I refer to the articles published in your newspaper by Jarius Bondoc concerning the Special Bridge Building Program and would be grateful for the right of reply in view of the serious issues raised.
Mr. Bondoc and Cleveland Bridge have a lot in common. Both of us are concerned to deliver value for money for the Philippines. Both of us wish the Bridge Building Program to be a model of good corporate standards. And both of us care deeply about providing the infrastructure the Philippines needs to provide growth and development.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bondoc is not fully aware of the relevant facts. He confuses Cleveland Bridge’s role as a supplier for elements of previous projects with the role of delivering the program. Cleveland Bridge was not responsible for delays and actually lobbied to have construction pushed ahead at a faster pace when funding problems arose with other elements of the program. Mr. Bondoc will be pleased to know that Pasil Bridge was successfully completed in 2004 and is very much up and running. He will also be surprised to learn that the bridges in Abaton, Mindoro Oriental and Tullahan have no connection to Cleveland Bridge.
The government’s most recent procurement process has been lengthy, extremely detailed and is still ongoing. We have no complaints with this. Public procurement policy must be, and in this case certainly is, thorough. Our focus at Cleveland Bridge remains delivering the high-quality, cost-effective and timely infrastructure the Philippines needs. With any new contract, that is what the Philippines will get.
— Graham Coles, Resident Attorney in Fact (Philippines), Cleveland Bridge UK Limited