Tempers flare as PEA execs meet

Mix-ups and a temper tantrum were the order of the day at the Ciudad Fernandina forum yesterday.

The regular press meet resulted in a showdown between Public Estates Authority director Rodolfo Tuazon and his nemesis, PEA director-turned-whistle-blower Sulficio Tagud Jr. when Tuazon lashed out at Tagud.

"You’re an expert in lying, Director Tagud!" Tuazon shouted, as Tagud maintained his composure, his face showing both shock and amusement at Tuazon’s outburst.

Tuazon dared Tagud to present documentary evidence of his exposé on the alleged overpricing of the contract for the construction of the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard (PDMB) at the Pasay City reclamation area "to prove the truth."

Tagud said he had submitted all the pertinent documents to the Senate Blue Ribbon committee, but Tuazon insisted that Tagud also present the documents to the media, screaming, "Produce it before media because you are crucifying us before the media!"

Tuazon arrived at the forum armed with voluminous files and distributed copies of his oath of office to journalists and blew his top after a reporter asked Tagud to confirm reports that Tuazon had sought "financial help" from Tagud.

"He (Tuazon) invited me to lunch a day before Aug. 12 (board) meeting," Tagud said. "He tried to convince me to support the approval of the price increases" in the PDMB contract with JD Ledesma Construction, Tagud said.

Tuazon shook his head, grabbed the microphone and yelled at Tagud. "You are fond of misleading the press!" Instead of denying the allegation, Tuazon insisted that there never was a "price increase."

Tuazon said there were "cost adjustments" and "variation orders," which he said are different from "price increases," the phrase Tagud used.

After a short exchange, a very angry Tuazon reiterated his challenge that Tagud take a lie-detector test, a dare to which Tagud retorted, "I don’t know why we must take a lie-detector test. (Of) what value would that be?"

Tagud told Tuazon to engage in a "calmer discussion, devoid of emotion" because the matter under discussion "is nothing personal."

After the two were pacified by journalists covering the forum, Tagud continued to explain some details surrounding the alleged P600 million overpricing of 2.3 kilometers of the 5.1-km PDMB.

Tuazon continued to counter Tagud’s every statement and stood up as if to lunge at Tagud. Journalists expected the two to come to blows, but Tuazon only threw a copy of Presidential Decree 1594 on the table in front of Tagud.

According to Tagud, other evidence of the alleged bid rigging was the fact that the PEA did not follow PD 1594, which states that the list of contractors should be taken from the Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board; the creation of an ad hoc committee for the project instead of letting PEA’s Public Bidding and Awards Committee (PBAC) conduct the bidding; and that the PEA sought a list of contractors from a department of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) that specializes in buildings, not roads.

Far and deep

Meanwhile, the irregularities surrounding the PDMB project go far and deep.

Documents acquired by The STAR indicate that the "simplified bidding" undertaken by the PEA that narrowed down the list of contractors vying for the two-phase project to 10 was not justified under the law.

"Heavy traffic could in no way qualify as an emergency situation to justify the simplified bidding," said a bidding expert, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity.

A letter based on the April 22, 1999 memorandum by then PEA chairman Frisco San Juan for then President Joseph Estrada, said "the completion and utilization of Central Boulevard (later renamed to PDMB) cannot be over-emphasized as this will drastically improve the traffic congestion in Roxas Boulevard and more importantly jump-start the development of the Boulevard 2000 (PDMB) project where government is a major stakeholder. We had targeted the end of 1999 to complete said road."

"Considering the urgency of the project and the very short period of time remaining to accomplish the objective, the PEA respectfully requests that it be authorized to bid and award packages relative to the Central Boulevard through simplified bidding. The award of said contract shall be subject to approval of the PEA board and the Office of the President," continued the letter, which was coursed through then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora.

According to PD 1592, as amended in 2000, under the article IB10.6.2 titled "by negotiated contract," biddings other than public bidding are allowed only "in times of emergencies, failure of two public biddings and where the subject contract is adjacent or contiguous to an ongoing project, and where the government has taken over the project due to delay."

A negotiated contract is different from a simplified contract. The former refers to negotiation with just one contractor, while the latter refers to several pre-chosen qualified contractors without the necessity of any publication of an invitation to bid.

According to the source, there is no provision in the law that covers simplified bidding and that the same conditions for negotiated bidding apply to the process for simplified bidding.

This explanation was affirmed by a second bidding expert interviewed by The STAR.

"Traffic is not an emergency situation. With the bad traffic condition in Metro Manila, all the road projects in Metro Manila would be justified to be made through simplified bidding," the expert said.

He added that he cannot recall any instances when negotiated bidding was used by government. "If you allow one negotiated bidding, it could cause jealousy among the other contractors, so only simplified bidding is resorted to in case of emergencies."

Despite the supposed emergency and the unexplained sense of urgency to finish the PDMB project by 1999, Zamora only responded to the letter on July 2, 1999, in a memorandum to San Juan.

Zamora said "in view of the justification indicated therein (in San Juan’s letter), the (PEA) is hereby authorized to bid and award the contract packages relative to the construction of the Central Boulevard, thru simplified bidding..."

Still, based on records, winning contractor JDLC did not start the project until April 11, 2001 – almost two years after San Juan classified the road construction’s 1999 deadline as an "emergency situation."

Based on records and the law, JDLC should also not have been included in the simplified 10-contractor short-list.

Tagud told reporters yesterday that the bidding for the contract awarded to JDLC was "rigged."

"At the start of the project, there is already evidence of rigging," Tagud said.

According to him, the original invitation for bidding was for Packages 1 and 2 of the project, then called the Central Boulevard project.

Package 1 includes the Financial Center Road, the Asiaworld Road and the Central Boulevard Project (CBP) 2 Road. Package 2 includes Asiana Road.

According to Tagud, JDLC made a bid only for Package 1, when there was "no amendment that (PEA) would be changing the scope of the bidding."

"It is assumed that the bidding conducted was for Packages 1 and 2. Here one could already see that some hocus-pocus took place," Tagud said.

The PEA whistleblower also said the construction agreement signed by JDLC and then PEA general manager Carlos Doble on April 10, 2000 did not state that the contract was only for Package 1.

However, documents obtained by The STAR showed that the Notice to Proceed letter given to JDLC on the same date already stated the package involved in the work.

"In the government, when the rules and scope of the bid invitation change, it should be put out in a bid bulletin. In this case, there was none," Tagud added.

Later, Tagud told The STAR that PEA officials could again have misled and "manipulated" members of the old PEA board led by San Juan into awarding the contract to JDLC.

Tagud also said he and his lawyers are still studying "the extent of the liability" of the old board in the PDMB scandal.

In a letter to Doble dated Jan. 16, 2001, Legaspi requested a time suspension, adding in his letter that "the contractor would still be busily engage(d) in the pursuance of the remaining scope of works."

"How come they continued with the work?" Tagud asked, adding that "there could already be an understanding between the management and the contractor. This is a ‘constant’ group."

Even if PEA asked for a simplified bidding to facilitate the completion of the road project, the work was finished way behind the schedule indicated by the PEA in its justification.

"It still came to nothing. (The project) was not completed. Perhaps it was a ploy to control the bidding process," Tagud said.