CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu City Council is still having second thoughts on whether they would allow the payment of the P29-million price escalation being claimed by TOA Corporation for the project it undertook at the South Road Properties almost a decade ago.
Councilor Margarita Osmeña said that even after the executive session yesterday, the council still has many questions they want the contractor to answer.
The representative sent by TOA Corporation, she said, is just the company’s consultant and was not even connected with the company during the time of the implementation of the project in 2002 to 2004.
She said the council has queries which the TOA representative was unable to answer, particularly on why the Mambaling access road had to be restored or redone a year after its completion. The City Government spent another P30 million to correct what TOA has first constructed.
The council asked TOA to submit a written position paper or a letter of explanation so the council may examine their arguments point by point.
The council will also call the Department of Engineering and Public Works to help them analyze some technical aspects of the issue.
If the council finds the project made by TOA as substandard, which could be the possible reason why it had to be restored, Osmeña said the council will have to argue it out with the company.
“If we have to pay we will pay. We’re not running away from our responsibilities. But we have to clarify some things first,” she said.
The payment to TOA is one of the items proposed under the pending Supplemental Budget No. 2.
During the executive session, TOA explained that the Mambaling access road was constructed as a flexible road because they could not concretize the road at the time because the ground is unstable because it was just reclaimed.
TOA said it would take 10 years at least before a reclaimed lot becomes stable so they only imposed alternative measures.
Osmeña said that the project was supposed to include a drainage system but TOA only constructed a temporary drainage system which is a basic drainage with no culverts or anything but a plain excavation on the side of the road.
A year after the completion when the warranty period of one year has already lapsed, the area has been flooded several times, which damaged the road.
Osmeña said that TOA blamed the City because it did not maintain the drainage system, by which they meant the City has to excavate the canal every after rain. Osmeña said TOA’s explanation is not acceptable. — (FREEMAN)