.
Response provided by PBPO, DPWH

The PBPO will conduct on the
second quarter of this year (2008) a
comprehensive
inventory
of
unutilized/saved bridging materials
currently located in its four (4)
depots nationwide. Consequently, the
result of the inventory will provide
opportunity on the further usage of
the remaining materials with minimal
cost to the requirement to the
government.
The team would like to appreciate

the action plan of the PBPO. It
should also be added that
immediate action should be
undertaken by the PBPO after the
planned inventory undertaking
considering that some of the
bridging and construction materials
are already corroded. In addition,
some parts may need to be
imported, if fabrication proved to
be not acceptable, to complete the
bridges.
3. Of the 47 contracts awarded under various bridge projects, 38 were

awarded in excess of the approved budget for the contract (ABC) by
6.52% to 29.95% or a total excess amount of P 4.49B. The awarding of
foreign assisted projects at present is still governed by the procurement
policies of the lending institutions. The ABCs of three (3) projects
evaluated were found to be reasonable and maybe considered
sufficient to complete the projects.
The procurement of goods and services by the government is governed

by RA 9184 approved on January 10, 2003. As provided therein, the
Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) should promulgate the
necessary rules and regulations for the proper implementation of its
provisions. As of this date, however, the GPPB has yet to promulgate
rules and regulations applicable to foreign assisted projects.
77
COST EFFECTIVENESS
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) governing local

procurement provides that the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC)
under bidding shall be the upper limit or ceiling for acceptable bid
prices. The audit disclosed, however, that in view of the absence of any
regulation for foreign assisted projects, significant number of contracts
have been awarded in amounts exceeding the ABC by as high as
29.95%. In 38 out of 47 packages, the contract cost exceeded the ABC
by a total of P 4.489B as presented below:
Name of project
Date of
Bidding
AAE/ABC
Contract
Amount
Excess over AAE/ABC

Amount
%
ADB Sixth Road Project, Bridge Component

Contract Package J,
Contract Package Q
Contract Package 6,
Contract Package N,
Contract Package G
Contract Package P
Contract Package L
Contract Package H
Contract Package T
Contract Package 4
Contract Package 9
Sub-total
7/20/1998
6/10/2003
12/20/2002
7/21/2001
2/26/1999
1/7/2002
9/5/2001
5/20/1998
8/13/2002
9/30/2002
9/16/2002
P123,584,887.40
66,751,571.50
182,799,165.90
48,540,191.64
130,567,823.85
87,428,243.39
109,707,500.51
51,581,652.40
88,850,120.14
140,781,030.36
106,914,904.21
P1,137,032,088.49
P160,596,204.40
86,032,739.34
234,652,612.48
61,889,275.84
158,966,114.48
106,768,667.97
132,279,173.34
59,714,689.98
102,043,921.81
159,748,969.84
118,892,234.92
P 1,381,574,604.45
P37,011,317.05
19,281,167.84
51,853,446.58
13,349,084.20
28,398,290.63
19,340,424.58
22,571,672.83
8,133,037.58
13,193,801.67
18,967,939.48
11,977,330.71
P 191,899,663.00
29.95
28.89
28.37
27.50
21.75
22.12
20.57
15.77
14.85
13.47
11.20
P 659,949,675.40
112,504,899.66
P 143,351,616.01
22,063,982.04
27.75
24.46
729,529,925.00
P 1,501,984,500.06
116,509,269.39
P 281,924,867.44
19.01
P 655,465,621.26
P 218,615,084.51
10.66
239,183,114.94
385,042,573.16
53,549,645.27
23,571,583.93
28.85
6.52
539,522,099.07
89,861,273.32
19.98
952,564,821.71
213,854,258.04
28.95
763,161,219.12
829,719,652.41
161,687,053.92
181,416,238.63
26.88
27.98
810,567,363.11
177,251,044.31
27.99
784,924,974.40
156,397,889.80
24.88
724,891,194.78
805,600,004.69
158,461,611.43
180,710,153.14
27.98
28.92
1,422,479,863.20
1,480,326,609.86
311,043,962.05
302,715,486.41
27.99
25.71
1,559,690,312.73
477,041,648.62
1,962,547,703.24
340,226,890.89
101,652,901.42
427,811,780.90
27.90
27.08
27.88
PJHL
Bridge Component
CP II-Reconstruction of
Six Bridges along
Arterial Roads
8/25/2003
P 516,598,059.39
CP I Aloragat
3/20/2001
90,440,917.62
CP III Reconstruction
of Four (4) Bridges
Along Arterial roads
Project
9/23/2003
613,020,655.61
P 1,220,059,632.62
Sub-total
Road Contract Packages with Bridges
CP 7 & 8 BayuganAwa-San Francisco
2/18/1999
P 439,814,635.75
CP 13 - Langkilaan
(Trento) - Monkayo
185,633,469.67
CP 17 - Tagum - Carmen
2/25/1999
361,470,983.86
CP I-Talisay Junction
449,660,825.75
Toledo
10/1/2001
CP I San Andres-ViracJct.Bato-Viga Section
2/26/2004
Naga Toledo
738,710,563.67
CP I Himayangan Silago
9/3/2003
601,474,165.20
CP II - Silago-Abuyog Rd
9/3/2003
648,303,413.78
CP III - Liloan - San
Ricardo Rd.
9/12/2003
633,316,318.80
CP I - CalapeTagbilaran
City - Valencia
8/12/2003
628,527,084.60
CP II - Candijay - Jagna
Valencia
8/12/2003
566,429,583.35
Naga- Toledo Road Proj
5/27/2004
624,889,851.55
CP - I - Baguio1,111,435,901.15
Pangawan-Kayapa
9/25/2003
CP III - Monkayo Tagum
12/22/2003
1,177,611,123.45
CP II - San Francisco Langkilaan
12/22/2003
1,219,463,421.84
CP -I Alegria- Santiago
5/16/2003
375,388,747.20
Special Yen Loan Package
12/5/2003
1,534,735,922.34
78
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Name of project
CP III - Ilo-Ilo East
Coast - Capiz Road
CP IV-A, Suyo
Cervantes Road
CP 2 - Catarman Calbayog via Lope de
Vega Road
Sub-total
Date of
Bidding
AAE/ABC
Contract
Amount
11/25/2003
P 298,435,184.02
P 381,947,616.11
P 83,512,432.09
27.98
4/12/2005
940,646,401.50
1,164,622,570.23
223,976,168.73
23.81
487,279,923.58
621,279,697.00
133,999,773.42
P 13,023,227,521.06 P 16,560,578,659.64 P 3,540,315,232.21
27.50
12/11/2003
Excess over AAE/ABC

Amount
%
RRNDP Road Contract Packages with Bridges

CP-I Pangasinan
Manaoag Urdaneta
CP-IV Nueva Ecija
Gabaldon-Lami
CP II-Ilocos Sur-Santiago
- Lidlidda-San Emilio
CP VII-Camarines SurTigaon-Mayong Road
CP VII-Iloilo-Miag-aoIgbaras
Sub-total
12/13/1999
P 644,675,866.07
P 816,290,965.72
P 171,615,099.65
26.62
12/10/1999
454,785,383.37
565,174,321.41
110,388,938.04
24.27
7/20/2000
219,266,945.56
271,060,522.73
51,793,577.17
23.62
12/9/1999
276,563,890.22
215,041,187.89
61,522,702.33
22.25
390,018,380.64
310,182,260.70
79,836,119.94
P 1,985,310,465.86 P 2,177,749,258.45
P 475,156,437.13
P 4,489,296,199.78
Total
20.47
12/6/1999
In the absence of guidelines promulgated by the GPPB, the awarding of

foreign assisted projects at present is governed by the procurement
policies of the lending institutions which did not provide any limitations.
To determine the accuracy of the ABC, the team evaluated the ABC of
three (3) projects under the ADB Sixth Road Project, Bridge
Component. Evaluation revealed that the corresponding ABCs in two
projects were close to the COA estimated costs while the other one was
slightly above the COA estimates. This only manifests that the ABC
may be considered sufficient to complete the projects as designed:
Name of
Project
(a)
Contract
Package Q,
Contract
Package L,
Contract
Package 6
ABC
(b)
Difference in Cost
(b-c)
(e)
COA Estimated Cost

