Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engr. Eustaquio T. Coronel JR
Engr. Eustaquio T. Coronel JR
As far as sick projects are concerned, they are found mostly in urban
centers but their greatest concentration is in Metro Manila. In my long and
rich experience in the rehabilitation of sick projects, I can classify them into
three types:
1. Projects that economic and financial crises had overtaken since
the latter part of the 1990s which saw their complete closure and which
stagnated for 2 years or more before they were re-opened for
rehabilitation. This is the sickest type in terms of deterioration because they
were left entirely to the mercy of the elements without any effort expended
in preserving the quality of the completed works or in preventing them from
further deterioration by proper maintenance.
2. Projects that were operationally stopped upon the issuance of
the courts temporary restraining orders and the subsequent court litigation
between the owner and the contractor for contract violations by both and
for non-compliance with plans and specifications by the contractor and
non-payment of alleged accomplishments by the owner. The project was
the sure loser where the court battle was a long-drawn affair.
Armed with the needed comprehensive Status Report on where the project
stood including the technical and accounting aspects of project
rehabilitation, we met with the owners, architect, designers and marketing
officers to present the difficult problems to overcome and the pragmatic
solutions to turn around the project in the right direction. We made it clear
to them that the ideal solution was to start with a clean slate. Meaning to
say that if we could right away replace all the existing project personnel,
subcontractors, etc. who were deadwoods with our own men, we could
definitely say what to commit and how much we could deliver at a given
time.
Because our hands were tied by securing of tenure and due process
requirements of the law, we had to retain most of the deadwoods and
gave them the chance to prove themselves but under the new rules of the
game we set and expected them to follow if they did not want to foul out
before the gave was over.
In line with our policy of fair play, we upgraded their present wages to the
latest rate to the latest rate of the minimum daily wage and other benefits
they were entitled to under existing laws but were denied to them.
Experience has taught us that the two great deterrents to high productivity
level are non-payment due benefits under the laws and late payment of
their weekly wages.
In our initial meetings with the project supervisors and technical staff, we
repeatedly stressed the necessity of working together as a team. That
cooperative and coordinative effort is a must for one and all because the
project is the individual and collective responsibility of all project
participants. No one should think of his work to be his only responsibility but
must always look at doing it in relation to its effect on the work of others.
Accordingly, we imposed sanctions against non-compliance with these
obligations they have to one another.
A few months after we had installed the right management organizational
structure affecting the functional realignment of responsibilities, especially
the daily monitoring of the daily activities, many of the deadwoods
voluntarily got out while the due process of weeding out the rest of the
undesirables went on without let-up. When the entire project manpower
had been substantially replaced by men of our choice, the control and
direction of the whole project had gradually shifted to us and overall
productivity visibly went up in terms of completed works and workers
morale.
Today these once very sick projects have been turned around after the
cancerous growths in their bodies had been surgically removed and their
failing health restored by remedial treatment.
At this point, let me draw your attention to the fact that all the aforenamed
projects we rehabilitated are examples of the curative function of project
implementation. At the jobsite, problems delays, cost overruns and poor
workmanship recur with regularity so much so that they are assumed to be
inherent in construction. But if these jobsite problems are searching
analyzed, their main root can be traced to the following:
Incomplete Plans and Specifications and Their Manifold Revisions
More often than not, the construction of a project is started with very
incomplete plans and specifications, usually without the necessary details.
Moreover, these said plans are issued to the field on a piecemeal basis in
the course of construction.
The owner hires an architect to design the building and who at the same
time acts as his representative/consultant on the project. He also hires the
designers for specialty works: structural, mechanical, electrical, sanitary,
architectural, etc. who commence their preliminary designs based on the
initial floor plans/elevations of the architect.
Sometimes, even before the contractor can start the project, changes or
revisions for the owner and architect take place, and many more revisions
come as construction goes on especially after the specialty designers have
submitted their respective designs, and discrepancies or conflicts are
discovered within the individual designs. Altogether, these continuing
changes or revisions along with the shop drawings requiring the approval of
the designer concerned necessarily extend the original time schedule and
increase the original budget.
It is to be noted that the seemingly endless revisions of the plans and
specifications are disadvantageous to contractors who are poor in
documenting their legitimate money claims, not to speak to their
reluctance to bill little amounts of valid claims for change orders out of their
timidity or fear of falling out of the owners good graces. In fact, even when
their delays can qualify for time extensions, they may not have the courage
to claim it in the absence of documents to support it. So, they may instead
end up paying liquidated damages that is deductive from their billings.
The puzzling question is: how can a Project/Construction Manager fulfill his
contract at a fee of 0.70%? Like the contractor who accepted the contract
at almost no mark-up, the Project/Construction Manager will not be able to
provide the right number of technical administrative and accounting
personnel in the implementation of the project. The Project/Construction
Manager will seek the favor of the contractor by shifting some routine
activities to the latter and by obtaining required information and data to
make his regular reports to the owner. As this is a case of you scratch my
back and Ill scratch yours, the Project/Construction Manager will return
the favor by playing blind to the contractors violations of his contract. So
the project becomes afflicted with delays, sub-standard materials,
defective works and poor quality.
The end-result is a sick project caused by both the owner and the Project
Manager. The very low price of the contract which the owner considers as
savings is actually a loss. The real loser, however, is the contractor who
cannot depend upon the Project Manager to protect him as the project is
his contractual responsibility and he is directly accountable for his
performance.
THANK YOU!!!