23JACS02 Pob2 StaMaria ByPassRoad DFR

–
Consulting Services for the Feasibility Study (Phase II)

of Poblacion II - Sta. Maria Bypass Road,
Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur
(Contract ID No. 23JACS02)
CERTEZA INFOSYS CORP.

Unit 202, 204 – 206 VAG Bldg. Ortigas Ave.
Greenhills, San Juan City, Metro Manila
TEL. NO. (632) 8863 - 6158
FAX. NO. (632) 8727 - 0940
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY (PHASE II) OF POBLACION II – STA.
MARIA BYPASS ROAD, ZAMBOANGA CITY, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR
(CONTRACT ID NO. 23JACS02)
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 The Project .......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 About the Contract .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................... 1-2
1.1.3 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.2 Geographical Location of the Study Area ....................................................................... 1-2
2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE.................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Socio-Economic Profile of Zamboanga City ................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Socio-Economic Profile of PAFs ...................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1 Profile of PAFs ................................................................................................................ 2-4
2.2.2 PAFs’ Access to Basic Utilities and Services.................................................................. 2-5
2.2.3 Information About the Potentially Affected Structure ...................................................... 2-7
2.2.4 PAFs’ Gender Roles ..................................................................................................... 2-10
2.2.5 Project Awareness ........................................................................................................ 2-17
3. HYDROLOGIC SURVEY........................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Rainfall ................................................................................................................................ 3-1
4. ALIGNMENT SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Initial Evaluation of Alternative Alignments .................................................................... 4-1
5. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF HIGHWAY ................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Design Controls ................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Highway / Road Classification. ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Design Speed .................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.3 Design Vehicle ................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Geometric Design Criteria ................................................................................................. 5-2
5.3 Horizontal Geometric Design ............................................................................................ 5-4
5.4 Vertical Geometric Design ................................................................................................ 5-4
5.5 Typical Cross Section ........................................................................................................ 5-5
5.6 Pavement Design ............................................................................................................... 5-6
5.6.1 Objective ......................................................................................................................... 5-6
5.6.2 Basis of Design ............................................................................................................... 5-6
i
5.6.3 Pavement Design Requirements .................................................................................... 5-6
5.6.4 Pavement Thickness ....................................................................................................... 5-7
6. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Technical Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 References .......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 The Direct Cost Component .............................................................................................. 6-1
6.4 The Indirect Cost Component ........................................................................................... 6-2
6.5 Pay Item of Works and Corresponding Quantities ......................................................... 6-2
6.6 Detailed Unit Price Analysis (DUPA) and Component ................................................... 6-4
6.6.1 Cost of Labor ................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.6.2 Cost of Equipment ........................................................................................................... 6-4
6.6.3 Cost of Material ............................................................................................................... 6-4
6.6.4 Direct Cost Composition ................................................................................................. 6-4
6.6.5 Composition of Indirect Cost ........................................................................................... 6-8
6.6.6 The Detailed Unit Price Analysis (DUPA) ....................................................................... 6-9
6.7 The Civil Work Cost ......................................................................................................... 6-25
6.7.1 Unit Prices of Pay Item of Works .................................................................................. 6-25
6.7.2 The Estimated Direct Cost (EDC) ................................................................................. 6-27
6.7.3 The Projected Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) .............................................. 6-30
7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Opening Year and Planning Period .................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Project Cost and Maintenance (Annual and Periodic) ................................................... 7-1
7.3 Opportunity Cost of Capital (OCC) ................................................................................... 7-1
7.4 Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) ........................................................................................ 7-1
7.5 Road User’s Cost and Savings ......................................................................................... 7-2
7.6 Economic Feasibility Indicators ....................................................................................... 7-2
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Economic Analysis
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1 Terms of Reference

Annex 2 Notice to Proceed
Annex 3 Road Drawings
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Project Location and Alignment ........................................................................................ 1-1

Figure 2-1. Type of Respondent in the SES ........................................................................................ 2-4
Figure 2-2. Gender of Respondents .................................................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-3. Membership to Ethnic Group ............................................................................................ 2-5
Figure 2-4. Source of Drinking Water .................................................................................................. 2-6
Figure 2-5. Fuel for Cooking ................................................................................................................ 2-6
Figure 2-6. Type of Toilet Facility ........................................................................................................ 2-7
Figure 2-7. Accessible Social Service ................................................................................................. 2-7
Figure 2-8. Use of Structure ................................................................................................................ 2-8
Figure 2-9. Type of House .................................................................................................................. 2-8
Figure 2-10. Type of Roofing .............................................................................................................. 2-9
Figure 2-11. Type of Wall .................................................................................................................... 2-9
Figure 2-12. Decision-Maker in Budgeting Household Income ......................................................... 2-10
Figure 2-13. Decision-Maker in Repairing or Buying a House .......................................................... 2-10
Figure 2-14. Decision-Maker in Budgeting Household Appliance or Assets ..................................... 2-11
Figure 2-15. Decision-Maker in Moving to a New Residence ........................................................... 2-11
Figure 2-16. Decision-Maker in Schooling of Children ...................................................................... 2-12
Figure 2-17. Decision-Maker in Getting a Loan ................................................................................. 2-12
Figure 2-18. Decision-Maker in Planting Activities ............................................................................ 2-13
Figure 2-19. Decision-Maker in Providing Financial Assistance to Relatives / Friends .................... 2-13
Figure 2-20. Gender Role in Preparing Meals ................................................................................... 2-14
Figure 2-21. Gender Role in Taking Care of Children at Home ........................................................ 2-14
Figure 2-22. Gender Role in Taking the Children to School ............................................................. 2-15
Figure 2-23. Gender Role in Cleaning the House ............................................................................. 2-15
Figure 2-24. Gender Role in Garbage Disposal ................................................................................ 2-16
Figure 2-25. Gender Role in Collecting Water .................................................................................. 2-16
Figure 2-26. Gender Role in Going to Market ................................................................................... 2-17
Figure 2-27. Gender Role in Paying Household Expense ................................................................ 2-17
Figure 3-1. Huff’s Four Storm Distributions ......................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 4-1. Alternative Alignments ...................................................................................................... 4-1
Figure 5-1. Typical Cross Section (Normal Crown) ............................................................................. 5-5
Figure 5-2. Typical Cross Section at Zamboanga Airport Area ........................................................... 5-5
Figure 5-3. Typical Cross Section with Superelevation ....................................................................... 5-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Population of Zamboanga City ........................................................................................... 2-1

Table 3-1. Extreme Values of Precipitation ......................................................................................... 3-1
Table 5-1. Minimum Radii for Design Superelevation Rates, Design Speeds, emax = 4% .................. 5-4
Table 6-1. The Summary of Indirect Cost Component ........................................................................ 6-2
iii
Table 6-2. Summary of Quantities and Pay Items ............................................................................... 6-2
Table 6-3. Summary of Schedule of Labor Rates ............................................................................... 6-5
Table 6-4. Summary of Region Construction Materials Price Data ..................................................... 6-6
Table 6-5. Summary of Equipment Hourly Rate .................................................................................. 6-7
Table 6-6. Unit Prices of Pay Item of Works ..................................................................................... 6-25
Table 7-1. Updated DPWH Basic Vehicle Operating Cost from 2019 to 2023 ................................... 7-2
Table 7-2. Summary of the Project ...................................................................................................... 7-3
iv
ABBREVIATIONS:
AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS:
AASHTO : American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials

ACEL : Association of Carriers and Equipment Lessors
DOLE : Department of Labor and Employment
DPWH : Department of Public Works and Highways
LGU : Local Government Unit
ACRONYMS:
AADT : Annual Average Daily Traffic

ABC : Approved Budget for the Contract
CESAL : Cumulative Equivalent Single Axle Load
CLUP : Comprehensive Land Use Plan
DUPA : Detailed Unit Price Analysis
EDC : Estimated Direct Cost
EIRR : Economic Internal Rate of Return
FS : Feasibility Study
GAD : Gender and Development
IRR : Internal Rate of Return
LPG : Liquefied Petroleum Gas
NPV : Net Present Value
NTP : Notice to Proceed
OCM : Overhead, Contingencies and Miscellaneous
PAPs : Project Affected Persons
PAFs : Project-Affected Families
PCCP : Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
PDP : Provincial Development Plans
POCC : Public Opportunity Cost of Capital
POW : Program of Works
RDP : Regional Development Plans
RCMPD : Region Construction Materials Prices Data
ROW : Right-of-Way
SES : Socio-Economic Survey
TOR : Terms of Reference
v
Contract ID No. 23JACS02: Consulting Services for the Feasibility Study (Phase II)
Of Poblacion II – Sta. Maria Bypass Road, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Project
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in Zamboanga City Region IX through its
District Office seeks to improve its network of existing urban road transport, wherein further
development of the Poblacion – Sta. Maria Road is foreseen to positively impact the travel time and
road safety.
The Poblacion II – Sta. Maria Road is an existing city road which is proposed to be converted to a
national road. The estimated length is 2.19 km and traversing the barangays of Sta. Maria and
Pasonanca in Zamboanga City, Region IX. The project road alignment southern end is at the
intersection of Gov. Camins Avenue while the norther end terminates at the intersection of Zamboanga
City Bypass Road.
The consultancy services for the Feasibility Study of subject-project are aimed at determining the
viability of the road alignment considering the technical, economic and social aspect. The findings of
the Study are intended for use by the DPWH for programming purposes and for its implementation
through local financing/external sources if determined to be feasible.
The proposed road represented by the orange line is shown in the figure below.
Figure 1-1. Project Location and Alignment
1.1.1 About the Contract
The contract for the consulting services in conduct of Feasibility Study for Poblacion – Sta. Maria Road
(Phase II) was awarded by DPWH Zamboanga City District Engineering Office to Certeza Infosys Corp
1-1
(the Consultant) under Contract No. 23JACS02 on December 13, 2023. The Terms of Reference of the
project is shown in Annex 1. The study will be undertaken for a period of two (2) months, starting
December 29, 2023 as agreed upon during the kick-off meeting and adjusted from the date of the
issuance of a Notice to Proceed (NTP) found in Annex 2.
1.1.2 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study are as follows:
• Consolidate the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), Regional Development Plans (RDP)
and Provincial Development Plans (PDP), and produce an in-depth socio-economic profile of
the study area;
• Produce an in-depth socio-economic profile of the study area, integrating among others the
data population growth, spatial distribution, land use patterns and urban structures, and
economic activities;
• Produce a complete plan and profile with cross-section of the project site;
• Estimate at 20% accuracy, the principal quantities and total cost of each component of the
project taking as reference the recent bids under similar Government projects. And;
• Determine the viability of the project based on technical and economic merits and recommend
to the government the best possible alignment/ structural configuration in consideration of the
construction cost, impact on the environment, social safeguard and other relevant factors such
as on-going and proposed projects of other private and government agencies.
1.1.3 Scope of Work
The report will include only include data gathering related to socio-economic, topographic and
hydrographic, cost estimate, and economic evaluation with the necessary analysis and assessment.
Specifically, as per the Terms of Reference (TOR), the following are the activities for the conduct of this
feasibility study:
• Socio-Economic Survey
• Alignment Survey
• Topographic and Hydrographic Survey
• Hydrological/Drainage/Hydraulic Survey
• Preliminary Engineering Design
• Cost Estimate
• Economic Evaluation
1.2 Geographical Location of the Study Area
Zamboanga City is a first class highly urbanized city in Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula) with a total
population of 861,799 based on the 2015 census, making it the sixth most populous city in the country
and the second most in Mindanao. It is situated at the western tip of the Mindanao mainland; it has
been a natural docking point for vessel traversing the rich fishing grounds of the peninsula and the Sulu
Archipelago. The city is surrounded by bodies of water, Sulu Sea to the West, Moro Gulf and Celebes
Sea to the East, and is also surrounded by Tungawan Bay, Taguiti Bay, Malasugay Bay to the East,
Tictabon Channel and Basilan Straight to the South, and Caldera Bay to the West.
Because of its strategic location, Zamboanga City has been a busy international port being strategically
located on the Basilan Straight. It has an international seaport which can accommodate local inter-
island shipping and international ocean-going vessels and ferries.
In addition, the city generates more than half of the economy of the region being the lone member of
the Brunei Darussalam — Indonesia — Malaysia — Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP –
1-2
EAGA). The city is also dubbed as the Sardines Capital of the Philippines, where 11 out 12 sardines
companies in the country are produced and manufactured.
In physiography, it is bounded by the provinces of Zamboanga Del Norte to the north and by Zamboanga
del Sur to the east, and the Basilan Island to the south. Wherein, geographically it is sheltered from
typhoons by the mountainous Basilan Island, Sulu Archipelago, Palawan Island, and main island of
Mindanao.
Politically, the city is subdivided into 98 barangays these are grouped into two (2) congressional
districts, with 38 barangays in the West Coast and 60 barangays in the East Coast.
The project area is located in Region IX or Zamboanga Peninsula Region and its regional center is
Zamboanga City wherein the Proposed Poblacion II – Sta Maria Bypass Road is situated. The said
project area is a direct influenced area or specifically within the city directly traversed by the project and
expected to benefit from the project. This proposed project is envisaged to function as a diversion or
bypass road for the existing road network that is already experiencing traffic congestion problem. The
direct and indirect influence area within the city would be broaden as the project shall function and
caters to inter-provincial and regional transport movement.
1-3
2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE
The Socio-Economic Profile included in this report is composed of two sets of data. One is the socio-
economic profile of Zamboanga City based on published documents like the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP), Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) and online sources while the other profile is
the Socio-Economic data and analysis as a result of the Socio-Economic Survey where the target
participants are the potential Project-Affected Families (PAFs).
2.1 Socio-Economic Profile of Zamboanga City
Zamboanga City has a land area of 1,414.70 square kilometers or 546.22 square miles. Its population
as determined by the 2020 Census was 977,234. This represented 25.22% of the total population of
the Zamboanga Peninsula region. Based on these figures, the population density is computed at
691 inhabitants per square kilometer or 1,789 inhabitants per square mile.1
The population of Zamboanga City grew from 199,901 in 1970 to 977,234 in 2020, an increase of
777,333 people over the course of 50 years. The latest census figures in 2020 denote a positive growth
rate of 2.68%, or an increase of 115,435 people, from the previous population of 861,799 in 2015 (Table
2-1).
Table 2-1. Population of Zamboanga City