( c)
Contract Cost
(d)
P 66,751,571.50
P 70,621,150.12
P 86,032,739.34
(P 3,869,578.62)
109,707,500.51
115,998,144.00
132,279,173.34
(6,290,643.49)
182,799,165.90
171,071,024.93
234,652,612.48
11,728,140.97
4. Piling materials contracted exceeded the requirements. Uninstalled

universal bearing piles/H-piles for Tulay ng Pangulo sa Barangay and
SZOPAD projects amounted to P15,787,083.15. Moreover, these
materials were apparently not being accounted for as no inventory
report could be presented to the team. Stocks of undetermined
quantity of piling materials were found at DPWH-PBPO Depot at
Morong, Bataan.
79
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Under the Supply Contract for the Tulay ng Pangulo sa Barangay in the
total amount of Y19,600,000,000, the Supplier will deliver, in addition
to bridging materials, piling materials equivalent to 40% of the bridge
spans or a total cost of piling works requirement valued at
Y1,600,000,000 as computed below:
Length
Qty
21.336
24.384
27.432
30.480
33.528
36.576
39.624
42.672
45.720
54.864
60.960
64.008
136
27
28
18
18
18
14
5
5
32
24
77
Bridging /
Piling 100%
Structure
(cost in pounds)
36,460
36,460
36,460
36,460
36,460
36,460
36,460
39,864
39,870
61,840
61,840
86,950
Total
Piling 40%
Structure
(cost in
pounds)
14,584.00
14,584.00
14,584.00
14,584.00
14,584.00
14,584.00
14,584.00
15,945.60
15,948.00
24,736.00
24,736.00
34,780.00
Total Price
(pounds)
1,983,424
393,768
408,352
262,512
262,512
262,512
204,176
79,728
79,740
791,552
593,664
2,678,060
8,000,000
Total Cost of
Piling
(Yen)
396,684,800
78,753,600
81,670,400
52,502.400
52,502,400
52,502,400
40,835,200
15,945,600
15,948,000
158,310,400
118,732,800
535,612,000
1,600,000,000
Article Nos. 15.06 and 15.07 of the Supply Contracts provide that piling,
abutment and towers shall be in accordance with the GOP standard
design as appropriate. Piling materials will be provided by the Supplier
assuming the average towers and abutments that require pile driving to a
depth of 12 m with average above ground clearance of 3 m. The Hpiles/I-Beam measuring 305mm x 305mm x 126 kgs. x 12m for piling
works delivered by the Supplier in CY 2001 for the project is equivalent
to 6,047 pieces.
Verification of records disclosed that not all bridges constructed used
piling work materials. This was also observed by the team during
inspection conducted in Regions I, VII and XI between July to October
2007. Interviews with the Project Engineers revealed that these
materials were needed only in case the soil condition on site was not
stable or clayish. Otherwise, spread footing can be used when soil
condition is stable.
Records provided to the team by the Presidents Bridge Program Office
revealed that only 62, out of the 402 bridges covered under the project,
used H-piles. These bridges used a total H-piles of 4,932 with estimated
cost of about Y1,174,531,256.71. Another 959 pieces of H-piles
estimated at Y228,371,100.58 were reportedly used in the construction
of 10 other bridges constructed out of the additional materials acquired.
This means then that only 5,891.22 pieces of H-piles were actually used
leaving 155.78 pieces amounting to Y 37,096,611.10 uninstalled.
80
COST EFFECTIVENESS
The H-piles were reportedly used in the following bridges:
Bridge Name
Municipality/City
1
2
3
Agdao
Anun
Anunas
San Carlos
Florida Blanca
Angeles
4
5
6
7
8
9
Araybo River
Bago
Balagbag
Batiano
Bihawo
Binanto-an
Pantukan
Tayasan
San Juan
Banganga
Botolan
Panay
10
11
Bollucan River
Bulbulala
Laak
La Paz
12
13
14
15
Bungahin
Cahigun
Calunasan
Culcul
La Castellana
Maasin
Mlang
Minalin
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Daga Luna
Dujali
Dujali II
El Progreso
Farrales
Fuenticilla
Gama
Gonzalo Javier
Humilog
Kakar
Kilolog
Ligtos
Llawod
M. Adriatico
Macampao
Mamis
Manduyong
Maria Rosa
Maringalo
NasaugCanturing
Nichols
Palahanan-Libato
Paalom
Pasac
Pasta-Patnidog
Patiguian
Plaridel
Poblacion
Poblacion Pola
Ponso
Pulong Santol
San Miguel
San Vicente
Sapiniton
Sapiniton II
Songculan
Sta. Lucia
Sto. Nio
Sumakwel
Tabueng
Tagubay
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Province
Cadiz
B.E. Dujali
B.E. Dujali
Buruanga
San Felipe
San Felipe
Sta. Cruz
R.H. 7
R.T. Romualdez
R.H. 10
Magsaysay
Igbaras
Dao
Gloria
Cabangan
Barobo
Badian
Polomolok
Caringlan
Pangasinan
Pampanga
Pampanga
Compostela
Valley
Negros Oriental
Batangas
Davao Del Sur
Zambales
Capiz
Compostela
Valley
Abra
Negros
Occidental
Ilo-Ilo
North Cotabato
Pampanga
Negros
Occidental
Davao Del Norte
Davao Del Norte
Aklan
Zambales
Zambales
Zambales
Cotabato
Agusan Del Norte
Cotabato
Davao Del Sur
Ilo-Ilo
Capiz
Oriental Mindoro
Zambales
Surigao Del Sur
Cebu
South Cotabato
Nueva Ecija
Maasim
Alimodian
San Juan
Paquibato
Minalin
San Francisco
Lambayong
Hagonoy
Dumarao
Pola
Polangui
Porac
Magsaysay
Bato
San Miguel
San Miguel
Dauis
Masantol
San Felipe
Sibalom
Aritao
Bayugan
Southern Leyte
Ilo-Ilo
Batangas
Davao
Pampanga
Agusan Del Sur
Sultan Kudarat
Bulacan
Capiz
Oriental Mindoro
Albay
Pampanga
Davao Del Sur
Camarines Sur
Leyte
Leyte
Bohol
Pampanga
Zambales
Antique
Nueva Viscaya
Agusan Del Sur
No.
of
Bays
No. of
H-piles
used
14
7
46
74.00
54.00
240.00
14
29
14
31
14
8
72.00
112.00
72.00
148.00
96.00
40.00
14
22
88.00
100.00
14
35
16
27
48.00
156.00
88.00
128.00
40
8
12
13
8
10
10
13
12
10
26
20
21
17
15
13
7
20
21
192.00
16.02
48.00
48.00
60.00
60.00
65.81
60.00
64.00
56.86
60.15
16.00
99.00
56.00
68.00
76.89
56.00
96.00
69.00
16
40
12
30
18
13
9
22
13
18
14
7
14
40
22
14
13
13
10
13
20
13
15.00
178.00
64.00
147.00
96.00
53.20
56.78
64.00
48.00
74.00
28.00
62.00
79.00
192.00
80.00
96.00
48.00
165.00
53.00
42.26
72.00
50.15
81
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Bridge Name
Municipality/City
57
58
59
60
61
62
Tambojangin
Tanza Norte
Timonan
Trinchera
Usiw
Ganano
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Panganan
Quezon-Aliaga
Quick Bridge
Quick Bridge
Quick Bridge
Quirino
Labangan
Lamanan
Cannery
San Fernando
Amlan
Panay
Dumingag
Tayug
Tiaong
Diffun
Sub-total
Sta. Rita
Quezon
Not indicated
Not indicated
Not indicated
Not indicated
Province
No.
of
Bays
Negros Oriental
Capiz
Zamboanga Del Sur
Pangasinan
Quezon
Quirino
14
8
24
21
16
21
Pampanga
N. Ecija
Sub-total
Total
No. of
H-piles
used
32.00
48.00
113.00
99.00
24.00
69.00
4,932.22
62.00
403.00
148.00
158.00
80.00
18.00
15.00
15.00
25.00
35.00
959.00
5,891.22
The team also noted that the Supply Contract for the SZOPAD Project
included the supply of bridges piling materials amounting to
Y1,781,298,000 with total weight of 10,740 tons. Under this project, the
bridges needing piling works were not identified. It was deduced in the
Supply Contract that the quantity of piling structure needed to be
supplied will be defined upon confirmation of the actual bridge sites.
Records show that during the implementation of the SZOPAD project,
the Supplier supplied 7,091 H-piles which were distributed to various
depots. Based on the schedule provided by the PBPO, only 24% or 140,
out of 593 bridges, actually used piling works equivalent to 7,076
H-piles. This then increased available unused H-piles by 15 H-piles
costing 3,768,082.05.
This means then that the total unused H-piles for the two (2) projects
amounted to P15,787,083.15 as computed below:
No. of H-piles
Project
TPB
SZOPAD
Delivered
6,047
7,091
Utilized
5,891.22
7,076
Qty.
155.78
15
Total
Unutilized
Cost
Y 37,096,611.10
3,768,082.05
Y 40,864,693.15
(P15,787,083.15)
These materials were not being monitored and accounted for as the team
could not be provided with inventory reports.
82
COST EFFECTIVENESS
In the course of inspection, the team noted unutilized piling work

