Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
REGIONAL TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICE
La Trinidad, Benguet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 9, 2008

MEMORANDUM FOR:

THE REGIONAL TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTOR

Regional Technical Services Office
This Office

Thru: Engr. HOSPICIO F. ANGLUBEN, JR.

The CHIEF TAS
Chief TASOfficer – In - Charge

This has reference to the attached request equest justification of Roy L. Manao, ARD, DPWH-
CARof Mauricio T. Macay, Municipal Mayor, Bokod, Benguet, for re-evaluation Alberto N. Gahid,
Project Engineer, DPWH-CAR relative to the adverse finding as per Contract Review of of the
project Construction of Multi-purpose DA building at Poblacion Bokod, Benguet.

Backgrounder the Restoration along Kennon Road, Km. 236+970 – Km. 237+000, Tuba, Benguet
ofCoro-coro bridge in Sadanga, Mt. Province

For your information and guidance. tion and

appropriate action.

ENGR. ROEL F. GUADIZ

Technical Audit Specialist II

1
 Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
CORDLLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
TECHNICAL SERVICES
La Trinidad, Benguet

SUBJECT: : Query of Audit Team DPWH-CAR relative to the COA Technical

Inspection Report dated November 05, 2015 on DPWH RO – CAR
Project ID No. 12PO0057, Road Upgrading(Gravel to Concrete) of
Mt. Province – Ilocos Sur via Tue Road, KO388+000-KO393+380,
I.S.

DATE : June 21, 2016

In her Memorandum to the Service Chief of this Office dated June 6, 2016, the Audit Team
Leader, requested clarification on the inconsistencies noted pertaining to the Pavement Markings
(Edge and Centerline, White).

In no. 3 of the Narrative Findings and Observations of his Inspection Report dated November 5,
2015, Engineer Joseph Padcayan, TAS II, this Office, stated that the pavement markings(Edge
line and Centerline) were shaving excessively and wear and tear were too fast that it was almost
impossible to visualize whether or not the item was fully accomplished or not. Further, under the
Results of Technical Evaluation, a COA verified accomplishment of 100% was assigned
corresponding this item, hence the alleged inconsistency.

When Engineer Padcayan conducted his inspection on October 29, 2015, it was already about
1.50 years since the project was completed on April 30, 2014 but the pavement markings were
already fast deteriorating. Note that based on DPWH Department Order No. 103, particularly
section 612.5, the minimum longevity/durability of applied thermoplastic pavement markings is
two (2) years. We understand that this estimate was based on a normal traffic condition. The
fast deterioration could then be blamed on the abnormality of traffic because of the daily traverse
of heavy equipments used on the other contract phases of the road improvement project that
imposed heavy live loads and friction on the pavement including its markings.

On the No. 03 Narrative Finding and Observation of Engineer Padcayan in his Inspection Report,
he was describing how hard it was for him to identify, count and compute the quantity of applied
pavement markings because some were deteriorating and some already missing. But it was
possible with patience and diligence. As the rest of the TAS usually experience, Engineer
Padcayan could have still recognized in close look and scrutiny the traces like remaining pieces
still in tack and stains on the concrete pavement where these markings were applied. These
along with the as-built plans, Agency Statement of Work Accomplished and pictures of the

2
project after completion, could have convinced Engineer Padcayan to conclude that Item 606.2a
was fully accomplished.

It could also be observed that there were pictures of the pavement that showed portions not
applied with white centerline markings that may also cast doubt of the item’s completion. But
this could be explained by the fact that the revised contract quantity of 301.50 sq.m. of pavement
that measures 0.15 meter x 1.00 meter, distanced 1.00 meter apart, could not cover the total
contracted pavement length of 4,392.32, but only 4,020.00 meters.

With the foregoing, this Office negates the interpretation that there was inconsistency in the
report of Engineer Padcayan.

Prepared by:

Engr. REYMAX F. BOSQUE

Chief TAS

Approved by:

Engr. ALFREDO P.PICO

Service Chief