Annual
Population
Population Population Change Population
Barangay percentage
(2020) (2015) (2015-2020) Growth Rate
(2020)
(2015-2020)
Arena Blanco 1.40% 13,671 12,589 8.59% 1.75%
Ayala 2.73% 26,658 22,547 18.23% 3.59%
Baliwasan 1.83% 17,932 25,042 -28.39% -6.79%
Baluno 0.40% 3,865 3,155 22.50% 4.36%
Barangay Zone I 0.49% 4,806 4,112 16.88% 3.34%
Barangay Zone II 0.18% 1,802 2,143 -15.91% -3.58%
Barangay Zone III 0.12% 1,146 1,519 -24.56% -5.76%
Barangay Zone IV 0.12% 1,174 1,309 -10.31% -2.27%
Boalan 1.18% 11,541 8,696 32.72% 6.14%
Bolong 0.83% 8,068 6,460 24.89% 4.79%
Buenavista 0.83% 8,154 6,485 25.74% 4.94%
Bunguiao 0.81% 7,952 7,287 9.13% 1.86%
Busay 0.23% 2,290 3,359 -31.82% -7.75%
Cabaluay 0.91% 8,849 6,350 39.35% 7.23%
Cabatangan 1.82% 17,812 13,680 30.20% 5.71%
Cacao 0.13% 1,311 1,347 -2.67% -0.57%
Calabasa 0.30% 2,936 3,222 -8.88% -1.94%
Calarian 3.43% 33,563 28,899 16.14% 3.20%
Camino Nuevo 0.76% 7,421 7,739 -4.11% -0.88%
Campo Islam 1.20% 11,730 12,552 -6.55% -1.42%
Canelar 1.08% 10,512 11,100 -5.30% -1.14%
Capisan 0.15% 1,488 1,408 5.68% 1.17%
Cawit 1.05% 10,244 9,249 10.76% 2.17%
1 https://www.philatlas.com/mindanao/r09/zamboanga-city.html
2-1
Annual
Population
Barangay percentage
(2020) (2015) (2015-2020) Growth Rate
(2020)
(2015-2020)
Culianan 1.11% 10,851 8,318 30.45% 5.75%
Curuan 1.22% 11,954 8,796 35.90% 6.67%
Dita 0.21% 2,028 2,085 -2.73% -0.58%
Divisoria 1.35% 13,172 9,218 42.89% 7.80%
Dulian (Upper
0.26% 2,569 2,570 -0.04% -0.01%
Bunguiao)
Dulian (Upper
0.15% 1,489 1,325 12.38% 2.49%
Pasonanca)
Guisao 0.26% 2,583 3,398 -23.98% -5.61%
Guiwan 1.35% 13,231 14,302 -7.49% -1.63%
Kasanyangan 2.95% 28,819 14,114 104.19% 16.21%
La Paz 0.89% 8,724 7,557 15.44% 3.07%
Labuan 1.65% 16,095 11,457 40.48% 7.42%
Lamisahan 0.28% 2,764 2,289 20.75% 4.05%
Landang Gua 0.32% 3,154 2,993 5.38% 1.11%
Landang Laum 0.32% 3,095 4,768 -35.09% -8.69%
Lanzones 0.38% 3,689 3,287 12.23% 2.46%
Lapakan 0.19% 1,868 1,378 35.56% 6.61%
Latuan 0.27% 2,615 2,457 6.43% 1.32%
Licomo 0.60% 5,888 5,317 10.74% 2.17%
Limaong 0.49% 4,766 4,000 19.15% 3.76%
Limpapa 0.62% 6,060 5,782 4.81% 0.99%
Lubigan 0.33% 3,249 2,945 10.32% 2.09%
Lumayang 0.20% 1,999 1,471 35.89% 6.67%
Lumbangan 0.46% 4,461 3,235 37.90% 7.00%
Lunzuran 1.35% 13,232 9,931 33.24% 6.23%
Maasin 0.95% 9,267 8,958 3.45% 0.72%
Malagutay 0.85% 8,265 6,657 24.16% 4.66%
Mampang 3.27% 31,975 34,312 -6.81% -1.47%
Manalipa 0.26% 2,588 2,143 20.77% 4.05%
Mangusu 0.57% 5,608 4,783 17.25% 3.41%
Manicahan 1.23% 11,999 10,081 19.03% 3.73%
Mariki 0.65% 6,310 1,775 255.49% 30.60%
Mercedes 2.28% 22,321 14,721 51.63% 9.16%
Muti 0.35% 3,420 2,983 14.65% 2.92%
Pamucutan 0.45% 4,404 4,059 8.50% 1.73%
Pangapuyan 0.08% 767 590 30.00% 5.68%
Panubigan 0.10% 982 1,610 -39.01% -9.88%
Pasilmanta 0.32% 3,138 2,122 47.88% 8.58%
Pasobolong 0.58% 5,624 3,758 49.65% 8.86%
Pasonanca 2.78% 27,215 27,374 -0.58% -0.12%
Patalon 1.14% 11,127 8,128 36.90% 6.83%
2-2
Annual
Population
Barangay percentage
(2020) (2015) (2015-2020) Growth Rate
(2020)
(2015-2020)
Putik 2.28% 22,271 19,681 13.16% 2.64%
Quiniput 0.41% 4,015 3,329 20.61% 4.02%
Recodo 2.38% 23,254 17,395 33.68% 6.30%
Rio Hondo 0.90% 8,827 3,326 165.39% 22.81%
Salaan 0.37% 3,623 4,073 -11.05% -2.43%
San Jose Cawa-
0.44% 4,292 6,173 -30.47% -7.36%
cawa
San Jose Gusu 1.66% 16,260 16,723 -2.77% -0.59%
San Roque 2.95% 28,829 27,889 3.37% 0.70%
Sangali 2.74% 26,758 20,766 28.85% 5.48%
Santa Barbara 0.69% 6,711 4,762 40.93% 7.49%
Santa Catalina 1.70% 16,644 17,294 -3.76% -0.80%
Santa Maria 2.47% 24,133 25,185 -4.18% -0.89%
Santo Niño 0.40% 3,888 4,129 -5.84% -1.26%
Sibulao 0.43% 4,167 4,244 -1.81% -0.38%
Sinubung 0.37% 3,601 4,689 -23.20% -5.41%
Sinunoc 2.35% 22,918 16,507 38.84% 7.15%
Tagasilay 0.41% 3,998 2,971 34.57% 6.45%
Taguiti 0.14% 1,328 1,460 -9.04% -1.97%
Talabaan 0.60% 5,907 5,340 10.62% 2.15%
Talisayan 1.17% 11,428 8,220 39.03% 7.18%
Talon-talon 3.82% 37,350 34,916 6.97% 1.43%
Taluksangay 0.97% 9,437 10,237 -7.81% -1.70%
Tetuan 3.03% 29,621 29,785 -0.55% -0.12%
Tictapul 0.36% 3,527 3,817 -7.60% -1.65%
Tigbalabag 0.22% 2,109 1,803 16.97% 3.35%
Tigtabon 0.55% 5,365 5,292 1.38% 0.29%
Tolosa 0.39% 3,859 2,773 39.16% 7.20%
Tugbungan 2.72% 26,538 23,837 11.33% 2.29%
Tulungatung 1.20% 11,741 9,246 26.98% 5.16%
Tumaga 3.42% 33,399 30,824 8.35% 1.70%
Tumalutab 0.35% 3,436 2,417 42.16% 7.69%
Tumitus 0.28% 2,731 3,026 -9.75% -2.14%
Victoria 0.35% 3,393 2,802 21.09% 4.11%
Vitali 1.10% 10,716 9,406 13.93% 2.78%
Zambowood 1.32% 12,870 10,166 26.60% 5.09%
Zamboanga City Total 977,234 861,799 13.39% 2.68%
Source: https://www.philatlas.com
2-3
2.2 Socio-Economic Profile of PAFs
The Project Affected People (PAPs) are any person, household, firm, or a private or public institution
who will be affected by the ROW of the proposed project, fully or partially which will lead to loss of their
real properties (i.e., land and structures), other improvements, and crops and trees.
A subset of the PAPs is the Project Affected Families (PAFs) or all members of a household residing
under one roof and operating as a single economic unit which are currently residing along the proposed
ROW of the proposed Poblacion II – Sta. Maria Road.
During the initial socio-economic survey conducted on December 8, 2022, a total of 40 respondents
were interviewed. These respondents were estimated to be located within the ROW limit of the
proposed road.
2.2.1 Profile of PAFs
Majority of the respondents or were either the household heads or the spouse (
Figure 2-1). This means that the data that were gathered can be considered most likely accurate. In
terms of gender, 70% were female while 30% were male (Figure 2-2).
TYPE OF RESPONDENT
Other
13%
Household Head
Sibling
30%
8%
Son/Daughter
17%
Spouse
32%
Figure 2-1. Type of Respondent in the SES
2-4
GENDER OF RESPONDENTS
Male
30%
Female
70%
Figure 2-2. Gender of Respondents
Ninety-five percent (95%) of the respondents mentioned that they are members of the indigenous
peoples (IPs). Chavacano has the highest percentage in terms of ethnic group (79%) (Figure 2-3).
ETHNIC GROUP MEMBERSHIP
Tagalog
11%
Bisaya
10%
Chavacano
79%
Figure 2-3. Membership to Ethnic Group
2.2.2 PAFs’ Access to Basic Utilities and Services
Majority (50%) of the respondents source their drinking water by purchasing purified water, 35% from
tap water and 15% from spring (Figure 2-4).
All respondents mentioned that they tap the local power provider for electricity.
2-5
SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER
Tap Water
35%
Purchased Purified Water
50%
Spring
15%
Figure 2-4. Source of Drinking Water
The respondents mentioned that their main fuel for cooking comes from liquified petroleum gas (LPG)
(65%), 33% from charcoal, and 2% from wood (Figure 2-5).
SOURCE OF FUEL COOKING

Wood
2%
Charcoal
33%
LPG
65%
Figure 2-5. Fuel for Cooking
In terms of toilet facility, 93% of the respondents mentioned that they have semi- toilets while 7% has
open-pit (Figure 2-6).
2-6
TYPE OF TOILET FACILITY

Open-pit
7%
Semi-flush
93%
Figure 2-6. Type of Toilet Facility
When asked about the accessibility of social service facilities within the vicinity of the survey area, 47%
of the respondents mentioned that they have access to educational facilities and 40% have access to
the recreational facilities. Approximately 7% of the respondents mentioned that they have access to
health facilities, 3% to social organization facilities while another 3% have access to other facilities
(Figure 2-7).
ACCESSIBLE SOCIAL SERVICES
Social Organizations Others

3% 3%
Health Facilities
7%
Recreational
Facilities
Educational
40%
Facilities
47%
Figure 2-7. Accessible Social Service
2.2.3 Information About the Potentially Affected Structure
Approximately 90% of the affected structure is currently being used for residential purposes while 7%
is for commercial purposes. Three percent is used for other purposes (Figure 2-8). It should be noted
that during the socio-economic survey and asset inventory, some tagged structures were considered
currently being used for residential-commercial purposes too.
2-7
USE OF STRUCTURE
Others
3%
Commercial
7%
Residential
90%
Figure 2-8. Use of Structure
The materials used in the house/ potentially affected structure were also initially surveyed. Based on
observations, 43% of the affected structures surveyed were made of combination of wood and concrete,
27% was made of light materials, 13% were made predominantly concrete, 5% was predominantly
made of wood and 12% were considered shanty (Figure 2-9).
TYPE OF HOUSE
Shanty
12%
Combination of wood and

concrete
43%
Light Materials
27%
Predominantly Wooden
Predominantly Concrete 5%
13%
Figure 2-9. Type of House
Approximately 52% of the roofing materials of the potentially affected structures were made of
galvanized iron (GI) sheet, 15% was made of nipa, 10% made of wood and 10% made of cogon/grass.
Other roofing materials were used in the remaining 13% of the structures (Figure 2-10).
2-8
TYPE OF ROOFING
Others Nipa
13% 15%
Wood
10%
Cogon/Grass
10%
G.I Sheet
52%
Figure 2-10. Type of Roofing
Based on observation during the survey, 49% of the potentially affected structure used concrete on
their walls, 26% wood, 24% used bamboo and 1% grass (Figure 2-11).
TYPE OF WALL
Grass
1%
Bamboo
24%
Concrete
49%
Wood
26%
Figure 2-11. Type of Wall
2-9
2.2.4 PAFs’ Gender Roles
A. Decision-Maker in the Household
Based on the Gender and Development (GAD) survey of the potentially project-affected households,
majority or 55% who decides in budgeting household income are both husband and wife, 20% wife
only, and 25% are husband only (Figure 2-12).
DECISION-MAKER IN BUDGETING
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Husband Only
25%
Both husband
and wife
55%
Wife Only
20%
Figure 2-12. Decision-Maker in Budgeting Household Income
In terms of repairing or buying a house, 65% of the respondents answered that the husband is the
decision-maker. Twenty (20%) mentioned that this decision comes from both the husband and wife and
15% from wife only (Figure 2-13).
DECISION-MAKER IN REPAIRING OR BUYING A

HOUSE
Both
Husband/Wife
20%
Wife Only
15%
Husband Only
65%
Figure 2-13. Decision-Maker in Repairing or Buying a House
2-10
When it comes to decision-making in budgeting to buy appliance or assets, 50% of the respondents
said that the wife gets to decide, 48% responded it is both the husband and wife, 2% answered the
husband only (Figure 2-14).
BUYING HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES OR

ASSETS
Husband Only
2%
Both
Husband/Wife Wife Only
48% 50%
Figure 2-14. Decision-Maker in Budgeting Household Appliance or Assets
When asked who gets to decide in moving to a new residence, 83% of the respondents said that both
husband and wife while 17% answered wife only (Figure 2-15).
MOVING TO A NEW RESIDENCE
Wife Only
17%
Both husband
and wife
83%
Figure 2-15. Decision-Maker in Moving to a New Residence
Majority or 55% of the respondents said that both the husband and wife decide in terms of schooling
the children while 45% said it is the decision of the wife only (Figure 2-16).
2-11
SCHOOLING OF CHILDREN
Both husband Wife Only

and wife 45%
55%
Figure 2-16. Decision-Maker in Schooling of Children
Majority or 90% of the respondents said that both husband and wife decide in terms of getting a loan
while 10% said it is the decision of the husband only (Figure 2-17).
GETTING A LOAN
Husband Only
10%
Both husband
and wife
90%
Figure 2-17. Decision-Maker in Getting a Loan
Majority or 87% of the respondents said that the wife gets to decide in terms of planting activities while
13% said it is the decision of both the husband and wife (Figure 2-18).
2-12
PLANTING ACTIVITIES
Both husband
and wife
13%
Wife Only
87%
Figure 2-18. Decision-Maker in Planting Activities
When it comes to decision-making in providing financial assistance to relatives / friends, 97% of the
respondents said that both the husband and wife get to decide while 3% responded other female
members (Figure 2-19).
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO RELATIVES/