materials of undetermined quantity and amount stocked at PBP Depot
for Luzon in Morong, Bataan:
Stocks of piling materials already corroded as of inspection on July 19, 2007 at PBP
Depot Morong, Bataan.
The cost of unutilized H-piles which formed part of the loan of the
government increased the cost of bridge projects.
5.
Eighty (80) bridges under the Special Bridges Project Austrian

Assisted were not started as of March 2006 when the project was
supposed to be completed by July 31, 2005. As a result, the Philippine
Government had to shoulder the additional upgrading expenses
estimated at about P117.54 million.
The bridge design under the Austrian-Assisted Bridge Replacement

Project was reportedly upgraded when one of the completed bridges
experienced significant cracks on concrete deck in CY 2005 due to
overloaded trucks passing the bridge. The supplier of the steel bridging
materials then shouldered the costs of removing the installed bridge and
replacing the same with an upgraded concrete deck structure and steel
superstructure and all related expenses.
This then prompted the DPWH to assess the feasibility of the design and
thus formed a Task Force to inspect all completed bridges and
recommend appropriate measures. The Task Force recommended that
revisions/upgrading of bridge be undertaken in the following manner:
For completed bridges, it was recommended that all bridges should be

carefully assessed by the supplier and DPWH to evaluate the conditions
of the deck and traffic. The supplier will shoulder all related upgrading
costs.
For bridges under construction, the upgraded structural components of

the steel superstructure and concrete deck shall be applied. The supplier
83
COST EFFECTIVENESS
will shoulder the related upgrading costs on the steel superstructure and
incremental costs of the reinforcing steel bar requirement for the
upgraded deck design.
For bridges for future construction, both structural components of the

steel superstructure and concrete deck shall be upgraded. The required
additional steel component for the superstructure will be provided by
the Supplier.
The Austrian-Assisted Bridge Replacement Project covers the design

and supply of 124 modular steel bridges to be completed within 30
months from May 2002 to October 31, 2004. As reflected in the
Projects terms of reference, the project was supposed to be completed
within 3.5 years or 42 months inclusive of construction period. As
originally planned, the implementation period should be completed by
October 2005. The loan and supply contract effectivity was extended
until July 31, 2005 moving the completion date to July 2006.
As of March 2006, however, at the time of redesigning and upgrading,
80 bridges were yet to be implemented as reflected in the status of the
project implementation:
Status
Completed
On-going
with
bridging
materials
delivered at site
On-going with bridging materials still at
the depot
Not yet implemented
Number of
Bridges
12
12
7
80
As maybe noted, unlike in completed and ongoing bridge projects where

the supplier will totally shoulder the upgrading and incidental costs, for
bridge projects not yet started, the supplier will just provide additional
steel component for the required upgrading. It means then that the
government will have to shoulder the additional costs due to increases
on the following pay items:
Item No.
415 (1)
415 (2)
405 (1a)
404
Related Costs
Hauling and transportation of additional Modular Steel
Structure and Accessories
Related additional Installation/Erection Cost of Modular
Steel Structure and Accessories on account of upgrading
Additional Structural Concrete Costs
Costs of additional Reinforcing Steel Bars
These costs could have been avoided had all the projects been at least
started before March 2006 considering that the project was programmed
84
COST EFFECTIVENESS
to be completed by July 2006. The related costs per bridge span were
computed based on the increase weight per span as tabulated below:
Bridge Span
Description
30
35
40
45
50
Pay items 404 & 405 (1)b:

Concrete Deck Slab
RSB-in kgs
Original
3,565
4,140
4,715
5,290
5,865
Revised
12,491
14,494
16,552
18,855
20,807
Increase in Wt
8,926
10,354
11,837
13,565
14,942
Concrete Volume due to increase in thickness in cubic meters
Original (cum.)
50
58
67
75
83
Revised (cu.m.)
56
65
74
82
91
Increase (cu.m.)
6
7
7
7
8
Pay Items 415 (1) and 415 (2) in kgs
Originally
37,300
47,076
54,631
62,530
71,793
Revised
39,563
49,641
57,296
65,339
74,747
Increase in Wt.
2,263
2,565
2,665
2,809
2,954
55
60
6,439
23,213
16,774
7,014
25,151
18,137
92
100
8
100
108
8
82,614
85,706
3,092
92,451
95,723
3,272
The upgrading then of 80 bridges which were not yet started as of March
2006 would cost the government about P117.54 million as computed
below:
Region
No.
of
spans
No. of
Bridge
Bridge Spans
CAR
I
II
III
IV-A
IV-B
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
NCR
17
7
9
12
3
4
8
20
3
5
2
1
10
3
13
4
3
4
8
4
3
4
8
15
3
3
1
1
6
3
13
1
30
1
1
1
6
35
40
3
1
3
1
45
50
55
60
16
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
P 20.31 M
5.09
10.77
9.95
2.81
3.93
9.40
21.71
2.55
3.73
11.58
15.73
Total
3
1
Cost of
Upgrading
P117.54M
Teams Rejoinder

The duration of the Supply and
Services Contract of the Supplier
covers from 01 May 2002 to 31
October 2004. It was extended up to
31 July 2005, as approved by NEDA
(Annex 1) because the loan
As discussed in the report, as

reflected in the projects terms of
reference,
the
project
was
programmed to be completed by
3.5 years or 42 months inclusive of
construction period or by October
85
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Teams Rejoinder
balance due to the Supplier (WBPI)

was covered only in the CY 2005
DPWH Budget as only limited
budget was allocated annually per
DBMs approval.
Further, the
extension of the loan covers the
additional construction time for one
(1) pilot bridge (from 2 to 3 bridges)
on a turn-key basis utilizing the
balance of contingency fund,
including the additional design and
supply of 825 linear meters.
2005, reckoning from the start of

the Supply contract of May 2002.
The supply of bridging materials
was scheduled to be completed
within 30 months or by October
2004.
The completion date of 31 July 2005

as mentioned in the report is the
approved revised completion date of
the Supply and Services Contract of
the Supplier. Such completion date
does not yet include the total duration
of the implementation/completion of
the civil works. Attached is the
Implementation Schedule of the
Supplier (Annex 2), showing that
the civil works implementation is
apart from the total contract duration
of the Supplier of thirty (30) months.
Taking into consideration the

