Last July 4th, I dropped my Nokia 9210 and when I went to Bright point to have it fixed… they said, it couldn’t be fixed. Then I sent it to Semicon and they charged me P250 for opening it up only to tell me that it would cost P30,000 for a new motherboard. What was my protection? Nothing! Why? Because Nokia-authorized officials merely tell you that you have to read the "fine print" in your warranty, which as you know is nothing but a one-sided document… meaning, if you don’t agree with it, you just can’t do anything about it! Tell me of a consumer who is buying the product because he or she was enticed by their advertisements, but won’t buy it because they don’t like the warranty?
If you didn’t know, putting accessories other than a Nokia product into your phones voids its warranty. That also includes putting backlights, which a lot of Nokia users do. I suspect that Nokia officials are even "secretly" happy that so many unauthorized mom and pop cellular shops have opened shop because by the time their phone breaks and people ask for the warranties, the warranty is already void because the unsuspecting consumer didn’t know any better. Hence, DTI should force all cellular phone manufacturers to advertise their warranties together with their usual advertising… or else, these conscienceless companies shouldn’t be allowed to sell their products here!
"Dear Mr. Avila,
"Your observations and comparative analysis on the PEA’s President Diosdado Macapagal Avenue to that of ordinary road constructions under the DPWH are indeed correct and sets the record straight. It is unfortunate that a great number would delve into the technical merits of road construction without the necessary technical expertise available to them to start with. Your comments are therefore timely so as not to confuse our people.
"However, I do believe that even you have been misled by all this talk on the subject road in the same manner as I have been. Just recently, I have had the opportunity to look into the legal documents covering the project, the contract I am surprised that the technical issues are focus when what should be looked into are but the legal issues of the contract.
First: The contract partakes of a design, supply and construct contract. In such a situation, the project owner is relieved of any risk as to quantity of volume of materials to be actually used or disposed as well as actual price movements of labor and materials. Under this kind of a contractual arrangement, the entire risk is accepted by the contractor.
"It, therefore, comes as a surprise why change orders, variation orders and price escalations were entertained at all. If the contractor’s designer made a mistake in the preparation of his plans, he, the contractor, alone must absorb the risks and not transfer such problems to the project owner. This is the very essence of a design, supply and construct contract.
"Second: Assuming that additional works were introduced, over and beyond the original scope of work, such change order or variation order can indeed be allowed if the additional scope of work is contagious or adjunct to the original scope of work, but the government procurement rules as provided for by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD 1594 requires public bidding for all change orders/extra works beyond 100 percent of the escalated original contract cost except where the works involved are inseparable from the original scope of work.
Unfortunately, the Seaside Boulevard which is the subject of change order/variation order cannot be adjudged as inseparable from the Macapagal Avenue as it is in fact separate and distinct and non-construction of such would not at all deter the operationability of the Macapagal Avenue.
Third: Newspaper accounts and television interviews have presented the contractor as a building contractor. But the PEA project is a road and bridges project on reclaimed land. This requires a more experienced road and bridge contractor, one that has had a great number of years of experience in this type of substrata work and analysis. In essence, the contractor should be a holder of a PCAB Contractor’s License for General Engineering and not General Building with an IAC Classification of Large B for Roads & Bridges.
"I am an avid reader of your column as well as a listener to your radio program whenever I am in Cebu. Congratulations for your fair practice of journalism. May your tribe increase."
Thank you Engr. Madrasto for your e-mail, while we’re not an engineer, but being a long-standing member of the Infrastructure Development Committee (IDC) of the Regional Development Council (RDC-7) for many years somehow rubs off into us. The big question is, is this really a corruption issue or is it really a political circus designed to embarrass the current administration?
The reason I find this "expose" highly-suspicious stems from the fact that the whistle blower, Mr. Sulpico Tagud, has no credibility here in Cebu. Again, we ask, why did government make this fellow a director when he bungled so many deals while he was in the private sector? On the other end of the spectrum, I personally know PEA Chairman Ernest Villareal who never smudged his name while working for the Aboitizes. Therefore, it is highly improbable that he would tarnish his name now that he is in government. So what’s really going on here?