FRIENDS
Other Female
Members
3%
Both husband and wife

97%
Figure 2-19. Decision-Maker in Providing Financial Assistance to Relatives / Friends
All of the respondents said that both the husband and wife decide in terms allowing relatives to move
into the house.
B. Gender Roles in the Household
In terms of doing household chores, majority or 90% of the respondents said the wife prepares the
meals while 5% said the other male members (Figure 2-20).
2-13
PREPARING MEALS
Other Male
Members
5%
Wife Only
95%
Figure 2-20. Gender Role in Preparing Meals
Majority or 82% of the respondents answered that the wife takes care of the children at home while
10% said that is the responsibility of other female members. Five percent (5%) mentioned that is the
role of the husband only and 3% said it is the role of both the husband and wife (Figure 2-21).
TAKING CARE OF THE CHILDREN AT HOME

Other Female
Members
10% Husband Only
Both husband 5%
and wife
3%
Wife Only
82%
Figure 2-21. Gender Role in Taking Care of Children at Home
In terms of the role of taking the children to school, 58% of the respondents said that it is the role of the
wife, 30% said both the husband and wife and 12% the husband only (Figure 2-22).
2-14
TAKING THE CHILDREN TO SCHOOL
Both husband Husband Only

and wife 12%
30%
Wife Only
58%
Figure 2-22. Gender Role in Taking the Children to School
When it comes to cleaning the house, 46% of the respondents said that it is the role of both the husband
and wife, 35% said the wife only, 5% the husband only and 14% other female members of the household
(Figure 2-23).
CLEANING THE HOUSE
Other Female
Members
18%
Both
Husband/Wife
15%
Wife Only
67%
Figure 2-23. Gender Role in Cleaning the House
When it comes to garbage disposal, 57% of the respondents said that it is the role of the husband, 38%
other female members of the household and 5% said the wife only (Figure 2-24).
2-15
DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE
Other Male
Members
38%
Husband Only
57%
Wife Only
5%
Figure 2-24. Gender Role in Garbage Disposal
In terms of the role of collecting water, 60% of the respondents said that it is the role of other male
members of the household, 20% said the wife only and 20% the husband only (Figure 2-25).
COLLECTING WATER
Husband Only
20%
Other Male Both husband and

Members wife
60% 20%
Figure 2-25. Gender Role in Collecting Water
In terms of the role of going to market, 62% of the respondents said that it is the role of the wife, 28%
said the other female members, 7% the husband only and 5% other male members of the household
(Figure 2-26).
2-16
GOING TO THE MARKET

Other Male
Members Husband Only
5% 5%
Other Female
Members
28%
Wife Only
62%
Figure 2-26. Gender Role in Going to Market
When it comes to paying the household expense, 45% of the respondents said that it is the role of the
husband, 20% said both the husband and wife, 15% the wife only, 13% other male members of the
households and 7% other female members of the household (Figure 2-27).
PAYING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE

Other Male Members
13%
Other Female
Members
7%
Husband Only
Both husband 45%
and wife
20%
Wife Only
15%
Figure 2-27. Gender Role in Paying Household Expense
2.2.5 Project Awareness
When asked about the Proposed Poblacion to Sta. Maria Road awareness, approximately 90% of the
respondents mentioned that they are not familiar with the project while the remaining 10% were
familiar with the project.
When asked about the source of project information, all the respondents mentioned that they have
heard them from LGU/barangay announcement (e.g., distribution of flyers/pamphlets, notice in posted
in barangay hall, etc.).
2-17
3. HYDROLOGIC SURVEY
The hydrological analysis determines the amount of surface runoff generated by precipitation in the
delineated catchment area for a given waterway on selected rainfall return period (RRP). The RRP is
selected and dictated by the road classification. The higher is the road category, the longer is the
applicable RRP. This is to ensure that the road system will be operational during extreme weather
conditions wherein roads of lower category could be overtopped and made non-operational.
The hydrologic characteristic of the area determines the amount of surface runoff that will affect the
different project components. The hydrologic characterization includes catchment delineation,
topography, rainfall intensity assumption, and other relevant factors for accurate prediction and
quantification of surface runoff within the acceptable level of engineering confidence. The available
secondary information on the hydrologic characteristics in the area are applied for the hydrologic
simulation using the Hydrologic Engineering Center – Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS). The
HEC-HMS is designed to simulate the precipitation-runoff processes of dendritic watershed systems. It
is designed to be applicable in a wide range of geographic areas for solving problems in river basin
water supply, flood hydrology, and small urban or natural watershed runoff. The hydrographs produced
by the program are used in conjunction with River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) for hydraulic simulation
to determine the water level in the river.
3.1 Rainfall
The PAGASA Climatological Station in Zamboanga, Zamboanga del Sur has climate data which is
assumed to also represent the climate condition in the project area. The extreme values of precipitation
based on 29 years of record from Zamboanga, Zamboanga del Sur weather station is presented in the
table below.
Table 3-1. Extreme Values of Precipitation

Greatest
Daily
Month Rainfall Date
Amount
(mm)
January 128.0 01-23-1916
February 156.5 02-26-1928
March 96.0 03-14-2014
April 106.0 04-30-2004
May 88.9 05-13-1990
June 123.5 06-20-2008
July 140.4 07-09-1940
August 136.6 08-29-1952
September 193.2 09-29-1990
October 199.1 10-09-2001
November 163.3 11-27-1955
December 161.0 12-02-1910
Source: PAG-ASA
The applicable rainfall return period (RRP) for the proposed road project is 50-Years with the 100-Years
RRP to be used for checking the design of bridge.
3-1
To estimate the hyetograph or graphical representation of the distribution of rainfall intensity over time,
the Huff Method is applied. The Huff Method has four storm distributions named the first, second, third,
and fourth quartiles. The quartile indicates the period of occurrence of highest rainfall intensity.
According to Huff, storms with short duration of six hours or less should be distributed using the 1st
quartile; storms greater than 6 hours up to 12 hours is in 2nd quartile; storms greater than 12 hours up
to 24 hours should use the 3rd quartile; and 4th quartile is for storm of more than 24 hours. The
cumulative rainfall distribution as suggested by Huff is shown in the figure below.
Source: http://www.alanasmith.com/theory-Derivation-Huff-Storm.htm
Figure 3-1. Huff’s Four Storm Distributions
3-2
4. ALIGNMENT SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Initial Evaluation of Alternative Alignments
From the road layouts of connecting and adjacent roads and topographic characteristics, the alignments
will use the existing roads to avoid too much impact to the existing properties and utilities. Three
alignment options were developed with the descriptions below.
Zamboanga
Bypass Road
1
2 3
Zamboanga
Airport
Figure 4-1. Alternative Alignments
Alternative 1 or the Central Alignment is an existing road named Sta Maria Road. Private properties
and commercial establishments are present on both sides of this road. It is currently a 2-lane road (1
per direction) with estimated 1m shoulder both sides and less than a meter sidewalk. This alignment
will have the least ROW acquisition between the three alternatives as it already has wide corridor.
Alternative 2 or the Western Alignment is a combination of existing road and undeveloped private
properties. It will have the same starting point with alternative 1 and will turn left going to the existing
road named Saavedra Street. It also has adjacent private properties and commercial establishments
on both sides but with a smaller corridor width therefore land acquisition will be larger on this alternative.
After crossing Governor Ramos Avenue, it will run through small barangay roads and undeveloped
private lands to connect to Zamboanga Bypass Road at north end.
Alternative 3 or the Eastern Alignment is similar to Alternative 2. It will also have the same starting
point with Alternative 1 and then it will turn right going to the existing small barangay roads parallel to
Alternative 1. After crossing Governor Ramos Avenue, it will use the existing alignment of Riverdale
Drive and other private properties till it connects to Zamboanga Bypass Road. Land acquisition here
will be the largest as the existing roads here are fewer and narrower than Alternative 2.
4-1
Highway Design
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
and Construction
Description
1. Length 2.17 km 2.42 km 2.31 km
2.Terrain /Profile
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Almost flat grade and no Almost flat grade and no Almost flat grade and no
undulation. undulation. undulation.
3.Alignment/ Road Alignment traversing Alignment traversing Alignment traversing
condition existing paved roads existing paved roads and existing paved roads and
undeveloped private undeveloped private
properties properties
4.Developments Private properties and Private properties and Private properties and
along the commercial commercial establishments commercial establishments
alignment establishments are are present on both sides. are present on both sides.
present on both sides.
5.Utilities Existing utilities along the Existing utilities along the Existing utilities along the
side of existing side of existing side of existing
road/alignment. road/alignment. road/alignment.
6.Farmland None None None
Criteria
4-2
Highway Design
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
and Construction
1.Road length 3 2 1
Shortest, with existing Longest but has more Shorter than 2 but has less
paved roads. existing paved roads than 3. existing paved roads.
2. Availability and 3 2 1
ROW cost
a). Presence of 1.9 2.1 2
development and
communities in
ROW
b). Presence of 2.1 2.1
1.8
utilities in ROW
3 Cost of cut 2 2
2
Not much cut as it is a
flat terrain.
1.9 2.1 2
More existing Less existing utilities and (Need more complex
4.Constructability developments, utilities on developments along the construction methodology
and adjacent to the alignment, and 35% is in flat due to massive cuts and its
alignment terrain) location)
3 1.5
1.5
(Almost straight and will Has bends that needs
5Difficulty to meet Has bends that needs
use existing road complex sight distance
Geometric complex sight distance
alignment) checks and superelevation.
Standards checks and superelevation.
Total 16.6 13.8 11.6

Average 2.37 1.97 1.66
While it is ideal to acquire at least 30-meter Road ROW for National Road in urban or city location, this
might require acquisition costs and social issues, therefore a 24-meter RROW will be used.
Presence of ‘immovable’ landmarks, shrines and cemeteries, and existing utilities, may cause time and
costs in land acquisition within a constricted road corridor.
4-3
5. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF HIGHWAY

5.1 Design Controls
5.1.1 Highway / Road Classification.
The proposed Poblacion II - Sta. Maria Bypass Road in Zamboanga City will be classified as a national
primary road which connects the Gov. Camins Avenue at the southern end and Zamboanga City Bypass
Road at the northern end.
5.1.2 Design Speed
As reference to the road classification, anticipated traffic volume, and site topography; the following
design speed will be adopted in the development of Poblacion II - Sta. Maria Bypass Road.
Desirable Design Speed Minimum Design Speed

Road Element
(km/h) (km/h)
Poblacion II - Sta. Maria
50 40
Bypass Road
5.1.3 Design Vehicle
In accordance to the conducted traffic survey, the largest significant vehicle that will use the proposed
road is a 4-axle semitrailer truck which has the following characteristics below.
5-1
5.2 Geometric Design Criteria
In order to achieve the objectives of the project, the roads, bridges and other structures shall be
designed in consideration of providing a high-grade road as a national road which would facilitate:
• Smoother commodity flow,

• More active economic activities,
• Improve accessibilities and linkage to Zamboanga airport.
The preliminary design of the road, and other structures will be executed mainly in accordance
with the following standards:
• Design Guidelines, Criteria & Standards Volume 4 Highway Design 2015, BoD, DPWH
• DPWH Highway Safety Design Standards Part 1 and 2
5-2
Also, the following standards are referred to:
• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO 2011, 6 th Edition
The following design criteria will be utilized in the design of overall road network.
Criteria Poblacion II - Sta. Maria Bypass Road
Design Speed (km/h) 50 40

SSD Reaction time (seconds) 2.5 2.5
Deceleration rate (m/s2) 3.4 3.4
SSD (m)
car – h1 = 1.08m, object height = 65 50
0.6m
Min Horizontal Curve Length (m) 50 50
Min Vertical Clearance (m) 5.4 5.4
Min tangent (between reverse
30 24
HC) = 0.6V (m)
Min tangent (between compound
50 40
HC) = V (m)
Min Vertical Grade (Lined drains)
0.3% 0.3%
(%)
8%(des),12%(max) up to 8%(des),12%(max) up to
Max Vertical Grade (%)
15%(absolute) 15%(absolute)
Min tangent (between reverse
10 8
VC) = 0.2V (m)
Min tangent (between compound
20 16
VC) = 0.4V (m)
Desirable Min K for car PSD (crest
7 4
VC)
Min K value for sag curve 13 9
Min Vertical Curve Length = 0.6V
30 24
(m)
Des e max 4% 4%
Min R for 2% adverse cross fall
951 679
(m)
Min R for emax (4%) (m) 86 47
Roadway width (m) 3.35 3.35
Roadway Normal Cross fall (%) -2% -2%
Shoulder Normal Cross fall (%) -3% -3%
Cut batters H:V (Desirable) 2:1 2:1
Cut batters H:V (Hard Rock) 0.5:1 0.5:1
Fill batters H:V (H <= 3m) 2:1 2:1
Fill batters H:V (H > 3m) 1.5:1 1.5:1
5-3
5.3 Horizontal Geometric Design
The proposed Poblacion II - Sta. Maria Bypass Road alignment has been based off the preferred
alignment option from the previous alignment selection which was also done in this study. A road
centerline refinement has been made to conform with DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria & Standards
Volume 4 Highway Design 2015.
The horizontal curve radii adopted in the design was based on A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, AASHTO 2011, 6th Edition horizontal curve table adopting the max 4%
superelevation for a more comfortable and safer ride of the motorists.
Table 5-1. Minimum Radii for Design Superelevation Rates, Design Speeds, e max = 4%
The horizontal geometry will follow the existing alignment of Sta. Maria Road starting at the intersection
of existing Gov. Camins Avenue and will end at the intersection of Zamboanga City Bypass Road. The
existing road geometry will be improved to comply to the roads design standards. It will be connected
to the existing gate of Zamboanga City airport which improve the mobility of the passengers entering
and leaving Zamboanga City. The road alignment was established economically to minimize cut and fill
exercise, land requirements, and to prevent unnecessary vegetation clearing. Moreover, the horizontal
alignment gives due consideration with the natural water ways to prevent flooding in the future. There
are key constraints identified and was considered to minimize impact where possible. These were as
follows:
• The existing properties of Zamboanga airport.