approved revised completion date
of July 2005, the expected
completion date is then moved to
July 2006.
Because of the governments tight

financial condition from CY 20022006, only limited releases of GOP
counterpart funds were made for the
implementation of the civil works, as
can be gleaned in the tabulation
(Annex 3). The requested funding
requirement per year was not fully
appropriated/approved. It was only
in CY 2007 when enough GOP
counterpart funds were released.
The failure of the government to

provide sufficient GOP counterpart
only illustrates that the contracts
being entered into by the
government are already beyond its
capability to support and fund.
The extended implementation,
however, added more burden to the
government in terms of payment of
commitment fees and additional
incidental costs, as in this case.
Since the 31 July 2005 project

completion date refers only to the
expiry date of the Suppliers Supply
and Services Contract, same should
not be taken as the basis in arriving at
the P117.54 Million due to the
upgrading of plans considering that
the total civil works construction
The teams computation of the

million
estimated
P117.54
additional costs to be incurred by
the government was not based on
the 31 July 2005 expiry date of the
supply contract but on the status of
bridges contained on the technical
report of the DPWH Superstructure
86
COST EFFECTIVENESS
Teams Rejoinder
duration is actually from CY 20032008 based on the limited funding

releases for the project caused by the
governments
tight
financial
condition at those times. Thus, the
additional upgrading expenses cannot
be avoided.
Design Task Force communicated

in a letter dated March 23, 2006
where 80 bridges were categorized
under Category 3- Bridges not yet
awarded, with bridging materials
still in DPWH depots.
As discussed earlier, all projects
were supposed to be completed by
July 2006 taking into consideration
the project commencement date of
May 2002 and the extension from
October 2004 to July 2005. Thus,
by March 2006, or four months
prior to project termination, all
projects should have at least been
started.
As it is, the civil works schedule
attached
to
the
comments
reflecting construction duration
from CYs 2003 to 2008 was not
synchronized with the project
schedule, thus the delay in project
implementation.
7. The implementation/completion of four (4) locally funded bridges by

phase due to staggered release of funds proved to be more costly by at
least P 379 M. This also resulted in prolonged inconvenience to the
motorists.
Locally funded projects are sometimes implemented by phase due to

funding constraints. Unlike road projects where the facility can be partly
functional even if not completed, bridge project can be used only upon
100% completion. Thus, bridges implemented by phase, irrespective of
government exposure could be used only upon completion.
Review of locally funded bridge projects implemented by DPWH
Regional and District Offices revealed that a number of projects were
implemented by phase due to funding constraint. Cost analysis,
however, revealed that the costs of these projects as originally
established were very much lower than the derived project cost by
87
COST EFFECTIVENESS
phase. Consequently, due to staggered implementation, the total project

cost ballooned to more than 200% of the original estimated cost, to wit:
Name of
Bridge/
Location
Domalandan
Bridge,
Pangasinan
Original/
Est. total
cost to
complete
Phase
Project Cost
per phase
P407 M
P 258,000,000
II
III
IV
38,600,000
48,250,000
14,283,165.
Gayaman
Bridge,
Pangasinan
28.80 M
Lower Pakigne- 15.0 M

Calajoan
Bridge,
Lawa-an,
Talisay City
Aluling
Bridge,
Ilocos Sur
120.0 M
77,193,964.
VI
VII
38,598,967.
57,872,414.
VIII
92,778,106.
IX
123,766,409
Total
I
II
III
P 734,105,221
P 20,186,986
6,426,150
26,101,408
IV
V
Total
I
11,355,758
4,421,591
P68,491,893
P 897,405
II
1,760,868.
III
2,856,537.
IV
948,999
948,395
Total
I
II
III-A
P 7,412,204
26,901,414
27,874,785
12,407,631
III-B
5,439,924
IV
13,975,345
27,542,261
Total
Scope of Work
Const. of bored piles at
Abut. B, Piers 1-10, 1417
Concreting of 4-9 spans
diaphragms & 8 girders at
span 15/16
Const. of 7 sets bored
pile and 8 steel casing at
Pier 11
Const. of 3 bored piles
Const. of part of 3rd
bored piles at Pier 13.
Const. of 8 sets of bored
piles at Pier 12
Const. of 2 bored piles
at Abut. A and 1 bored
pile at Pier 1.
Period of
Implementation
1/29/01-4/24/02
4/25/02-7/23/02
7/24/03-10/21/03
10/25/04-1/21/05
2/14/05-11/14/05
11/14/05-2/12/06
4/27/06-6/12/06
6/12/06-12/18/06
12/18/06-3/18/07
Drilling of bored pile

foundation.
Complete remaining
bored piles.. ..
Completion of slope
protection works
12/18/98 8/8/00
7/14/00-8/26/00
9/7/01-9/1/02
Bridge
excavation,
reinforced concrete
Reinforced concrete pile
12 pcs @ 41 lm
Reinforced concrete
piling 13 piles @ 41lm
Reinforced concrete
piling 4 piles @ 41 lm
Coping, backwall,
railing, sidewalk,..
Completed10/27/98
Completed11/10/99
Completed
12/13/05
Completed8/24/06
Completed8/23/07
About nine years
2/25/99-3/24/98
Abutment
A,
3-2
diameter bored piles.
66.8 LM-2m diam BP
launching.
30LM-2m diam BP
Launching
Launching of remaining
11 units girders.
Approaches incl. side
slope protection
Remarks
As maybe noted, the
project was completed
only after 2,239 days or
about six (6) years
(1/29/01-1/05/07). This
was suspended for 189
days
due
to
unavailability of funds.
1/29/02-4/22/03
2/16/04-6/26/04
1/14/05-1/02/07
1/14/05-10/12/06
Almost six years to

complete the bridge at
P68.5M for a project
originally estimated at
P28.8 M
Still needs P20M to

complete project after
spending P7.4 M for a
project
that
was
estimated at P15M.
Percentage of project
completion was nil after
1,560 days and after
spending P114 million,.
The project still needs
P 120 M to complete.
12/21/06-5/19/07
12/21/06-8/17/07
P 114,141,360
It may even be noted that it took the government six (6) years to complete
the two projects while the two others remained unfinished after 11 years
and spending at least P121 million. While it is true that the governments
limited resources has to be allocated and proportioned to satisfy all priority
projects, implementation of the bridge projects by phase is not cost
effective and is prejudicial to the best interest of the public and the
88
COST EFFECTIVENESS
government as well. Implementation by phases not only delayed the

benefits to be derived therefrom but also prolonged inconvenience of
commuters.
89
Chapter 4
Effective Quality Assurance
90
EFFECTIVE QUALITY ASSURANCE
INTRODUCTION
Plans and specifications for each type of engineering structure vary

according to materials used, project site conditions and some other factors.
Irrespective of types of structure, industry accepted construction methods
and standards are adopted to ensure quality in project implementation. For
loan package introducing new methodology and technology and the
relevant skills and experience are not available in the implementing agency,
it has also become customary to include consultants.
The implementation of the project maybe considered of quality when
construction activities are undertaken in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications, works are adequately supervised and monitored
and noted deficiencies were required to be corrected before acceptance
and/or turn over to concerned offices.
To further ensure that the quality of the project as constructed is sustained,
the contract should provide warranty period to address deficiencies which
may arise before acceptance and periodic maintenance schedules be strictly
observed thereafter.
The team noted that these requirements were not strictly observed in the
construction of a number of bridges. Construction of bridges substructures
were deficient or of poor workmanship while some installed superstructures
were already corroded. Apparently, these are not being maintained by the
concerned LGUs and DPWH District Offices after these were turned over.
OBSERVATIONS
1.
Construction of bridge substructures was not properly supervised.

