The changes, the report said, were "in conflict with the bid offer and documents which are an integral part" of the contract and "to remedy the situation (DOTC and Piatco) illegally delete(d) the bid documents…"
The new contract was a "lopsided agreement whereby Piatco got all the advantages and DOTC got all the disadvantages," the report added, saying even then DOTC Secretary Vicente Rivera Jr. admitted there were at least 17 "substantial" amendments.
The report said DOTC in effect "opened the door for Piatco to renegotiate the concession agreement, an opportunity that Piatco took full advantage of."
It added: "Thus… the activity on the proposed terminal 3 was not the work on the project… but… (on a) series of negotiations… to amend the original concession agreement."
"It took three years (July 9, 1997 to June 15, 2000) from the time Piatco received the notice of award before it started constructing the project," the report said.
The report raised the possibility that Piatco submitted its original proposal in "bad faith."
"What Piatco did was to initially present a generous unsolicited proposal which was not in conflict with the specifications. But the moment Piatco won the award, it turned around and pushed one after another, a string of changes, which in its totality practically changed the terms of the original award," it said.
One of the amendments resulted in the destruction of Nayong Pilipino to give way to a P100-million access road for the transport of people, cargo, food and supplies to and from Terminal 3 to the present facilities of the airport.
This road, which has not even started, replaces an P800-million tunnel, saving Piatco a huge amount of money.
Another amendment more than doubled the terminal fee passengers would pay from P500 to $20.
The Senate committee report said the original contract was void from the start because DOTC awarded the project to Piatco without any authority in the absence of the requisite approval from the Investment Coordinating Committee, a Cabinet-level body.
Malacañang has also declared the contract void. The issue is now pending with the Supreme Court.