• Existing properties adjacent to the proposed alignment.
• Existing ground and underground utilities.
The above constraints form part as a basis for the initial design development of the road alignment.
All sight distance checks and vehicle tracking were done to ensure that all intersections are safe to the
drivers and pedestrians.
5.4 Vertical Geometric Design
The key objective in designing the vertical alignment (where unconstrained) was to match the existing
topography closely as possible, to be able to minimize the cut and fill quantities throughout the site.
5-4
Where possible, the proposed design will ensure that it will limit the amount of reconstruction and
earthworks. The vertical alignment will also be coordinated with the horizontal alignment to provide a
safer driving environment for motorists in accordance with best road design practice.
Vertical alignment throughout the proposed Poblacion II - Sta. Maria Bypass Road was developed in
accordance with the design controls and criteria.
5.5 Typical Cross Section
The proposed road cross section adopted in the design is consistent with DPWH DGCS Volume 4
series of 2015. In consideration of road classification, volume of traffic, and site topography, the
established cross section consists of the following;
Lane width (m) 3.35

Number of Lanes per direction 2
Paved shoulder width (m) 1.50
Right of way width (m)* 24.0

Sidewalk (m) 2.0
Different types of typical cross sections based on locations are shown below.
Figure 5-1. Typical Cross Section (Normal Crown)
Figure 5-2. Typical Cross Section at Zamboanga Airport Area

(Sta 0+000 to Sta 0+100)
5-5
Figure 5-3. Typical Cross Section with Superelevation
5.6 Pavement Design
5.6.1 Objective
The main objective of the pavement design is to come up with the most economical pavement type and
combination of pavement layer thickness that will be sufficient to provide satisfactory service throughout
the design life.
5.6.2 Basis of Design
The basis for the design of pavement structure in this project are the DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria
& Standards Volume 4 Highway Design 2015. AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structure
1993 Edition. The Road Note 29-A Guide to the Structural Design of Bituminous Surfaced Roads in
Tropical and Sub-Tropical Countries, published by the Overseas Unit, Transport and Road Research
Laboratory, United Kingdom.
5.6.3 Pavement Design Requirements
a. Period of Design Analysis
The design analysis for the Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) is 20 years
b. Traffic
The estimated total Traffic Volume that will pass through Sta. Maria Road by year 2026, the
opening year of the project to traffic, and the Traffic Growth Rates as discussed in Traffic
Analysis Report, is as shown below:
AADT – 2026:
Small Bus = 44
Large Bus = 4
Rigid Truck (2 Axle) = 740
Rigid Truck (3 Axle) = 103
Semi-Trailer (3&4 Axle) = 57
Semi-Trailer (5+ Axle) = 46
Truck Trailer (4 Axle) = 10
Truck Trailer (5 Axle) = 10
Traffic Growth Rate: Public Transport = 7.10%; Trucks and Trailer = 5.90 %;
5-6
c. Type of Pavement
In Mindanao Island, the Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) is widely used
because the cement is produced in sufficient quantities. In consideration with the road
maintenance, the PCCP was applied for this project.
5.6.4 Pavement Thickness
The thickness of pavement shall be verified from pavement design analysis using AASHTO method as
contained in the DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards considering the latest Annual
Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and axle loading.
As stated in DPWH Department Order No. 22 Series of 2011, minimum PCCP thickness for new road
construction, rehabilitation or upgrading shall be 280 mm. However, a thickness of less than 280 mm,
but in no case less than 230 mm, may be adopted if the Cumulative Equivalent Single Axle Load
(CESAL) is not more than 7.0 x 106.
Calculated CESAL using AASHTO formula = 31.6 x 106
Given the calculated CESAL value exceeds 7.0 x 10^6, a 280 mm thick PCCP layer and a 200 mm
thick aggregate sub-base coarse layer are recommended for this road.
5-7
6. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
6.1 Technical Introduction
This chapter discusses the preliminary cost estimates prepared using the unit price analysis method.
The consolidation and formalization of the preliminary cost estimates for feasibility study are in
accordance with the latest and prevailing DPWH – Department Orders (DOs). The prevailing material,
equipment, and labor components in the project areas were implied. Quantity estimation for each pay
item of work will be provided in tabulation and all traceable files in Excel will be officially enclosed and
submitted. This preliminary cost estimates are prepared with a projection of the project’s potential
approved budget for the contract (ABC);
6.2 References
The following references were referred to in the integration of the proposed project’s preliminary cost
estimates in line with the latest and prevailing standards of preliminary design, standard pay item list,
program of works and approved budget for the contract (ABC), namely:
• Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Department Order (DO) No. 30 Series of
2020 – Guidelines and Checklists of Requirements in the Preparation of Engineering Plan for
Feasibility Study (FS) and Conceptual Design Plan for Highways, Bridges, and Water
Engineering Projects;
2022 – Guidelines on the Conduct of Feasibility Studies for Roads, Bridges, Flood Control,
Drainage and other Water-Related Projects;
2023 – Revised Standard Pay Item List for DPWH Infrastructure Projects, Volume II (Highways,
Bridges and Airports) & Volume III (Buildings, Ports and Harbors, Flood Control and Drainage
Structures and Water Supply System);
2016 – Revised Guidelines in the Preparation of Approved Budget for the Contract;
2019 – Prescribing the Use of DPWH Cost Estimation Application (CEA) in the Preparation of
Program of Works (POW) and Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) for Civil Works Projects;
• Other similar projects nationwide.
6.3 The Direct Cost Component
• Materials: Region Construction Materials Prices Data (RCMPD). The latest / prevailing
Construction Materials Prices Data as generated, approved and furnished by DPWH – Regional
Office Technical Working Group (ROTWG) and District Engineering Office Technical Working
Group (DEOTWG) for Region IX.
• Labor: Region Standard Labor Rates (SLR). The latest / prevailing Standard Labor Rates as
generated, approved and furnished by DPWH – Regional Office Technical Working Group
(ROTWG) and District Engineering Office Technical Working Group (DEOTWG) for Region IX.
• Equipment: The latest and prevailing Association of Carriers and Equipment Lessors (ACEL),
INC. Equipment Guidebook Guiding Rates.
6-1
6.4 The Indirect Cost Component
• Overhead Expenses: Ranges from 7 to 11% of the Estimated Direct Cost (EDC).
• Contingencies: Ranges from 0.5 to 3% of the Estimated Direct Cost (EDC).
• Miscellaneous Expenses: Ranges from 0.5 to 1% of the Estimated Direct Cost.
• Contractor’s Profit Margin:
✓ 8% of the Estimated Direct Cost (EDC) for projects above PhP5million.
✓ 10% of the Estimated Direct Cost for projects up to PhP5million.
• VAT Component: 5% of the sum of Estimated Direct Cost (EDC), Overhead, Contingencies &
Miscellaneous Expenses and Profit.
Table 6-1. The Summary of Indirect Cost Component

INDIRECT COST % FOR TOTAL
ESTIMATED OCM AND PROFIT INDIRECT COST
DIRECT COST
OCM PROFIT % FOR
(EDC)
(% OF EDC) (% OF EDC) OCM AND PROFIT
Up to P5Million 15 10 25
Above P5M up to P50M 12 8 20
Above P50M up to P150M 10 8 18
Above P150M 8 8 16
6.5 Pay Item of Works and Corresponding Quantities
The description of pay item of works and corresponding quantities are summarized in Table 6-2 below:
Table 6-2. Summary of Quantities and Pay Items

Volume II
PART A - FACILITIES FOR THE ENGINEER
Pay Item Unit of
Description Quantity
Number Measure
A.1.1 Offices and Laboratory for the Engineer
Provision of Field Office for the Engineer (Rental
A.1.1 (8) Lump Sum 1.00
Basis)
Provision of Furnitures/Fixtures, Equipment and
A.1.1 (11) Lump Sum 1.00
Appliances for the Field Office for the Engineer.
Operation & Maintenance of Field Office for the
A.1.1 (16) Lump Sum 1.00
Engineer
A.1.2 Vehicles for the Engineer
Provision of 4x4 Pick Up Type Service Vehicle for the
A.1.2 (2) Lump Sum 1.00
Engineer on Bare Rental Basis
Operation and Maintenance of 4x4 Pick Up Type
A.1.2 (5) Lump Sum 1.00
Service Vehicle for the Engineer
A.1.4 Photographs
A.1.4 (1) Provision of Progress Photographs Lump Sum 1.00
PART B - OTHER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
B.3 Permits and Clearances Lump Sum 1.00
B.4 (1) Construction Survey and Staking Lump Sum 1.00
B.5 Project Billboard / Signboard Lump Sum 1.00
B.7 (1) Occupational Safety and Health Program Lump Sum 1.00
B.9 Mobilization / Demobilization Lump Sum 1.00
6-2
B.14 Environmental Management and Monitoring Lump Sum 1.00

PART C - EARTHWORK
Item 100 - Clearing and Grubbing
100 (1) Clearing and Grubbing Hectare 6.00
Item 102 - Excavation
Cubic 1,307.9
102 (1) Unsuitable Excavation
Meter 8
Cubic 9,155.8
102 (2) Surplus Common Excavation
Meter 8
Item 103 - Structure Excavation
Cubic 2,615.9
103 (1)a Structure Excavation, Common Soil
Meter 7
Item 104 - Embankment
Embankment from roadway/structure excavation, Cubic
104 (1)a 336.97
Common Soil Meter
Cubic 1,347.8
104 (2)a Embankment from borrow, Common Soil
Meter 8
Item 105 - Subgrade Preparation
Square 41,390.
105 (1)a Subgrade Preparation, Common Material
Meter 36
PART D - SUBBASE AND BASE COURSE
Item 200 - Aggregate Subbase Course
Cubic 8,312.7
200 (1) Aggregate Subbase Course
Meter 1
PART E - SURFACE COURSES
Item 311 - Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (Unreinforced) Square
311 (1)f1 10,473.
0.30 m thick, 14 days Meter
77
PART H - MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES
Item 600 - Curb and Gutter
Linear
600 (4) Curb and Gutter, Cast in Place 4,196.2
Meter
2
Item 605 - Road Sign
Warning Signs, 600 mm, W1-1A, Horizontal
605 (1)a1 Each
Alignment Sharp Turn L or R 12.00
Regulatory Signs, 600 x 600 mm, R1-1A, Priority
605 (2)a2 Each
Signs Stop 5.00
Guide or Information Signs, G1-1, Advance Direction
605 (3)a1 Each
Signs Stack Signs 2.00
Guide or Information Signs, G1-4, Advance Direction
605 (3)b1 Each
Signs Diagrammatic Direction Signs 2.00
Item 612 - Reflective Thermoplastic Striping Material (Solid Form)
Reflectorized Thermoplastic Pavement Markings Square
612 (1) 1,266.3
White Meter
7
Reflectorized Thermoplastic Pavement Markings Square
612 (2)
Yellow Meter 35.25
6-3
6.6 Detailed Unit Price Analysis (DUPA) and Component
6.6.1 Cost of Labor
The labor composition emphasized in the calculation of the detailed unit price analysis are the following:
• Salaries and Wages, as authorized by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
• Fringe Benefits such as vacation and sick leaves, benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, GSIS and/or SSS contributions, allowances, 13th month pay, bonuses, etc.
6.6.2 Cost of Equipment
The equipment composition is based on the following:
• Prevailing and Latest “Association of Carriers and Equipment Lessors (ACEL), Inc.” approved
for the by the Department of Public Works and Highways.
6.6.3 Cost of Material
The material composition integrated for the cost of materials in the preparation of work items preliminary
estimate, inter alia, are the following:
• Cost at source, including processing, crushing, stockpiling, loading, royalties, local taxes,
construction and/or maintenance of haul loads, etc.;
• Expenses for hauling to project site;
• Handling expenses;
• Storage expenses; and
• Allowance for waste and/or losses not to exceed 5% of material requirement.
6.6.4 Direct Cost Composition
Summarized below in Table 6-3 is the Latest and Prevailing Standard Labor Rates for Region IX,
Zamboanga Peninsula, as of December 2023.
6-4
Table 6-3. Summary of Schedule of Labor Rates

December 2023 – Region IX, Zamboanga Peninsula
Labor Basic Wage 13th Social Benefits

Resource Rate Per Rate Per Rate Per
Description Cost Leaves Month
Code No. Phil Month Day Hour
Factor Daily Monthly Pay SSS Pag IBIG
Health
1.0 Foreman 1.80 685.80 17,887.95 685.80 1,490.66 1,740.00 357.76 100.00 22,262.17 853.50 106.69
2.0 Leadman 1.65 628.65 16,397.29 628.65 1,366.44 1,597.50 327.95 100.00 20,417.82 782.79 97.85
Heavy Equipment
3.0 1.50 571.50 14,906.63 571.50 1,242.22 1,455.00 298.13 100.00 18,573.48 712.08 89.01
Operator
Highly Skilled
4.0 1.50 571.50 14,906.63 571.50 1,242.22 1,455.00 298.13 100.00 18,573.48 712.08 89.01
Operator
Lightly Skilled
5.0 1.40 533.40 13,912.85 533.40 1,159.40 1,340.00 278.26 100.00 17,323.91 664.18 83.02
Operator
6.0 Driver 1.30 495.30 12,919.08 495.30 1,076.59 1,245.00 258.38 100.00 16,094.35 617.04 77.13
7.0 Skilled Laborer 1.30 495.30 12,919.08 495.30 1,076.59 1,245.00 258.38 100.00 16,094.35 617.04 77.13
Semi-Skilled
8.0 1.20 457.20 11,925.30 457.20 993.78 1,150.00 238.51 100.00 14,864.78 569.90 71.24
Laborer
Unskilled
9.0 1.00 381.00 9,937.75 381.00 828.15 960.00 198.76 100.00 12,405.65 475.62 59.45
Laborer
Minimum Wage Rate P 381.00
Equivalent No. of Days/Year 313.00 C. D. (For those who do not work and are not considered paid on Sundays or rest days, Example: Construction Workers)
Equivalent No. of Days/Month 26.08 C. D.
Basic Daily Compensation Minimum Wage multiplied by the Labor Cost Factor of each Category
NOTE:
Service Incentive Leave Basic Daily Wage * Equivalent No. of Days per Month * 12/Equivalent No. of Days per Year
Bonus, 13th Month Pay Basic Monthly Wage / 12
PAG-IBIG Contribution 2% of Basic Monthly Compensation below P 5,000.00, and P 100.00 above P5,000.00
Monthly Rate Basic Monthly Wage + Leaves + 13th Month Pay + Social Benefits
Daily Rate Monthly Rate / Equivalent No. of Days per Month
Hourly Rate Daly Rate / 8 Hours per Day
6-5
Presented below is Table 6-4 containing construction materials and their corresponding average unit
rates stipulated in the latest Region Construction Materials Prices Data (RCMPD) in Region IX,
Zamboanga Peninsula.
Table 6-4. Summary of Region Construction Materials Price Data