While the projects were relatively new, substructures of 95 out of the
547 bridges inspected were deficient or of poor workmanship. This is
manifested in the presence of cracks and settlement of approach
slabs, slope protection and wing walls, among others. These
deficiencies would adversely affect the expected service life of these
projects.
As reported by the DILG and the different PMOs of the DPWH, a total
of 2,752 foreign assisted bridges were implemented under the following
projects:
91
Implementing
Agency
DPWH
Presidents
Bridge
Program Office
Special Bridges
PJHL
RRNDP
ADB Projects
DPWH-PBPO
DILG
Presidents
Program
Bridge
Project
Countrywide Bridge Project
UK Phase I
UK Phase II
Austrian Assisted
Arterial Road Links Development
Project
Rural Road Development Project
ADB Sixth Road Project, Bridge
Component
Urgent
Bridges
for
Rural
Development Projects
UK Phase I
Austrian
Total
No of
bridges
Amount
(in million)
411
592
200
80
242
112
P 7,216.542
9,867.118
2,859.099
738.145
5,431.986
4,914.388
362
20
4,140.213
910.941
138
1,917.418
195
2,598.577
143
257
2,752
1,334.158
1,582.046
P 36,294.09
Of the total foreign assisted bridges, the team inspected 492 bridges
along with 55 other locally funded bridges implemented by the DPWH
within NCR and Regions I, VII and XI from June 18 to October 25,
2007. The projects inspected follow:
Implementing
Agency
DPWH
Presidents
Bridge
Program Office
Special Bridges
PJHL
RRNDP
Region

Countrywide Bridges
Austrian Assisted
UK Assisted Phase I
UK Assisted Phase II
Sub-total
Arterial
Road
Links
Development Project
NCR, I, VII & XI

I, VII & XI
XI
I, VII & XI
I, VII & XI
VII & XI
Rural
Road
Network
Development Project
ADB
DPWH-PBPO
Locally Funded
DILG
Presidents
Program
Project
Bridge
Urgent Bridges Construction

Project for Rural Development
DPWH Regional/District
Engineering Offices
UK Assisted
Austrian Assisted
Sub-total
Total
I
VII
XI
I
VII
CP M-I
CP Q I & III
CP 8-XI
CP 9-XI
No. of
bridges
53
37
129
14
15
20
268
26
61
9
6
1
2
5
13
8
I,VII,XI
I,VII,XI
55
I, VII & XI
I, VII & XI
22
70
92
547
92
As discussed earlier, some of these bridges were not yet open to traffic
while others were underutilized for one reason or another. In addition
to these observations, the team noted during inspection that out of the
360 bridges implemented by the DPWH and DILG under the
Presidents Bridge Program and Special Bridges, construction of
substructures of 95 bridges, representing 26%, were of poor
workmanship as tabulated below:
Implementing Agency
DPWH
DILG
Special Bridges DPWH
Total
No. of
Projects
Implemented
No. of
Projects
Inspected
No. of
Projects with
Deficiencies
1,203
414
434
2,051
219
92
49
360
67
15
13
95
31
16
27
26
The substructures were found to have cracks and/or settlement of

approach slabs, wing walls/barriers, PCCP approaches and slope
protection/grouted riprap. These deficiencies would adversely affect the
expected service life of these projects. As these bridges are relatively
new, deficiencies can be attributed to, among others, lack or improper
preparation of embankments and base. These deficiencies should have
been corrected during project construction.
Considering that these projects, except for the Special Bridges, were
undertaken through Pakyaw contracts, the construction should have
been closely supervised to ensure that the specifications were complied
with. As it is, since these were undertaken through pakyaw contracts,
there were no contractors responsible to correct the deficiencies after
construction. The construction of substructures under these projects was
the responsibility of DPWH-PBPO.
The steel/concrete bridge projects with noted deficiencies upon
inspection by the audit team are as follows:
Implementing Agency/
Project Substructure
provided by
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
Regions/
Provinces
NCR
Bridge Name
Tullahan
Cracks on approach slab.
93
provided by
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
Regions/
Provinces
I-Burgos,
Ilocos Norte
I-Dingras,
Ilocos Norte
I-Pasuquin,
Ilocos Norte
I-Pinili, Ilocos
Norte
I-Sarrat, Ilocos
Norte
Bridge Name
Cabuayaan
Settlement on approach slabs and its

precast barrier.
Francisco
Cracks at approach slabs; rebars

exposed at wingwall on the second
approach
Nagsanga
Cracks on both approach slabs and

wingwall.
Barbar
Cracks/settlement on both approach

slabs
San Juan
With cracks at approach slabs.
94
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
Bridge Name
San Roque
With
cracks/settlement
on
both
approach slabs, precast barriers and
wingwall.
Sto. Santiago
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
I-Solsona,
Ilocos Norte
Both
approaches
prepared/constructed.
Bubuos
not
properly
Settlement at 2nd approach slab due to

lack of embankment
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
I-Solsona, Ilocos Norte

Santiago-Barcelona
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
Embankment not properly prepared on both approaches.

I-Magsingal,
Labut
Ilocos Sur
Major cracks on both approaches due to

settlement of base.
95
provided by
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
Regions/
Provinces
I-Salcedo,
Ilocos Sur
With defects on slope protection and

cracks on approach slabs.
Kaliwet
I-Sto.
Domingo,
Ilocos Sur
I-Sto Tomas,
La Union
I-Bacnotan, La
Union
I-Bauang,
Union
Bridge Name
San Tiburcio
La
With cracks, scaling and settlement on

the approach slabs.
Ambitakay
With cracks on approach slabs.

Ubbog
Cracks of 10mm between the grouted

riprap and
wingwall. Defects on
grouted riprap at both end of the bridge.
Palintucang
No precast wingwall at the second

approach and with cracks on wingwall
at the first approach.
96
provided by
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
Regions/
Provinces
I-Bauang,
Union
La
I- Sto.Tomas,
La Union
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
I-Sto. Tomas,
La Union
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
I-Sudipen,
Union
DPWH-PBPO
La
I Aringay, La
Union
Bridge Name
Carmay
With cracks and scaling on the bridge

approach slabs
Cupang
With cracks on the approach slabs; 2nd

approach slab has sagged.
Namonitan
With cracks on approach slabs

Sudipen
With cracks on wingwalls at both

approaches
Poblacion
With cracks/settlement on approach

slabs.
97
provided by
DPWH-PBPO
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
Regions/
Provinces
I Bacnotan,
La Union
I-San Carlos
City,
Pangasinan
I-Sison,
Pangasinan
I-Sison,
Pangasinan
DPWH-PBPO
I-Urbiztondo,
Pangasinan
Bridge Name
Ubbog
With cracks on wingwall and slope

protection
Antipangol
With cracks/scaling/settlement
on
approach slabs, riprap and wingwall
barrier.
Balucanag
With cracks on approaches

settlement of pavement.
Pindangan
and
Eroded slope protection.

Gueteb
Riprap detached from the wingwall. No

approach was constructed.
98
provided by
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
Regions/
Provinces
VIIPinamungahan,
Cebu
VIIAloguinsan
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
VIIAloguinsan
VIICambayog,
Compostela
Bridge Name
Punod
With cracks on approach slabs which

were partly covered by asphalt overlay.
Tampaan
Settlement on approach slab.

Zaragoza
With cracks on both approach slabs.

Tulay 2
VII-Samboan
With cracks/scaling/settlement on both

approach slabs.
Subah
VII-Badian
With
cracks/settlement
on
wingwall/barrier and slope protection.
Manduyong

slab/barriers.
99
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
VII-Cebu City
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
DPWH-PBPO
DPWH-PBPO
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
VII-Pamplona,
Negros
Oriental
VII-Pamplona,
Negros
Oriental
VII-Pamplona,
Negros
Oriental
VII-Pamplona,
Negros
Oriental
Bridge Name
Cambinocot
With
cracks/settlement
approaches.
Mangoto
on
both
With cracks/scaling on both approach

slabs.
Iniwasan

slabs.
Balayong

slabs.
Balayong-Mamburao

slabs.
100
provided by
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
Regions/
Provinces
Bridge Name
VII-Tayasan, Negros Oriental

Bago
The embankment and slope protection on approach B were

washed out.
VII-Tayasan,
Dalaupon
Negros
Oriental
VII-Sibulan,
Negros
Oriental
VII-Alan,
Negros
Oriental
VII-Inabanga,
Bohol
Settlement of approach slab at 2nd

approach
due
to
inadequate
embankment and slope protection.
Cambajao
With cracks/settlement on the approach.