Region Construction Materials Price Data
4th Quarter CY 2023
Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula)
Average
Material Code Material Description Unit Unit Cost
(PhP)
M104.0000 EMBANKMENT
M104-0001 Common Borrow cu. m. 330.60
M200.0000 AGGREGATE SUBBASE COURSE
M200-0001 Aggregate Subbase Course Material cu. m. 778.20
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
M311.0000
PAVEMENT
M311.0013 Curing Compound li. 46.80
M311-0020 Steel Forms, 300 mm. width l. m. 127.20
M403.0000 METAL STRUCTURES
M403.0002 Plate, Milled Steel, Plain, FY36 kg. 68.59
M403.0015 Bolts, High Tension pc. 150.50
M404.0000 REINFORCING STEEL
M404.0003 Reinforcing Steel Bar, Deformed, Grade 40 kg. 59.98
M405.0000 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE
M405.0002 Common Wire Nails, Assorted kg. 83.40
M405.0010 Gravel, 3/4 cu. m. 1,229.60
M405.0011 Fine Aggregate cu. m. 1,105.10
M405.0014 Lumber, Form bd. ft. 45.60
M405.0019 Plywood, Marine, 0.0125 m. thick pc. 1,053.60
MONUMENTS, MARKERS AND GUIDE
M602.0000
POSTS
M602-0008 G. I. Pipe, Schedule 40, 76 mm. diam. l. m. 487.72
M605.0000 ROAD SIGN
Danger/Warning Sign,3mm. thick Aluminum
M605-0001 pc. 7,500.00
Sheet, 60cm. Triangle
Regulatory Sign, 3mm. thick Aluminum Sheet,
M605-0003 pc. 3,440.00
60cm. Triangle
Informative Sign,3mm. thick Aluminum Sheet,
M605-0015 pc. 7,360.00
610mmx1219mm
Informative Sign,3mm. thick Aluminum Sheet
M605-0020 pc. 5,230.00
304mmx1219mm
M606.0000 PAVEMENT MARKINGS
M606-0001 Glass Beads bag 2,510.00
M606-0002 Primer White li. 195.65
M606-0004 LPG Cylinder kg. 111.40
M606-0008 Reflectorized Traffic Paint, White li. 606.20
M606-0009 Reflectorized Traffic Paint, Yellow li. 625.60
M700.0000 HYDRAULIC CEMENT
M700.0002 Portland Cement bag 286.00
6-6
Average
Material Code Material Description Unit Unit Cost
(PhP)
CHEMICALS AND TERMITE CONTROL
M900.0000
PESTICIDE
M900.0010 Grease/Tar (Greasing) li. 271.00
M1002.0000 PLUMBING AND FIXTURES
M1002.0068 PVC Pipes (pipe sleeve), 50 mm. diam. l. m. 109.62
Table 6-5 below specified the List of Equipment with corresponding make, capacity, and flywheel-
horsepower as well as the operated rental rates adopted for the calculation of the equipment component
in the detailed unit price analysis (DUPA):
Table 6-5. Summary of Equipment Hourly Rate

(Source: Association of Carriers and Equipment Lessors, (ACEL) Inc.
Equipment Guidebook 2024, Edition 26)
Operated
Equipment Flywheel Equipment
No. Model Capacity
Description Horsepower Cost/Hour
(PhP)
1.0 Earthmoving Equipment
1.1 Payloader L45B 1.50 cu. m. 99.00 1,822.00
D6H Series II
1.2 Bulldozer N/A 165.00 3,379.00
PSDS / DD
Motorized Grader with
1.3 G710A N/A 140.00 2,173.00
Scarifier
2.0 Compaction Equipment
2.1 Vibratory Roller SD100DC 10.00 m. t. 125.00 1,846.00
3.0 Excavating Equipment
3.1 Backhoe SE 130 LC-2 0.80 cu. m. 99.00 1,537.00
4.0 Concreting Equipment
4.1 Transit Mixer All Models 5.00 cu. m. 175.00 1,318.00
Turbosol 2.00
4.2 Concrete Screeder N/A 1,039.00
Apemat A 190E cu.m./hr.
Concrete Mixer, One 4.00 – 6.00
4.3 N/A N/A 172.00
(1) Bagger cu. ft./min.
5.0 Hauling Equipment
5.1 Dump Truck All models 10.00 cu. m. 290.00 1,420.00
1,000.00
5.2 Water Truck N/A 360.00 1,139.18
gals.
5.3 Cargo Truck All Models 2.00 - 5.00 t. 160.00 783.00
6.0 Miscellaneous Equipment
6.1 Concrete Vibrator N/A 850.00 l.p.m. N/A 87.50
6.2 Bar Cutter All Electric Single Phase N/A 219.75
7.0 Plants
7.1 Concrete Batch Plant N/A 30.00 cu. m. N/A 1,208.00
• Mobilization and Demobilization shall be treated as separate pay item. It shall be computed
based on the equipment requirements of the project stipulated in the proposal and contract
booklet. Mobilization and Demobilization shall not exceed 1% of the Estimated Direct Cost
6-7
(EDC) of the civil work items. However, in special cases wherein requirements for
mobilization/demobilization exceed 1%, an approval to utilize the actual computed
mobilization/demobilization cost shall be secured from the concerned Undersecretary for
Operations.
➢ Cost for Permits, Clearances and other Government Taxes (i.e. MMDA permit, LGU
permits, Bureau of Fire Protection Clearance, etc.) shall be included in the cost under Part
B – Other General Requirements of the Program of Works (POW) and Estimate / ABC.
6.6.5 Composition of Indirect Cost
➢ Overhead Expenses. These ranges from 7.00 % to 11.00 % of the Estimated Direct Cost
(EDC) which include the following:
• Engineering and Administrative Provision;

• Transportation Allowances;
• Office Expenses, e.g. for office equipment and supplies, power and rate consumption,
communication and maintenance;
• Premium on Contractor’s All Risk Insurance (CARI); and
• Financing Cost;
− Premium on Bid Security

− Premium on Performance Security
− Premium on Surety for Advance Payment
− Premium on Warranty Bond (one year)
➢ Contingencies. Range from 0.50 % to 3.00 % of the Estimated Direct Cost (EDC). These
include expenses for meeting, coordination with other stakeholders, billboards (excluding
project billboard which is a pay item under general requirements), stages during ground
breaking and inauguration ceremonies and other unforeseen events.
➢ Miscellaneous Expenses. Range from 0.50 % to 1.00 % of the Estimated Direct Cost. These
include laboratory test for quality control and plan preparation.
➢ Contractor’s Profit Margin. This shall be 8.00 % of the Estimated Direct Cost for projects
above PhP 5 million and 10.00 % for projects PhP 5 million and below.
➢ VAT Component. This shall be 5.00 % of the sum of Estimated Direct Cost, Overhead,
Contingencies and Miscellaneous (OCM) and Profit.
➢ The following items shall not be subjected to Overhead, Contingencies and Miscellaneous
(OCM) and Profit mark-up:
• Mobilization and Demobilization;

• Provision of Service Vehicle; and
• Permits and Clearances.
➢ The following non-civil works items shall not be subjected to OCM mark-up:
• Field, Laboratory Office and Living Quarters (rental basis);

• Furnishing of Furniture, Laboratory Equipment, Survey Equipment and Consumables;
• Assistance to the Engineers;
• Photographs;
• Health and Safety;
• Traffic Management;
• Environmental Compliance; and
• Communication Equipment, etc.
6-8
6.6.6 The Detailed Unit Price Analysis (DUPA)
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-17
6-18
6-19
6-20
6-21
6-22
6-23
6-24
6.7 The Civil Work Cost
6.7.1 Unit Prices of Pay Item of Works
Table 6-6 hereunder summarized the corresponding unit prices of each pay items of works involved as
determined in the detailed unit price analysis.
Table 6-6. Unit Prices of Pay Item of Works

Pay Item Unit of
Description Unit Cost
No. Measure
1.00 General Requirements
Part A - Facilities for the Engineer

Provision of Field Office for the Engineer (Rental
A.1.1 (8) lump sum 314,558.60
Basis)
Provision of Furnitures/Fixtures, Equipment and
A.1.1 (11) lump sum 60,326.31
Appliances for the Field Office of the Engineer
Operation & Maintenance of Field Office for the lump sum
A.1.1 (16) 22,680.00
Engineer
Operation and Maintenance of 4 x 4 Pick Up Type
A.1.2 (5) lump sum 207,471.43
Service Vehicle for the Engineer
A.1.4 Photographs
A.1.4 (1) Provision of Progress Photographs lump sum 22,680.00
Part B - Other General Requirements
B.4 (1) Construction Survey and Staking lump sum 24,360.00
B5 Project Billboard / Signboard lump sum 24,360.00
B.7 (1) Occupational Safety and Health Program lump sum 249,923.28
B.9 Mobilization/Demobilization lump sum 299,237.64
B.14 Environmental Management and Monitoring lump sum 465,374.38
2.00 Bypass Road
Part C - Earthwork
100 (1) Clearing and Grubbing hectare 201,374.13
102 (1) Unsuitable Excavation cubic meter 296.75
102 (2) Surplus Common Excavation cubic meter 177.06
103 (1)a Structure Excavation, Common Soil cubic meter 285.66
Embankment from Roadway / Structure Excavation,
104 (1)a cubic meter 277.47
Common Soil
104 (2)a Embankment from Borrow, Common Soil cubic meter 613.68
105 (1)a Subgrade Preparation, Common Material square meter 18.39
Part D - Subbase and Base Course
200 (1) Aggregate Subbase Course cubic meter 1,200.36
6-25
Part E - Surface Courses

Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (Reinforced)
311 (1)f1 square meter 2,077.57
0.30 m. thick, 14 days
Part H - Miscellaneous Structures
600 (4) Curb and Gutter, Cast in Place linear meter 1,896.96
Warning Signs, 600 mm., W1-1A, Horizontal
605 (1)a1 each 14,714.00
Alignment, Sharp Turn, L or R
Regulatory Signs, 600 x 600 mm., R1-1A, Priority
605 (2)a2 each 9,768.92
Signs Stop
Guide or Information Signs, G1-1, Advance Direction,
605 (3)a1 each 14,543.48
Signs Stack Signs
Guide or Information Signs, G1-4, Advance Direction,
605 (3)b1 each 11,949.14
Signs Diagrammatic Direction Signs
Reflectorized Thermoplastic Pavement Markings
612 (1) square meter 505.82
White
Reflectorized Thermoplastic Pavement Markings
612 (2) square meter 513.89
Yellow
6-26
6.7.2 The Estimated Direct Cost (EDC)
Pay Item % of Direct Cost

Description Unit Quantity
No. Total Total Unit Cost
Volume II
PART A FACILITIES FOR THE ENGINEER
A.1.1 (8) Provision of Field Office for the Engineer (Rental Basis) - l.s. 1.00 277,388.54 277,388.54
Provision of Furnitures/Fixtures, Equipment and Appliances for
A.1.1 (11) l.s. 1.00 53,197.80 53,197.80
the Field Office for the Engineer -
A.1.1 (16) Operation and Maintenance of Field Office for the Engineer - l.s. 1.00 20,000.00 20,000.00

Operation and Maintenance of 4 x 4 Pick Up Type Service
A.1.2 (5) - l.s. 1.00 197,591.84 197,591.84
Vehicle for the Engineer
A.1.4 Photographs
A.1.4 (1) Provision of Progress Photographs - l.s. 1.00 20,000.00 20,000.00
Sub - Total Part A 568,178.18
PART B OTHER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
B.4 (1) Construction Survey and Staking - l.s. 1.00 20,000.00 20,000.00
B.5 Project Billboard / Signboard - l.s. 1.00 20,000.00 20,000.00
B.7 (1) Occupational Safety and Health Program - l.s. 1.00 220,390.90 220,390.90
B.9 Mobilization / Demobilization - l.s. 1.00 284,988.23 284,988.23
B.14 Environmental Management and Monitoring - l.s. 1.00 410,383.05 410,383.05
Sub - Total Part B 955,762.18
6-27

Volume II
Part C EARTHWORK
100 Clearing and Grubbing
100 (1) Clearing and Grubbing - ha. 6.00 991,990.80 165,331.80
102 Excavation
102 (1) Unsuitable Excavation - cu.m. 1,307.98 318,676.25 243.64
102 (2) Surplus Common Excavation cu.m. 9,155.88 1,330,990.28 145.37
103 Structure Excavation
103 (1)a Structure Excavation, Common Soil cu.m. 2,615.97 613,523.44 234.53
104 Embankment
104 (1)a Embankment from roadway/structure excavation, Common Soil - cu.m. 336.97 76,765.14 227.81
104 (2)a Embankment from Borrow, Common Soil - cu.m. 1,347.88 679,115.86 503.84
105 Subgrade Preparation
105 (1)a Subgrade Preparation, Common Material sq.m. 41,390.36 624,994.44 15.10
Sub - Total Part C 4,636,056.20
PART D SUBBASE AND BASE COURSE
200 Aggregate Subbase Course
200 (1) Aggregate Subbase Course - cu.m. 8,312.71 8,192,341.96 985.52
Sub - Total Part D 8,192,341.96
6-28

PART E SURFACE COURSES
311 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement

Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (Unreinforced) 0.30 m
311 (1)f1 - sq.m. 10,473.77 17,865,318.96 1,705.72
thick, 14 days
Sub - Total Part E 17,865,318.96
PART H MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES
600 Curb and Gutter
600 (4) Curb and Gutter, Cast in Place - l.m. 6,535,360.88 1,557.44
4,196.22
605 Road Sign
Warning Signs, 600 mm, W1-1A, Horizontal Alignment Sharp
605 (1)a1 - ea. 144,965.52 12,080.46
Turn L or R 12.00
605 (2)a2 Regulatory Signs, 600 x 600 mm, R1-1A, Priority Signs Stop - ea. 40,102.30 8,020.46
5.00
Guide or Information Signs, G1-1, Advance Direction Signs
605 (3)a1 ea. 23,880.92 11,940.46
Stack Signs 2.00
Guide or Information Signs, G1-4, Advance Direction Signs
605 (3)b1 ea. 19,620.92 9,810.46
Diagrammatic Direction Signs 2.00
612 Reflective Thermoplastic Striping Material (Solid Form)
612 (1) Reflectorized Thermoplastic Pavement Markings White - sq.m. 525,910.80 415.29
1,266.37
612 (2) Reflectorized Thermoplastic Pavement Markings Yellow - sq.m. 14,872.33 421.91
35.25
Sub - Total Part H 7,304,713.66
Estimated Direct Cost (EDC) 39,522,371.14
6-29
6.7.3 The Projected Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC)
Stations: Sta. 0 +000.000 to Sta. 2 +179.15

Length: 2,179.15 Meters or 2.17915 Kilometers Duration: 12 Months
MARK-UPS IN
ESTIMATED TOTAL MARK-UP TOTAL
ITEM PERCENT UNIT
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT DIRECT VAT INDIRECT TOTAL COST
NO. COST
COST OCM PROFIT % VALUE COST
(9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(5) x (8) 5% [(5) + (9)] (9) + (10) (5) + (11) (12) / (3)
Volume II
PART A FACILITIES FOR THE ENGINEER

Provision of Field Office for the Engineer
A.1.1 (8) 1.00 l.s. 277,388.54 0.00 8.00 8.00 22,191.08 14,978.98 37,170.06 314,558.60 314,558.60
(Rental Basis)
Provision of Furnitures/Fixtures,
A.1.1
Equipment and Appliances for the Field 1.00 l.s. 53,197.80 0.00 8.00 8.00 4,255.82 2,872.68 7,128.51 60,326.31 60,326.31
(11)
Office for the Engineer
A.1.1 Operation and Maintenance of Field
1.00 l.s. 20,000.00 0.00 8.00 8.00 1,600.00 1,080.00 2,680.00 22,680.00 22,680.00
(16) Office for the Engineer
Operation and Maintenance of 4x4 Pick
A.1.2 (5) Up Type Service Vehicles for the 1.00 l.s. 197,591.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,879.59 9,879.59 207,471.43 207,471.43
Engineer
A.1.4 Photographs
A.1.4 (1) Provision of Progress Photographs 1.00 l.s. 20,000.00 0.00 8.00 8.00 1,600.00 1,080.00 2,680.00 22,680.00 22,680.00
TOTAL OF PART A 568,178.18 627,716.34
PART B OTHER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
6-30
MARK-UPS IN
ITEM PERCENT UNIT
NO. COST
B.4 (1) Construction Survey and Staking 1.00 l.s. 20,000.00 8.00 8.00 16.00 3,200.00 1,160.00 4,360.00 24,360.00 24,360.00
B.5 Project Billboard / Signboard 1.00 l.s. 20,000.00 8.00 8.00 16.00 3,200.00 1,160.00 4,360.00 24,360.00 24,360.00
B.7 (1) Occupational Safety and Health Program 1.00 l.s. 220,390.90 0.00 8.00 8.00 17,631.27 11,901.11 29,532.38 249,923.28 249,923.28
B.9 Mobilization / Demobilization 1.00 l.s. 284,988.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14,249.41 14,249.41 299,237.64 299,237.64
Environmental Management and
B.14 1.00 l.s. 410,383.05 0.00 8.00 8.00 32,830.64 22,160.68 54,991.33 465,374.38 465,374.38
Monitoring
TOTAL OF PART B 955,762.18 1,063,255.30
Volume II
Part C EARTHWORK
100 Clearing and Grubbing
100 (1) Clearing and Grubbing 6.00 ha. 991,990.80 8.00 8.00 16.00 158,718.53 57,535.47 216,253.99 1,208,244.79 201,374.13
102 Excavation
102 (1) Unsuitable Excavation 1,307.98 cu.m. 318,676.25 8.00 8.00 16.00 50,988.20 18,483.22 69,471.42 388,147.67 296.75
102 (2) Surplus Common Excavation 9,155.88 cu.m. 1,330,990.28 8.00 8.00 16.00 212,958.44 77,197.44 290,155.88 1,621,146.16 177.06
103 Structure Excavation
103 (1)a Structure Excavation, Common Soil 2,615.97 cu.m. 613,523.44 8.00 8.00 16.00 98,163.75 35,584.36 133,748.11 747,271.55 285.66
104 Embankment
6-31
MARK-UPS IN
ITEM PERCENT UNIT
NO. COST
Embankment from roadway/structure

104 (1)a 336.97 cu.m. 76,765.14 8.00 8.00 16.00 12,282.42 4,452.38 16,734.80 93,499.94 277.47
excavation, Common Soil
104 (2)a Embankment from Borrow, Common Soil 1,347.88 cu.m. 679,115.86 8.00 8.00 16.00 108,658.54 39,388.72 148,047.26 827,163.12 613.68
105 Subgrade Preparation
105 (1)a Subgrade Preparation, Common Material 41,390.36 sq.m. 624,994.44 8.00 8.00 16.00 99,999.11 36,249.68 136,248.79 761,243.23 18.39
TOTAL OF PART C 4,636,056.21 5,646,716.46
Part D SUBBASE AND BASE COURSE
200 Aggregate Subbase Course
200 (1) Aggregate Subbase Course 8,312.71 cu.m. 8,192,341.96 8.00 8.00 16.00 1,310,774.71 475,155.83 1,785,930.55 9,978,272.51 1,200.36
TOTAL OF PART D 8,192,341.96 9,978,272.51
Part E SURFACE COURSES
311 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement

Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
311 (1)f1 10,473.77 sq.m. 17,865,318.96 8.00 8.00 16.00 2,858,451.03 1,036,188.50 3,894,639.53 21,759,958.49 2,077.57
(Unreinforced) 0.30 m thick, 14 days
TOTAL OF PART E 17,865,318.96 21,759,958.49
Part H MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES
600 Curb and Gutter
600 (4) Curb and Gutter, Cast in Place 4,196.22 l.m. 6,535,360.88 8.00 8.00 16.00 1,045,657.74 379,050.93 1,424,708.67 7,960,069.55 1,896.96
6-32
MARK-UPS IN
ITEM PERCENT UNIT
NO. COST
605 Road Sign

Warning Signs, 600 mm, W1-1A,
605 (1)a1 12.00 ea. 144,965.52 8.00 8.00 16.00 23,194.48 8,408.00 31,602.48 176,568.00 14,714.00
Horizontal Alignment Sharp Turn L or R
Regulatory Signs, 600 x 600 mm, R1-1A,
605 (2)a2 5.00 ea. 40,102.30 8.00 8.00 16.00 6,416.37 2,325.93 8,742.30 48,844.60 9,768.92
Priority Signs Stop
Guide or Information Signs, G1-1,
605 (3)a1 2.00 ea. 23,880.92 8.00 8.00 16.00 3,820.95 1,385.09 5,206.04 29,086.96 14,543.48
Advance Direction Signs Stack Signs
Guide or Information Signs, G1-4,
605 (3)b1 Advance Direction Signs Diagrammatic 2.00 ea. 19,620.92 8.00 8.00 16.00 3,139.35 1,138.01 4,277.36 23,898.28 11,949.14
Direction Signs
612 Reflective Thermoplastic Striping Material
Reflectorized Thermoplastic Pavement
612 (1) 1,266.37 sq.m. 525,910.80 8.00 8.00 16.00 84,145.73 30,502.83 114,648.55 640,559.35 505.82
Markings White
Reflectorized Thermoplastic Pavement
612 (2) 35.25 sq.m. 14,872.33 8.00 8.00 16.00 2,379.57 862.60 3,242.17 18,114.50 513.89
Markings Yellow
TOTAL OF PART H 7,304,713.67 8,897,141.25
GRAND TOTAL: CIVIL WORKS COST 39,522,371.16 47,973,060.36
6-33
7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Economic Evaluation aims to compare the benefits and the estimated total project cost related to a
specific project. In the economic analysis, the benefit and cost streams (1 year construction for project
implementation cost plus around 20 years for net maintenance cost saving and benefit streams) are
discounted back to a common starting base date with a discount rate equal to the public opportunity
cost of capital (POCC) (normally excluding inflation), which the National Economic and Development
Authority is determining and currently has set at 10 percent (10%).
7.1 Opening Year and Planning Period
In a feasibility study, the earliest possible opening year should be determined considering the time
needed for the feasibility study, appraisal, load negotiations, final design, prequalification of contractors,
bidding procedures, right-of-way acquisition (if any), and the actual construction phase. Once the
opening year of the project is estimated, all traffic and other forecasts refer to that year as the first one
in a normal 20-year benefits stream period. In this study, planning period consists of the following
phases in the table below as well as the proposed implementation schedule:
7.2 Project Cost and Maintenance (Annual and Periodic)
The proposed Poblacion II-Sta. Maria Road (Crossing Gov. Camins Ave. to Sta. Maria -Pasonanca
Road leading to Zamboanga City Bypass Road), Zamboanga City has an estimated total project cost
of Php 47,973,060.36. The amount includes Construction, Supervision, Civil Works, OCM and Profit,
and Taxes.
Maintenance Cost are usually broken down into routine (annually) and periodic components. The
routine portions include vegetation control, drainage cleaning, cleaning of road furniture, repainting of
pavement markings, painting of steel bridge elements, shoulder repairs, potholes patching, and for
concrete roads crack and joint sealing. Periodic maintenance is applied every five (5) years. In this
study, estimated periodic maintenance cost is 2% of the BCC while annual maintenance cost is 1% of
the BCC.
7.3 Opportunity Cost of Capital (OCC)
The benefits which may accrue from a certain project in the country should be measured against
benefits which might be obtained from alternative investments in the country. As the economic
evaluation procedures are conducted in terms of constant prices, the chosen rate of discount should
exclude expectation in inflation. In this study, the prevailing estimate of the opportunity cost of capital is
10% per annum (HPM).
7.4 Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC)
In this study, the running costs were used as the Vehicle Operating Cost. The basic running costs are
composed of elements such as fuel costs, lubricant costs, tire costs, maintenance and repair costs, and
part of depreciation costs. The travel speed of the “without project”, as well as the “with project” and
“remaining traffic” scenarios, were forecasted for twenty (20) years.
The following table shows the estimated vehicle operating costs used in this study based on HDM-4:
2015 Basic Vehicle Operating Cost by Speed.
7-1
Table 7-1. Updated DPWH Basic Vehicle Operating Cost from 2019 to 2023
Class-1 Class-2 Class-3
C
B G H I J K
A Public D E F
Speed Unit Public Truck Truck Semi- Semi- Truck
Passenger Utility Goods Small Large
Utility 2- 3- Trailer Trailer Trailer
Car (UV Utility Bus Bus
(PUJ) axle axle 4-axle 5+axle 4-axle
Express)
20 kph
AAVOC/Km 14.52 16.19 16.19 18.97 35.78 43.74 38.95 67.67 72.61 79.52 82.52
AATTC/mim 84.18 91.56 91.56 16.53 114.45 343.34 8.89 15.93 24.82 24.82 24.82
30 kph
AAVOC/Km 11.78 12.70 12.70 14.53 27.24 33.57 29.75 53.68 58.48 64.84 62.09
AATTC/min 37.41 40.70 40.70 7.35 50.88 152.60 3.95 7.08 11.03 11.03 11.03
40 kph
AAVOC/Km 10.56 11.15 11.15 12.50 23.25 28.83 25.50 47.24 52.15 58.26 55.54
AATTC/min 21.05 22.92 22.92 4.13 28.65 85.84 2.22 3.98 6.21 6.21 6.21
50 kph
AAVOC/Km 9.98 10.44 10.44 11.46 21.15 26.36 23.28 44.02 49.10 55.07 52.37
AATTC/min 13.48 14.71 14.71 2.65 18.38 54.94 1.42 2.55 3.97 3.97 3.97
60 kph
AAVOC/Km 9.73 10.15 10.15 10.99 20.06 25.14 22.12 42.49 47.76 53.66 50.94
AATTC/min 9.37 10.27 10.27 1.84 12.84 38.17 0.99 1.77 2.76 2.76 2.76
70 kph
AAVOC/Km 9.74 10.16 10.16 10.83 19.57 24.67 21.65 42.11 47.71 53.58 50.84
AATTC/min 6.90 7.64 7.64 1.36 9.55 28.08 0.74 1.30 2.04 2.04 2.04
7.5 Road User’s Cost and Savings
In order to identify the road user’s cost (RUC) for travel time cost, the following formula will be used.
For Running Cost:
𝑅𝑈𝐶 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑅𝑢𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇𝑣𝑡 𝑥 𝑅𝐶𝑣𝑡 𝑥 𝑅𝐿 𝑥 365
Where: AADTvt = Annual Average Daily Traffic of that vehicle type

RCvt = Running Cost (Php/Km of the vehicle type based on Travel Speed)
RL = Route Length
7.6 Economic Feasibility Indicators
Three different economic evaluation indicators are available to measure the economic return of the
proposed project under study: (1) Internal Rate of Return (IRR); (2) Net Present Value (NPV); and
Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C). The IRR is found at the intersection point between the discounted benefits
and costs (at this equilibrium the NPV is equal to zero). The EIRR must exceed the OCC for the project
to be viable. The NPV is the discounted benefits minus the discounted costs at the OCC rate and for a
project to be feasible the NPV must have a positive value. The B/C ratio is the discounted benefits over
the discounted costs at the OCC rate and for the project to be viable the ratio must exceed 1.0 (HPM).
In summary:
IRR ≥ 10%
NPV ≥ 0
B/C ≥ 1
Also, in order to account for possible fluctuations in the cost and benefits, a total of four (4) scenarios
were evaluated for the (Crossing Gov. Camins Ave. to Sta. Maria - Pasonanca Road leading to
Zamboanga City Bypass Road), Zamboanga City. The base case used parameters as indicated above.
7-2
The other three (3) scenarios assumed certain increases and/or decreases in the cost and/or benefits.
The three (3) other scenarios are:
Scenario 1: Cost increase by 20%, Benefits remain the same;