Bio-os
With cracks/settlement on the approach

slabs. No slope protection for the
wingwalls on both approaches.
Lapacan
Scaling/cracks/settlement
on
both
approach slabs, wingwalls, embankment
and slope protection.
101
provided by
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide /
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
DPWH-PBPO/
Countrywide
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
Regions/
Provinces
VII-Alicia,
Bohol
VII-Alicia,
Bohol
VII-Trinidad,
Bohol
VII-Trinidad,
Bohol
VII-Kausong,
Bohol
Bridge Name
Cabatang
With scaling/cracks/settlement
on
approach slabs and slope protection.
La Hacienda
With
scaling/cracks/settlement
approach slabs.
M. Cabiguhan
on
With scaling, cracks and settlement on

bridge approach slabs and slope
protection.
Hin.Ilaud

slabs/barriers.
Danao
With cracks and scaling on approach

slabs.
102
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
VII-Loon,
Bohol
DPWH-PBPO/
TPB III
VII-Mabini,
Bohol
VII-Duero,
Bohol
DPWH-PBPO
XI-Maragusan,
Compostela
Valley
DPWH-PBPO
XI-New
Bataan,
Compostela
Valley
Bridge Name
Cantaongon
With cracks on approach slabs.

Bangi
With cracks on approach slabs. Earth

materials settled at the approach slabs
and bridge deck.
Lunoy-Cansuhay

slabs.
Salaysayon
PCCP approaches with minor cracks.

Camanlangan
103
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
DPWH-PBPO
XI-Talaingod,
Davao
del
Norte
DPWH-PBPO
XI-Bansalan,
Davao del sur
DPWH-PBPO
XI-Magsaysay,
Davao del Sur
DPWH-PBPO
XI-Malita,
Davao del Sur
DPWH-PBPO
Bridge Name
Daligdigon
Approaches have minor cracks.

Tinongtungan
PCCP approaches have minor cracks

and settlement on one side of PCCP
approach.
Glamang
Both approaches have minor cracks.

Sangay II
PCCP approach on one side has 3 inches

space gap between the PCCP and main
steel bridge.
Bolila
PCCP approach has minor cracks on one

link.
104
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
DPWH-PBPO
XI-Padada,
Davao del Sur
DPWH-PBPO/
SZOPAD
XI-Sta.Maria,
Davao del Sur
(DDS)
Bridge Name
Harada Butai

Sala-Sala
Malita, DDS
PCCP approaches with cracks.

Dimuloc
Malalag, DDS
Rebars on approach
exposed due to scaling.
Kamandag
XIBanaybanay,
Davao Oriental
slab
already
Rebars exposed, with hole on the

approach slab.
Mahayag
105
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
XI-Banganga,
Davao Oriental
XI-San Isidro,
Davao Oriental
DPWH-PBPO/
SZOPAD
XI-Baganga,
Davao Oriental
Bridge Name
Batiano
With scouring beneath the wingwall.

PCCP approaches have minor cracks.
Bacong
PCCP approaches have minor cracks.

Anislagan
Scaling of PCCP approaches on both

sides
Borboanan
XI-Manay,
Davao Oriental
Scaling/cracks
approaches.
Libtong
on
both
PCCP
PCCP approaches have minor cracks

and scaling on both sides.
106
provided by
DPWH-Special
Bridges
/UK Assisted Phase I
DPWH-Special
Bridges
/UK Assisted Phase I
Regions/
Provinces
I Sta Catalina
Road, Ilocos
Sur
Bridge Name
Vigan-Sta Catalina
I Ilocos Sur
With cracks on slope protection on the

left side of approach A.
Cayapa
I Ilocos Sur
Erosion/scouring
on the slope
protection on the right side of approach
A.
Patac
DPWH-Special Bridges /
Austrian Assisted
With cracks and scouring on some

portions of the slope protection
I Manaoag, Pangasinan
Tulong
With cracks on sidewalk

near wingwall and on the
left side of abutment B.
With cracks on asphalt

overlay between approach
slab and backwall.
VII Cebu
Cantacuyan
Huge cracks on slope

protection due to settlement
Extreme
settlement
at
Approach B, approximately
12 deep (project not yet
completed due to this
problem).
107
provided by
DPWH-Special Bridges /
Austrian Assisted
Regions/
Provinces
Bridge Name
VII Cebu
Avante
With cracks on slabs near

abutment B; both sides
with scouring/erosion.
VII Bohol
Creek II
VII Cebu
Right side slope protection

not completed
With cracks
wingwall.
Boyawon
on
pavement
With cracks/settlement on
protection of both abutments.
near
slope
VII Cebu
Sta. Felomina
Old structures under the

bridge not demolished
XI Compostela Valley
Mambusao
With cracks
protection.
on
slope
Slope protection did not

reach the wingwall or
approximately 2 meters
below the concrete deck.
Eroded
portions
of
embankment on both sides
of abutment B.
108
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
XICompostela
Valley
XI Davao
Oriental
UK Assisted Phase I
DPWH Regional Office

No. XI
Locally Funded
XI Davao
Oriental
Bridge Name
Tadia
With scaling on approach slab A; with

minor cracks on the slope protection
along abutment B.
Pigsapawan
With erosion/scouring on embankment

on the left side of approach A; both
sides of approach B without slope
protection.
Kabasagan
With chipping/scaling
topping of backwall B.
XI Davao del Norte
Panabo Coastal Road (Puyod Section)*
Slope
protection
with
cracks. Embankment at
approach B from approach
slab to slope protection
eroded.
of
concrete
Scouring at 1.35m from

edge of linking slab/PCCP
Reinforced. Erosion at
approach A left side, guard
rails missing due to erosion.
109
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
Bridge Name
XI Davao del Norte

Panabo Coastal Road (Arieta Section) *
DILG / PBP-II
DILG / PBP-II
Embankment at left side

approach A eroded/scoured.
Four pieces of concrete post
for guardrail exposed and
hanging
due
to
scouring/erosion.
VII-Inabanga,
Ondol
Bohol
VII-Mabini,
Bohol
VII-Poblacion
Sevilla, Bohol
Slope
protection
with
cracks, portions patched up
with concrete.
Eroded riprap at second abutment

Tangkigan
With cracks on the sidewalk and

approach slab
Marcos
With gaps on the wingwalls and grouted

riprap joints.
VII-Tabogon, Cebu
Labangon
Vegetation reaching
bridging top chord
the
Grouted riprap on abutment

was damaged due to soil
movement, cracks at the
sidewalk and riprap joints.
110
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
VII-Liloan,
Cebu
VII-Argao,
Cebu
XI-Maco,
Compostela
Valley
DILG / PBP II
XI-Panabo
City,
Davao
del Norte
XI-Sulop,
Davao del Sur
Bridge Name
Suba
Riprap on the second abutment damaged

and needs immediate repair.
Usmad
Eroded slope protection.

Malamudao
Bridge at risk due to non-construction of

riprap on substructure. Severe damage
on approaches and along slopes of the
road near the bridge, due to lack of
riprap and slope protection works.
Sindaton
The right side slope protection of

approach I already damaged (road hole)
due to scouring.
Labon
Scouring
of
slope
protection
surrounding the abutments and along
slopes beside riverbanks.
111
provided by
Regions/
Provinces
Bridge Name
I-Vintar, Ilocos Norte

Tamdagan
At Abutment A, more than

10 meters of the approach
embankment,
riprap
protection
including
approach slab and PCCP
road already washed out
due to high water level
caused by heavy rains in
CY 2005.
DILG / PBP I
With cracks in concrete

deck and PCCP approach.
Remedial measures already

undertaken by the PEO
included
filling
the
damaged
portion
with
gravel and embankment to
make the bridge passable to
public. PEO recommended
the installation of additional
bridge span to prevent
further damage.
I-Ilocos Sur
Ayusan
With scaling and settlement on both

approaches including thick vegetation
and corrosion on steel panel.
DILG / PBP II
I-San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur

Bungro
With cracks on PCCP approach, riprap slope protection and

concrete deck slab.
112
provided by
DILG / PBP II
DILG/ PBP II
Regions/
Provinces
Bridge Name
I-San Juan, La Union

Dayacos
With cracks on both approaches and on concrete deck slab2.

I-Bantay,
Tay-ac
Ilocos Sur
With cracks on concrete deck slab and

PCCP approach.
* - concrete bridge
Teams Rejoinder

The
attention
of
concerned The
team
appreciates
Implementing Offices were called managements immediate action
per the PMOs memorandum dated on this concern.
However,
14 March 2008 to do remedial deficiencies could be minimized,
actions/measures on the noted if not totally avoided, through
defects/deficiencies. Their action/s adequate
monitoring
and
to the said defects were also inspection of project during
requested to be furnished to this construction.
PMO for eventual submission to
COA.
On Tulong Bridge:
This project was implemented by this
PMO, wherein a Final Joint Physical
Inspection was already conducted by
the DPWH Inspectorate Team.
Similar noted defects by COA were
also seen and required by said team
113
Teams Rejoinder
to be addressed by the concerned

contractor at their own expense
before project acceptance.
This
PMO shall furnish copy of the
contractors
compliance
once
completed.
2. Superstructures of 43 steel bridges were apparently not being

maintained as manifested in the presence of corrosions in different
bridge parts. These deficiencies and conditions would not only lessen
the useful lives of bridges but may also compromise the safety of the
users.
Steel bridges, while more costly than concrete bridges, were selected
due to its simple implementation process on account of modular
construction technique. It was also reported that steel bridges have
longer life spans which is 50 years as compared to the reported 30 years
life span of concrete bridges. The actual service life of any type of
bridge including steel bridges would, however, depend on proper and
regular maintenance which is required, especially for steel bridges,
which easily corrode.
Completed bridges implemented under the Presidents Bridge Program
(PBP) were turned over to concerned local government units, i.e.,
provincial government for bridges along provincial roads and to
city/municipal government for bridges along city/municipal and
barangay roads, for maintenance. The turn over was covered by a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed by and between the
PBPO and the LGU requiring the LGUs to set aside annual
maintenance trust funds and upkeep the bridge.
Completed bridges under the Special Bridges Project were turned over
to the DPWH District Offices. The corresponding maintenance costs
for these projects were included in the Annual Maintenance Work
Program/Performance Budget of the concerned District Offices.
114
Inspection, however, revealed that while the responsibilities to maintain

completed bridges were already clearly defined, these bridges were just
the same not being maintained. This is evident by corrosions in
different parts of the superstructures found by the team during
inspections conducted from June 18 to October 25, 2007:
Implementing
Agency
Turned over to
Region/Province/
Municipality of
DILG / PBP II
VII-Amio,
Oriental
Negros
DILG / PBP I
VII-Maribojoc,
Bohol
DILG / PBP II
VII-Loon, Bohol
DILG/ PBP II
VII-Daan Bantayan,
Cebu
Bridge Name
Amio
With minor rusts on some nuts and bolts

Bato
Bridge support needs repainting;

some bridge parts
Tajang
corrosion on
With minor corrosion on one of top chord

Dalingding
Galvanize coating on some portions starts to peel;

rust are starting to develop on end of bolt thread.
115
Implementing
Agency
DILG/ PBP II
Turned over to
Region/Province/
Municipality of
Bridge Name
VII-Liloan, Cebu
Suba
Corrosion on the bottom chord

and some portion of the top chord;
gusset plates on the support
portion and bolts and nuts. Most
of the galvanize coatings were
peeling off due to rust on the
bottom chord and other bridge
parts.
DILG/ PBP II
VII-San Fernando,
Cebu
VII-Balamban, Cebu
XI-Caraga,
Oriental
DILG/ PBP II
Davao
I-Bantay, Ilocos Sur
Bugho
With missing one pipe length in the steel railings

and some bolts of railing holders are loosened.
Pitogo
Corrosion on some portions of the bridge parts.

Pantuyan
Five (5) pcs. of field diaphragm fabricated due to

the loss of said bridge part. The fabricated
materials are already corroded.
Tay-ac
Corrosion on pipe railings and diagonals.
116
Implementing
Agency
Turned over to
Region/Province/
Municipality of
Bridge Name
DILG/ PBP I
DILG/ PBP I
I-Ilocos Sur
Urdas
DPWH/PBPO
TBP III
NCR
Steel panel and pin holes are corroded.

Congressional I & II
NCR
Corrosion already starting on the panel of this

unutilized bridge.
Kalamiong
NCR
With rusts/corrosion on pinholes

Ste Banez Paco
NCR
With corrosion/rusts on panel

Tullahan
I-La Union
With rusts on panel and pinholes

Ambitacay
DPWH/PBPO
TBP III
DPWH-PBP
Corrosions on pins/pinholes
117
Implementing
Agency
Turned over to
Region/Province/
Municipality of
DPWH-PBP
I - Bauang, La Union
DPWH-PBP
I- Sto Tomas, La
Union
DPWH-PBP
I Sto Tomas, La Union

Namonitan
Bridge Name
Carmay
With rusts on pinholes

Cupang
With rusts on panel and pinholes
With rusts on panel and pinholes.
Corrosions are already evident and

spreading on the panel of this
bridge.
DPWH-PBP
I- Tubao, La Union
DPWH-PBP
I Sudipen,
Union
La
With rusts on panel

San Jose
DPWH-PBP
I Sudipen,
Union
La

Sudipen
Pideg
With rusts on panel
118
Implementing
Agency
Turned over to
Region/Province/
Municipality of
DPWH-PBP
I Bacnotan, La
Union
DPWH-PBP/
SZOPAD
XI-Bansalan, Davao
del sur
DPWH-PBP/
SZOPAD
XI-Talaingod, Davao
del Norte
DPWH-PBP/
SZOPAD
XI-Banganga, Davao
Oriental
DPWH-PBP/
SZOPAD
XI-San Isidro, Davao

Oriental
DPWH-PBP/
SZOPAD
XI-Baganga, Davao
Oriental
Bridge Name
Ubbog
With corrosion on pinholes and panel

Tinongtungan
With rusts on panel

Daligdigon
With rusts on panel

Batiano
With corrosion on panel

Bacong

Anislagan
119
Implementing
Agency
Turned over to
Region/Province/
Municipality of
DPWH-PBP/
SZOPAD
XI-Baganga, Davao
Oriental
DPWH-PBP/
SZOPAD
XI-Manay,
Oriental
Davao
Bridge Name
Borboanan
With rusts and algae on panel and pinholes

Libtong
XI- Davao City

Manambulan
DPWH-PBP
XI Davao del Sur

Langaan
DPWH-PBP
XI Davao del Sur
With rusts on panel

Latian Kisulan
DPWH-PBP
XI Davao del Sur
With rusts on panel

Ihan Sitio Curbada
With rusts on pinholes and panel
120
Implementing
Agency
Turned over to
Region/Province/
Municipality of
Bridge Name
DPWH
Special
Bridges / UK
Assisted Phase I
I Ilocos Sur
Sulvec Bridge
DPWH-Special
Bridges/UK
Assisted Phase I
I Ilocos Sur
With corrosion on panel and pinholes.

Patac
DPWH Special
Bridges / UK
Assisted Phase I
I Ilocos Sur
With corrosion on panel near pinhole

Cayapa
1st and 2nd bay steel panel corroded.