Scenario 2: Cost remain the same, Benefits decrease by 20%; and
Scenario 3: Cost increase by 20%, Benefits decrease by 20%
Based on the result, the proposed project is economically viable. The result provided an above 10%
IRR which is above the OCC and hurdle rate set by NEDA.
Table 7-2. Summary of the Project

Crossing Gov. Camins Ave. to Sta. Maria - Pasonanca
Road leading to Zamboanga City Bypass Road),
Zamboanga City
Total Length (km.) 2.17
No. of Lanes 4
Carriage Width per lane (m.) 3.35
Total Project Cost (Php) 47,973,060.36
EIRR 114.35%
Economic Evaluation Remarks Feasible
7-3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
Economic Analysis
Contract ID No. 22JACS05: Consulting Services for the Conduct of Feasibility Study of the
Poblacion II-Sta. Maria Road (Crossing Gov. Camins Ave. to Sta. Maria -Pasonanca Road
leading to Zamboanga City Bypass Road), Zamboanga City, Region IX
Table 1. Workflow Steps in Economic Analysis
ECONOMIC BENEFIT STREAM ECONOMIC COST STREAM

STEPS
Without the Project With the Project With the Project
Generation of Origin- Formulation of assumptions

Generation of Origin-
Destination Pairs Within the from sections of the FS
1 Destination Pairs Within the
Influence of the Project and Report and from other data
Influence of the Project
with No Project sources
Financial Cost (FC) of the
Projection of said OD Pairs for Projection of said OD Pairs for
Project (CAPEX, OPEX,
2 every five (5) years from 2023 every five (5) years from 2023
Relocation, Completion of
to 2060 by Vehicle Class 1-3 to 2060 by Vehicle Class 1-3
Intersection)
Projected Computation of Projected Computation of Adjusting FC by excluding
3 Travel-Time for the said OD Travel-Time for the said OD taxes which are considered
Pairs for the Projected Years Pairs for the Projected Years as transfer cost like VAT, etc.
Computation of Travel-Distance Computation of Travel-
4
for the said OD Pairs Distance for the said OD Pairs
Derivation of Time Savings through Travel Time Difference
5
Between NO Project and with Project
Derivation of VOC Savings through Travel Distance Difference
6
Between NO Project and with Project
Economic Benefits computed by multiplying VOC and TTC
Savings with Projected AADT Traffic Volume Traffic (2027-2057) Economic Cost of Project
7
and Value of Time and Value of VOC, then converted to Annual computed
Benefits
Annual Benefit for Project Investment Program of the
8
Implementation for 30 years Project (3 Years)
Net economic benefit derived by Benefit Minus Cost Yearly
9
Flow for the 30 years of economic analysis
10 Economic Profitability Analysis in EIRR, ENPV, and EBCR
11 Economic Sensitivity Analysis
Table 2. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

Operational Phase
Projected Starts of Operation of the Project: Year 2028
Option 1
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3

2028 2029 2030
TOTAL AMOUNT IN MILLION PESOS 1,439,191.81 5,756,767.24 5,756,767.24
1.0 Equipment/Machineries*
Foreign Exchange Costs
Local Costs 50,371.71 402,973.71 402,973.71

2.0 Materials/Supplies*
Local Costs 71,959.59 575,676.72 575,676.72

3.0 Labor*
Local Costs 50,371.71 402,973.71 402,973.71
Utilities (Electricity,
4.0 Water, Etc.)
Local Costs
Other O and M Cost
5.0 (Specify)
Local Costs
6.0 Total O and M Costs
Local Costs 172,703.02 1,381,624.14 1,381,624.14
Total O & M cost/ yr 374,765.55 2,998,124.38 2,998,124.38

Road length 2.17 km
Table 3. Economic Cost of the Project

INVESTMENT PERIOD (PhP)
COST ITEMS TOTAL (PhP)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
FINANCIAL CAPITAL COST OF THE
PROJECT 47,973,060 11,513,534 11,513,534 11,513,534
less VAT of Material and Equipment (12%) 5,756,767 1,381,624 1,381,624 1,381,624
ECONOMIC CAPITAL COST OF THE
PROJECT 42,216,293 10,131,910 10,131,910 10,131,910
OTHER RELATED COSTS
1) PRELIMINARY RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00
COST
less Taxes 300,000.00 300,000.00
ECONOMIC COST OF THE PRELIMINARY
2,200,000.00 2,200,000.00
RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) COST
2) PRELIMINARY COST OF RELOCATION
1,500,000 360,000 360,000 360,000
SITE
less VAT of Material and Equipment (12%) 180,000 43,200 43,200 43,200
ECONOMIC COST OF THE PRELIMINARY
1,320,000 316,800 316,800 316,800
COST OF RELOCATION SITE
TOTAL ECONOMIC CAPITAL COST 51,493,060 14,030,334 11,830,334 11,830,334
Table 4. Peak Hour Projection of Volume of OD Pairs and Time Differences Between No Project
and With Project (2022-2045)
DIFFERENCE IN
TRAVEL TIME Traffic Volume
PROJECTED Vehicle
(MINUTES) AADT PEAK Traffic Volume AADT
YEAR Class
HOUR
No Project
2027 7.36
Class 1 41,995 450,108
Class 2 1,823 19,542
Class 3 238 2,552
TOTAL 44,056 472,202
2028
Class 1 44,987 482,177
Class 2 1,924 20,623
Class 3 251 2,693
TOTAL 47,162 505,492
2029
Class 1 48,192.66 516,534
Class 2 2,030.55 21,764
Class 3 265.06 2,841
TOTAL 50,488.26 541,139
2030
Class 1 51,627.07 553,345
Class 2 2,142.88 22,968
Class 3 279.63 2,997
TOTAL 54,049.58 579,310
2031
Class 1 55,397.19 593,753
Class 2 2,263.57 24,261
Class 3 295.29 3,165
TOTAL 57,956.05 621,180
2032 31.38
Class 1 59,443 637,119
Class 2 2,391 25,628
Class 3 312 3,342
TOTAL 62,146 666,089
DIFFERENCE IN
TRAVEL TIME Traffic Volume
PROJECTED Vehicle
(MINUTES) AADT PEAK Traffic Volume AADT
YEAR Class
HOUR
No Project
2033
Class 1 63,785 683,660
Class 2 2,526 27,071
Class 3 329 3,529
TOTAL 66,640 714,260
2034
Class 1 68,446 733,607
Class 2 2,668 28,596
Class 3 348 3,727
TOTAL 71,461 765,931
2035
Class 1 73,447 787,212
Class 2 3,332 35,710
Class 3 367 3,936
TOTAL 77,146 826,858
2036
Class 1 78,961 846,317
Class 2 2,980 31,940
Class 3 388 4,160
TOTAL 82,329 882,417
2037 32.49
Class 1 84,891 909,868
Class 2 3,151 33,773
Class 3 410 4,397
TOTAL 88,452 948,038
2038
Class 1 91,266 978,202
Class 2 3,332 35,710
Class 3 434 4,648
TOTAL 95,032 1,018,560
2039
Class 1 98,122 1,051,678
Class 2 3,523 37,759
Class 3 458 4,913
TOTAL 102,103 1,094,350
2040
Class 1 105,493 1,130,684
Class 2 3,725 39,926
Class 3 484 5,193
TOTAL 109,702 1,175,803
2041
Class 1 113,630 1,217,899
Class 2 3,946 42,297
Class 3 513 5,499
TOTAL 118,089 1,265,696
2042 33.52
Class 1 122,396 1,311,855
Class 2 4,181 44,810
Class 3 543 5,824
TOTAL 127,120 1,362,488
NOTE: AADT = 0.0933
Table 5. Volume to Capacity Ratio

Road Segment 2023
Santa Maria Road (4 lanes) 0.38
Santa Maria Road (2 lanes) 0.74
Gov. Camins Ave 0.43
Gov. Ramos Ave 0.66
Zamboanga City Bypass Rd 0.29
Mayor Jaldon St. 0.93
Average 0.57166667
Table 6. Updated DPWH Basic Vehicle Operating Cost from 2019 to 2023
Class-1 Class-2 Class-3
C
B G H I J K
Speed Unit A Public D E F
Public Truck Truck Semi- Semi- Truck
Passenger Utility Goods Small Large
Utility 2- 3- Trailer Trailer Trailer
Car (UV Utility Bus Bus
(PUJ) axle axle 4-axle 5+axle 4-axle
Express)
20 kph
AAVOC/Km 14.52 16.19 16.19 18.97 35.78 43.74 38.95 67.67 72.61 79.52 82.52
AATTC/mim 84.18 91.56 91.56 16.53 114.45 343.34 8.89 15.93 24.82 24.82 24.82
30 kph
AAVOC/Km 11.78 12.70 12.70 14.53 27.24 33.57 29.75 53.68 58.48 64.84 62.09
AATTC/min 37.41 40.70 40.70 7.35 50.88 152.60 3.95 7.08 11.03 11.03 11.03
40 kph
AAVOC/Km 10.56 11.15 11.15 12.50 23.25 28.83 25.50 47.24 52.15 58.26 55.54
AATTC/min 21.05 22.92 22.92 4.13 28.65 85.84 2.22 3.98 6.21 6.21 6.21
50 kph
AAVOC/Km 9.98 10.44 10.44 11.46 21.15 26.36 23.28 44.02 49.10 55.07 52.37
AATTC/min 13.48 14.71 14.71 2.65 18.38 54.94 1.42 2.55 3.97 3.97 3.97
60 kph
AAVOC/Km 9.73 10.15 10.15 10.99 20.06 25.14 22.12 42.49 47.76 53.66 50.94
AATTC/min 9.37 10.27 10.27 1.84 12.84 38.17 0.99 1.77 2.76 2.76 2.76
70 kph
AAVOC/Km 9.74 10.16 10.16 10.83 19.57 24.67 21.65 42.11 47.71 53.58 50.84
AATTC/min 6.90 7.64 7.64 1.36 9.55 28.08 0.74 1.30 2.04 2.04 2.04
Source: 2019 Data from DPWH Updated to 2023
Table 7. Daily and Annual Value of Travel Time Saving

Annual Total Average ANNUAL VALUE
Daily Total Time
CLASS OF Time Saved VALUE OF TIME Passenger Load OF TIME
YEAR Saved (Minutes)
VEHICLES (Minutes) PhP/min by Vehicle SAVINGS (PhP)
No Project No Project Class No Project
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
A X 365 BXCXD
2027
Class 1 41,995 15,328,192 2.8 2.25 96,567,611
Class 2 1,823 665,494 5.5 3.39 12,408,138
Class 3 238 86,921 8.7 2.27 1,716,611
Total 44,056 16,080,608 110,692,360
2028
Class 1 44,987 16,420,281 2.8 2.25 103,447,771
Class 2 1,924 702,304 5.5 3.39 13,094,454
Class 3 251 91,702 8.7 2.27 1,811,025
TOTAL 47,162 17,214,287 118,353,250
2029

Daily Total Time
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
A X 365 BXCXD
Class 1 48,193 17,590,319 2.8 2.25 110,819,010
Class 2 2,031 741,152 5.5 3.39 13,818,772
Class 3 265 96,746 8.7 2.27 1,910,631
TOTAL 50,488 18,428,216 126,548,414
2030
Class 1 51,627 18,843,879 2.8 2.25 118,716,441
Class 2 2,143 782,151 5.5 3.39 14,583,200
Class 3 280 102,067 8.7 2.27 2,015,716
TOTAL 54,050 19,728,097 135,315,357
2031
Class 1 55,397 20,219,973 2.8 2.25 127,385,827
Class 2 2,264 826,202 5.5 3.39 15,404,545
Class 3 295 107,782 8.7 2.27 2,128,596
TOTAL 57,956 21,153,958 144,918,969
2032
Class 1 59,443 21,696,780 2.8 2.25 136,689,717
Class 2 2,391 872,738 5.5 3.39 16,272,199
Class 3 312 113,818 8.7 2.27 990,219
Total 62,146 22,683,337 153,952,136
2033
Class 1 63,785 23,281,690 2.8 2.25 146,674,645
Class 2 2,526 921,897 5.5 3.39 17,188,777
Class 3 329 120,192 8.7 2.27 2,373,674
TOTAL 66,640 24,323,779 166,237,097
2034
Class 1 68,446 24,982,630 2.8 2.25 157,390,567
Class 2 2,668 973,829 5.5 3.39 18,157,041
Class 3 348 126,923 8.7 2.27 2,506,600
TOTAL 71,461 26,083,382 178,054,208
2035
Class 1 73,447 26,808,113 2.8 2.25 168,891,110
Class 2 3,332 1,216,097 5.5 3.39 22,674,136
Class 3 367 134,031 8.7 2.27 2,646,970
TOTAL 77,146 28,158,241 194,212,216
2036
Class 1 78,961 28,820,893 2.8 2.25 181,571,625
Class 2 2,980 1,087,704 5.5 3.39 20,280,233
Class 3 388 141,670 8.7 2.27 2,797,847
TOTAL 82,329 30,050,267 204,649,704
2037
Class 1 84,891 30,985,107 2.8 2.25 195,206,176
Class 2 3,151 1,150,108 5.5 3.39 21,443,763
Class 3 410 149,746 8.7 2.27 2,957,324
TOTAL 88,452 32,284,961 219,607,263
2038
Class 1 91,266 33,312,172 2.8 2.25 209,866,682
Class 2 3,332 1,216,097 5.5 3.39 22,674,136
Class 3 434 158,281 8.7 2.27 3,125,892
Total 95,032 34,686,550 235,666,710
2039
Class 1 98,122 35,814,364 2.8 2.25 225,630,491
Class 2 3,523 1,285,878 5.5 3.39 23,975,198
Class 3 458 167,303 8.7 2.27 3,304,067
TOTAL 102,103 37,267,545 252,909,757
2040
Class 1 105,493 38,504,888 2.8 2.25 242,580,795

Daily Total Time
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
A X 365 BXCXD
Class 2 3,725 1,359,668 5.5 3.39 25,351,017
Class 3 484 176,839 8.7 2.27 3,492,399
TOTAL 109,702 40,041,396 271,424,211
2041
Class 1 113,630 41,474,957 2.8 2.25 261,292,229
Class 2 3,946 1,440,418 5.5 3.39 26,856,596
Class 3 513 187,273 8.7 2.27 3,698,451
TOTAL 118,089 43,102,648 291,847,276
2042
Class 1 122,396 44,674,562 2.8 2.25 281,449,744
Class 2 4,181 1,525,970 5.5 3.39 28,451,704
Class 3 543 198,322 8.7 2.27 3,916,659
TOTAL 127,120 46,398,854 313,818,108
Table 8. Average Distance Difference of No Project and With Project