Alegria
DPWH Special
Bridges / Austrian
Assisted
DPWH Special
Bridges / UK
Phase I
VII - Bohol
Trapezoidal steel deck (4th from approach A)

corroded.
Creek I
VII - Bohol
Steel panel starting to corrode.

Calinte
Steel panel corroded
121
Implementing
Agency
DPWH Special
Bridges / UK
Phase II
Davao del Norte
Engineering
Office
DPWH Special
Bridges / UK
Phase II
District
Engineering
Offices
Turned over to
Region/Province/
Municipality of
XI
Norte
XI
Valley
Davao
Del
Compostela
Bridge Name
Napisulan
Six pieces of replacement steel plates and bolts &

nuts on railings heavily corroded (replacement
pieces of stolen parts).
Haguibawa
With corroded nuts and bolts.

XI Davao Oriental
Upper Sumlog
DPWH-Special
Bridges / Austrian
Assisted
Two diagonal web and bolts with

corrosion.
I Ilocos Norte
Tulnagan
Four pieces replacement steel plates

corroded (original plate stolen).
No GI railing on certain portions of

the bridge approximately 3 l.m.
length per interview with the
Project Engineer as the supplied
railings was short.
The base plates where railing posts

were attached were likewise
corroded.
Apparently, the PMO was not monitoring compliance by the LGUs and
the District Offices with the required maintenance activities to maintain
the quality of bridges.
122
Teams Rejoinder
Response provided by PBPO, DPWH

The PBPO shall continually remind
the concerned LGUs in writing, on
its responsibility provided in the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
executed by and between the PBPO
and LGU that the latter shall set aside
annual maintenance trust funds and
upkeep the completed bridge.
The
team
appreciates
managements action to help
preserve
the
quality
of
completed bridges. The PBPO
may also request the assistance
of DPWH District Offices to
include PBPO bridges turned
over to LGUs in their regular
inspections.

Further to our compliance to your The team appreciates the
draft report on the Sectoral immediate action undertaken by
Performance
on
Governments the PMO on the said bridge.
Bridge Program, we hereby furnished
you with pictures taken before,
during and after correction and repair
of Upper Sumulog Bridge, Lupon,
Davao Oriental.
123
Part IV
Recommendations
124
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
To remedy the deficiencies noted, the team recommends the following

courses of action:
1. Creation of a unit that shall coordinate and oversee the implementation
of all bridge programs. Such office should handle among others, the
following functions:
Maintenance of an updated Masterlist/masterplan of bridges for the

guidance/use of all implementing agencies. Any bridge selected
under one project should be properly marked in the
masterlist/masterplan to avoid selection of the same bridge under
another project.
Reassessment of the policy of requiring LGUs to provide counterpart

funds. A number of prioritized bridge projects could not be
implemented due to lack of counterpart funds by the LGUs. Instead,
negotiate for a loan that would cover the entire project, both
superstructure and substructure. This way, the quality of the
substructure could also be ensured.
Monitoring of project implementation to ensure that the bridges are

completed on time and strict observance by the implementing
agencies with the established selection and prioritization criteria and
related rules and regulations.
Initiating the formulation of rules and regulations applicable to

foreign assisted projects and minimizing the availment of loans from
lending institutions that do not allow the application of RA 9184
particularly on declaring bids in excess of the ABC as non responsive.
2. In the absence of an Office overseeing and coordinating the bridge

program, the DPWH and DILG should:
Implementing
Agency
DPWH/DILG
Recommended Actions to be taken

The DPWH to update the Masterlist of national
bridges and the DILG for local bridges. Install
control mechanisms that would ensure that the
bridge most needed is prioritized and that a
particular bridge is not included in two or more
projects.
125
RECOMMENDATIONS
Implementing
Agency
DPWH/DILG

Strictly observe the established selection and
prioritization criteria under each project and
refrain from implementing projects not
complying with the existing selection criteria.
Monitor
compliance
by the LGUs and
other concerned agencies with construction
specifications and on the standard preventive
maintenance activities required to be
undertaken after turnover of completed
projects.
Refrain from contracting for the supply of

bridging materials without first identifying
bridges to be covered under the contract to
avoid delivery of bridging materials not
responsive to the actual needs.
Ensure that projects are completed on time to

avoid unnecessary expenditures and ensure
timely enjoyment of the desired benefits.
Conduct an inventory of all available

bridging materials to account for the missing
bridging materials and identify sources of
available materials needed to complete the
construction of bridges with lacking bridging
parts. Assess the funding requirements for
parts needed to complete construction of
these bridges and the possibility of using
excess materials.
Involve LGU engineers and district engineers

including NGOs like Road Watch, in project
supervision during construction to ensure that
the projects are constructed in accordance
with specifications.
Require the concerned LGUs to correct the

construction deficiencies noted and undertake
regular preventive maintenance on installed
steel bridges especially those noted to have
corrosion. In the event of incapability of
LGUs, include in the regular maintenance
budget of the DPWH District Offices the
correction of noted deficiencies and
maintenance of the completed bridges.
126
RECOMMENDATIONS
Implementing
Agency
DPWH

Study the potential development of areas with
bridges already constructed and prioritize
construction of roads to these areas to spur
economic development.
Initiate the formulation of rules and

regulations applicable to foreign assisted
projects. Minimize the availment of loans
from lending institutions that do not allow the
application of RA 9184 particularly on
recognizing ABC as ceiling price.
Consider including bridge projects requiring

large amount for foreign assistance to
minimize implementation of projects by
phases and for a long period of time.
127
Submitted in compliance with MS/TS Office Order Nos. 2006-042 and 042A
dated September 22, 2006 and March 22, 2007, respectively, and Joint MS/TS
and NGS Office Order Nos. 042B and 2007-037 and 042C and 2007-052 dated
May 28 and September 3, 2007, respectively.
128

DPWH Spa2007 03

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DPWH Spa2007 03

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Services

Report No. 2007 - 03

Republic of the Philippines

Very truly yours,

The Governments Bridge Program

Well Coordinated and Organized

Compliance with Selection

Effective Quality Assurance

AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

Compliance with established selection

Implementation of projects at the least

Reviewed existing policies, guidelines and mechanism on the

Reviewed existing monitoring and reporting system as well as

Interviewed personnel involved in the implementation of the program.

Inspected selected bridge projects to determine compliance with existing

The audit concluded that while a substantial number of bridges were

The implementation of some projects could not also be considered cost

MANAGEMENTS REACTION TO AUDIT OBSERVATIONS

The Governments Bridge Program

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

The government recognizes that infrastructure development plays a vital role

THE BRIDGE PROJECTS

Among the bridge projects covered in the audit are as follows:

The project, which was implemented from CYs 1996 to

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

The project started in 2001 covering supply of bridging

The project started in November 2003. It involved the

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

Special Bridges Project

Urgent Bridges Construction Project for Rural Development

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

These included priority bridge projects identified in the

Road Projects with Bridges

The Philippine-Japan Friendship Highway Project,

Rural Road Network

in order to sustain agricultural activities and to improve

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

As reflected in the DPWH statistics, there were 7,726 national bridges as of

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

TYPES AND CLASSIFICATION OF BRIDGES

Bridges are also classified according to:

Temporary bridge with a short life span and with

Simple spans most common, consisting of separate

Timber bridge this type of bridge used timber

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

PROJECT CYCLE ACTIVITIES

The development of infrastructure projects (e.g. roads, bridges, flood control

The project is usually identified and prioritized

Feasibility Study To find out if and to what

Loan Negotiations to discuss and agree on

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

Fund Releases DBM releases the funds for

Bidding and Contracting In general, the

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

Operation and maintenance actual

SCOPE OF BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT

The scope of works of various bridge projects covers construction of new

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

* - including 8.75 M grant

THE GOVERNMENTS BRIDGE PROGRAM

PROJECT COST COMPONENTS

Special Bridges (SB)

Presidents Bridge Program