Speed at No Project Speed with Project DIFFERENCE (KM)
ITEM A B C
B Minus A
Average Speed 22 30 8
Table 9. Value of Vehicle Operation Cost Based on Average Distance Difference

Value of VOC
DAILY VOC ANNUAL VOC
YEAR Vehicle Class Volume AADT Saving Per
SAVINGS SAVINGS
Kilometer
2027
Class 1 41,995 10.95 459,846 167,843,705
Class 2 1,823 22.52 41,060 14,986,928
Class 3 238 53.30 12,693 4,632,912
Total 44,056 513,599 187,463,545
2028
Class 1 44,987 10.95 492,608 179,802,078
Class 2 1,924 22.52 43,331 15,815,881
Class 3 251 53.30 13,391 4,887,723
Total 47,162 549,331 200,505,681
2029
Class 1 48,193 10.95 527,710 192,613,994
Class 2 2,031 22.52 45,728 16,690,735
Class 3 265 53.30 14,128 5,156,547
Total 50,488 587,565 214,461,276
2030
Class 1 51,627 10.95 565,316 206,340,480
Class 2 2,143 22.52 48,258 17,614,034
Class 3 280 53.30 14,905 5,440,157
Total 54,050 628,479 229,394,672
2031
Class 1 55,397 10.95 606,599 221,408,700
Class 2 2,264 22.52 50,976 18,606,080
Class 3 295 53.30 15,739 5,744,806
Total 57,956 673,314 245,759,586
2032
Class 1 59,443 10.95 650,903 237,579,746
Class 2 2,391 22.52 53,847 19,654,059
Value of VOC
DAILY VOC ANNUAL VOC
YEAR Vehicle Class Volume AADT Saving Per
SAVINGS SAVINGS
Kilometer
Class 3 312 53.30 16,621 6,066,515
Total 62,146 721,371 263,300,321
2033
Class 1 63,785 10.95 698,451 254,934,502
Class 2 2,526 22.52 56,880 20,761,130
Class 3 329 53.30 17,551 6,406,240
Total 66,640 772,882 282,101,872
2034
Class 1 68,446 10.95 749,479 273,559,795
Class 2 2,668 22.52 60,084 21,930,628
Class 3 348 53.30 18,534 6,764,990
Total 71,461 828,097 302,255,413
2035
Class 1 73,447 10.95 804,243 293,548,834
Class 2 3,332 22.52 75,032 27,386,514
Class 3 367 53.30 19,572 7,143,829
Total 77,146 898,847 328,079,177
2036
Class 1 78,961 10.95 864,627 315,588,776
Class 2 2,980 22.52 67,110 24,495,084
Class 3 388 53.30 20,688 7,551,027
Total 82,329 952,424 347,634,888
2037
Class 1 84,891 10.95 929,553 339,286,925
Class 2 3,151 22.52 70,960 25,900,432
Class 3 410 53.30 21,867 7,981,436
Total 88,452 1,022,380 373,168,793
2038
Class 1 91,266 10.95 999,365 364,768,280
Class 2 3,332 22.52 75,032 27,386,514
Class 3 434 53.30 23,113 8,436,378
Total 95,032 1,097,510 400,591,172
2039
Class 1 98,122 10.95 1,074,431 392,167,282
Class 2 3,523 22.52 79,337 28,957,976
Class 3 458 53.30 24,431 8,917,251
Total 102,103 1,178,199 430,042,509
2040
Class 1 105,493 10.95 1,155,147 421,628,524
Class 2 3,725 22.52 83,890 30,619,731
Class 3 484 53.30 25,823 9,425,535
Total 109,702 1,264,860 461,673,790
2041
Class 1 113,630 10.95 1,244,249 454,150,780
Class 2 3,946 22.52 88,872 32,438,216
Class 3 513 53.30 27,347 9,981,641
Total 118,089 1,360,467 496,570,637
2042
Class 1 122,396 10.95 1,340,237 489,186,459
Class 2 4,181 22.52 94,150 34,364,837
Class 3 543 53.30 28,960 10,570,558
Total 127,120 1,463,348 534,121,854
Table 10. Interpolated Annual Value of Travel Time Savings and Vehicle Operating Cost
Savings
Annual Value of
Annual value of Total Economic
NUMBER YEAR Time Savings
VOC Savings Benefits
(PhP)
1 2027 110,692,360 187,463,545 298,155,905

2 2028 118,353,250 200,505,681 318,858,931
3 2029 126,548,414 214,461,276 341,009,690
4 2030 135,315,357 229,394,672 364,710,029
5 2031 144,918,969 245,759,586 390,678,555
6 2032 153,952,136 263,300,321 417,252,456
7 2033 166,237,097 282,101,872 448,338,969
8 2034 178,054,208 302,255,413 480,309,621
9 2035 194,212,216 328,079,177 522,291,393
10 2036 204,649,704 347,634,888 552,284,592
11 2037 219,607,263 373,168,793 592,776,056
12 2038 235,666,710 400,591,172 636,257,882
13 2039 252,909,757 430,042,509 682,952,266
14 2040 271,424,211 461,673,790 733,098,001
15 2041 291,847,276 496,570,637 788,417,912
16 2042 313,818,108 534,121,854 847,939,962
Table 11. Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis of CLLEX I and II Project

Economic Indicators Rates Hurdle Rates
Economic Internal Rate of Return 279.01% greater than 10%
Economic NPV (PhPB) 1,135,862,405 greater than 0
Economic BCR 29.08 greater than 1
DISCOUNTED
DISCOUNTED NET DISCOUNTED
TOTAL ECONOMIC
TOTAL NET ECONOMIC ECONOMIC ECONOMIC COST
ECONOMIC COST ECONOMIC BENEFITS (10%
NUMBER ECONOMIC COST BENEFITS BENEFITS (10% (10% Discount
YEAR BENEFITS Discount
Discount Factor) Factor)
Factor)
CAPEX OPEX
1 2024 14,030,334.49 14,030,334 (14,030,334) (14,030,334) 14,030,334 -
2 2025 11,830,334.49 11,830,334 (11,830,334) (10,754,850) 10,754,850 -
3 2026 11,830,334.49 11,830,334 (11,830,334) (9,777,136) 9,777,136 -
4 2027 374,766 374,766 110,692,360 110,317,595 82,883,242 281,567 83,164,809
2028 2,998,124 2,998,124 118,353,250 115,355,125 115,355,125 2,998,124 118,353,250
2029 2,998,124 2,998,124 126,548,414 123,550,289 123,550,289 2,998,124 126,548,414
2030 2,998,124 2,998,124 135,315,357 132,317,233 132,317,233 2,998,124 135,315,357
2031 2,998,124 2,998,124 144,918,969 141,920,844 141,920,844 2,998,124 144,918,969
5 2032 2,998,124 2,998,124 153,952,136 150,954,011 103,103,621 2,047,759 105,151,380
2033 2,998,124 2,998,124 166,237,097 163,238,972 163,238,972 2,998,124 166,237,097
2034 2,998,124 2,998,124 178,054,208 175,056,084 175,056,084 2,998,124 178,054,208
2035 2,998,124 2,998,124 194,212,216 191,214,092 191,214,092 2,998,124 194,212,216
2036 2,998,124 2,998,124 204,649,704 201,651,580 201,651,580 2,998,124 204,649,704
6 2037 2,998,124 2,998,124 219,607,263 216,609,139 134,497,233 1,861,599 136,358,833
2038 2,998,124 2,998,124 235,666,710 232,668,585 232,668,585 2,998,124 235,666,710
2039 2,998,124 2,998,124 252,909,757 249,911,632 249,911,632 2,998,124 252,909,757
2040 2,998,124 2,998,124 271,424,211 268,426,086 268,426,086 2,998,124 271,424,211
2041 2,998,124 2,998,124 291,847,276 288,849,151 288,849,151 2,998,124 291,847,276
7 2042 2,998,124 2,998,124 313,818,108 310,819,983 175,449,777 1,692,363 177,142,141
TOTAL 37,691,003 45,346,631 83,037,635 3,118,207,034 3,035,169,399 2,745,531,228 76,423,101 2,821,954,329

ECONOMIC PROFITABILITY INDICATORS
EIRR 114.35%
ENPV 2,745,531,228
EBCR 36.93
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1
Terms of Reference
ANNEX 2
Notice to Proceed
ANNEX 3
Road Drawings
A. GENERAL
POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD INDEX OF DRAWINGS MMM A-01 1 of 27
ZAMBOANGA CITY
LUZON
DPWH PROJECT
POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD,
ZAMBOANGA CITY, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR.
REGION IX
STA. 0+000.00
Pac
TO
ific
STA. 2+179.15
Oc
ean
a
Se
ina
Ch
h
ut
So
VISAYAS
PROJECT SITE
MINDANAO
KEY MAP
LOCATION MAP
BEGINNING OF PROJECT
STA. 0+000.00 END OF PROJECT
NORTHING = 765144.323 STA. 2+179.15
EASTING = 397551.085 NORTHING = 767269.001
EASTING = 397373.004
LAY-OUT PLAN

POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD LOCATION MAP, KEY MAP MMM A-02 2 of 27
ZAMBOANGA CITY AND LAY-OUT PLAN
GENERAL NOTES
( ROADS, DRAINAGE AND STRUCTURES)
1.0 SPECIFICATIONS 8.0 ACCESSIBILITY LAW
9.0 MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES

2.0 DIMENSIONS
10.0 PAVEMENT MARKING

3.0 STATIONING
11.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY
4.0 ELEVATIONS AND GRADES

12.0 OTHERS
5.0 ROAD CONNECTIONS
6.0 DRAINAGE STRUCTURE

13.0 DESIGN DATA / REFERENCES
7.0 ROAD SIGNS

POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD GENERAL NOTES MMM A-03 3 of 27
ZAMBOANGA CITY (ROADS, DRAINAGE AND STRUCTURES)
B. ROADS STANDARD DETAILS
POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS MMM B-01 4 of 27
ZAMBOANGA CITY
ROUNDING
HALF CUT SECTION HALF FILL SECTION

POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD TYPICAL PRIVATE ACCESS DESIGN MMM B-02 5 of 27
ZAMBOANGA CITY
SKEW
NORMAL (FOR MAIN PAVED ROAD)
(FOR MAIN PAVED ROAD)

POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD TYPICAL INTERSECTION DESIGN MMM B-03 6 of 27
ZAMBOANGA CITY FOR MAIN PAVED ROAD
HALF CUT SECTION HALF FILL SECTION HALF CUT SECTION HALF FILL SECTION HALF CUT SECTION HALF FILL SECTION
SKEW
NORMAL (FOR EARTH ROAD)
(FOR GRAVEL ROAD)

POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD TYPICAL INTERSECTION DESIGN MMM B-04 7 of 27
ZAMBOANGA CITY FOR UNPAVED AND BARANGAY ROADS
C. ROADS PLAN AND PROFILE
POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE MMM C-01 8 of 27
ZAMBOANGA CITY STA. 0+000.00 TO STA. 0+700.00
D. DETAILED SECTIONS
POBLACION II - STA. MARIA BYPASS ROAD CROSS SECTION MMM D-01 12 of 27
ZAMBOANGA CITY STA. 0+000 - STA. 0+160

23JACS02 Pob2 StaMaria ByPassRoad DFR

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

23JACS02 Pob2 StaMaria ByPassRoad DFR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

–

Consulting Services for the Feasibility Study (Phase II)

CERTEZA INFOSYS CORP.

DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

Appendix 1 Economic Analysis

Annex 1 Terms of Reference

Figure 1-1. Project Location and Alignment ........................................................................................ 1-1

Table 2-1. Population of Zamboanga City ........................................................................................... 2-1

AASHTO : American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials

AADT : Annual Average Daily Traffic

Figure 1-1. Project Location and Alignment

1.1.1 About the Contract

1.1.2 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study are as follows:

1.1.3 Scope of Work

1.2 Geographical Location of the Study Area

2.1 Socio-Economic Profile of Zamboanga City

Table 2-1. Population of Zamboanga City

2.2 Socio-Economic Profile of PAFs

2.2.1 Profile of PAFs

Figure 2-1. Type of Respondent in the SES

Figure 2-2. Gender of Respondents

ETHNIC GROUP MEMBERSHIP

2.2.2 PAFs’ Access to Basic Utilities and Services

SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER

SOURCE OF FUEL COOKING

Figure 2-5. Fuel for Cooking

TYPE OF TOILET FACILITY

ACCESSIBLE SOCIAL SERVICES

Social Organizations Others

Figure 2-7. Accessible Social Service

2.2.3 Information About the Potentially Affected Structure

Combination of wood and

Figure 2-10. Type of Roofing

Figure 2-11. Type of Wall

2.2.4 PAFs’ Gender Roles

A. Decision-Maker in the Household

Figure 2-12. Decision-Maker in Budgeting Household Income

DECISION-MAKER IN REPAIRING OR BUYING A

Figure 2-13. Decision-Maker in Repairing or Buying a House

BUYING HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES OR

Figure 2-14. Decision-Maker in Budgeting Household Appliance or Assets

MOVING TO A NEW RESIDENCE

Figure 2-15. Decision-Maker in Moving to a New Residence

Both husband Wife Only

Figure 2-16. Decision-Maker in Schooling of Children

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO RELATIVES/

Both husband and wife

Figure 2-19. Decision-Maker in Providing Financial Assistance to Relatives / Friends

B. Gender Roles in the Household

TAKING CARE OF THE CHILDREN AT HOME

Figure 2-21. Gender Role in Taking Care of Children at Home

TAKING THE CHILDREN TO SCHOOL

Both husband Husband Only

CLEANING THE HOUSE

Figure 2-23. Gender Role in Cleaning the House

Figure 2-24. Gender Role in Garbage Disposal

Other Male Both husband and

Figure 2-25. Gender Role in Collecting Water

GOING TO THE MARKET

Figure 2-26. Gender Role in Going to Market

PAYING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE

Figure 2-27. Gender Role in Paying Household Expense