DPWH Sbp2003-03a PDF

Republic of the Philippines
Commission on Audit
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines
Telephone Nos. 931-9235, 931-74455
August 29, 2004
Hon. Secretary Florante Soriquez

Department of Public Works and Highways
Port Area, Manila
Sir:
We are pleased to transmit the report on the sectoral performance audit of

the School Building Program for Elementary Education. The audit was
conducted by a team from this Office from July 7, 2003 to February 23, 2004 in
compliance with MS/TS Office Order No. 2003-009 dated June 24, 2003 and TS
Office Order No. 2003-068 dated October 17, 2003. The results of the audit
were discussed with the concerned officials and employees of the Department in
an exit conference conducted on July 5, 2004. Their comments were
incorporated in the report, where appropriate.
The audit covered the implementation of the School Building Program for
Elementary Education for CYs 2002-2003. The audit included, in addition to
that Department, the Department of Education with ocular inspection on selected
Division/District Offices within the National Capital Region and Regional
Offices Nos. VI and X, the Provincial Government of Bukidnon and the City
Government of Iloilo.
The performance of the Department was assessed using the following

criteria:
a. Sound Identification/Selection of School Sites;

b. Reasonable Cost Measures;
c. Effective Quality Assurance; and
d. Responsive Project Administration.
We look forward to the proper implementation of the recommendations

and we would appreciate being informed on the actions taken thereon within one
month from receipt hereof.
We acknowledge with gratitude the cooperation and assistance extended
to the audit team by the officials and staff of the Department.
Very truly yours,
By Authority of the Chairman:
ILUMINADA M.V. FABROA

Director IV
Management Services
Report No. 2003-03A
Performance Audit
School Building Program

for Elementary Education
Department of Public Works

and Highways
Contents Page
Part I Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Audit Objective 4
Audit Scope and Methodology 4
Audit Conclusion 5
Management’s Reaction to Audit Observations 6
Part II School Building Program 7

Introduction 8
Agencies Implementing the Program 9
Sources of Funds 10
The Role of the DPWH 11
Allocation 14
The DPWH Accomplishments 14
Types of School Buildings 15
Reports to be Rendered 16
Part III Audit Observations 17
Chapter 1 Sound Identification/Selection 18

of School Sites
Introduction 19
Observation 19
Management’s Comments & Team’s
Rejoinder 27
Chapter 2 Reasonable Cost Measures 29
Introduction 30
Observations 31, 37 and 44
Rejoinder 36, 43 and 46
i
Contents Page
Chapter 3 Effective Quality Assurance 48

Introduction 49
Observation 50
Rejoinder 63
Chapter 4 Responsive Project Administration 64

Introduction 65
Observation 65
Rejoinder 70
Part IV Recommendations 73
ii
Part 1
Executive Summary
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The right of Filipino citizens to quality education at all levels is guaranteed

under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It is provided therein that the state shall
take appropriate steps to make education accessible to all and to establish and
maintain a system of free public education in the elementary and high school
levels.
This mandate carries with it the responsibility of providing the different

components of education such as school buildings, textbooks, armchairs, and
teachers. For SY 2002-2003, there were 16,435,529 students in the elementary
and secondary education enrolled in 36,301 and 5,394 elementary and secondary
schools, respectively, nationwide.
In the Historical Inventory of classrooms prepared by the Department of

Education (DepEd), the total classroom shortage for SY 2001-2002 for
elementary and secondary education were reflected to be 8,040 and 27,946,
respectively, or a total of 35,986 and is projected to increase to 44,716 by SY
2003-2004.
The shortage of classrooms is a long standing issue which is being raised every
enrolment period. To ensure that substantial number of classrooms are built, the
government is appropriating P2.0 Billion annually for the School Building
Program (SBP). For this purpose, the government had devised an allocation
system that is perceived to address equitable and fair allocation of resources. The
allocation as defined under Section 4 of R.A. No. 7880, otherwise known as the
“Fair and Equitable Access to Education Act”, is shown below:
P2 Billion SBP Annual Allocation
10%
40% based on unallocated
classroom shortage (Discretion of DepEd 50% based on
Secretary) student population
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the Act, 90% of the Annual Appropriation will be released to the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for the implementation of
the program while the 10% will be administered by the DepEd.
The budgets for CYs 2002 and 2003 were expected to produce 6,154 and 5,330
classrooms, respectively, for elementary and secondary schools considering an
average cost of P325,000/classroom in CY 2002 and P375,000/classroom in CY
2003. These units were distributed to the 210 Legislative Districts in accordance
with the above RA 7880 allocations as follows:
CY 2002 CY 2003
Region # of CL Amount # of CL Amount
1 - Ilocos Region 241 P 78,325 243 P 91,113

2 - Cagayan Valley 206 66,950 161 60,546
3 - Central Luzon 498 161,850 477 178,843
4 - Southern Tagalog 868 282,100 958 359,302
5 - Bicol Region 350 113,750 293 109,959
6 - Western Visayas 395 128,375 370 138,652
7 - Central Visayas 471 153,075 414 155,404
8 - Eastern Visayas 295 95,875 197 73,972
9 - Western Mindanao 268 87,100 196 73,636
10- Northern Mindanao 199 64,675 188 70,550
11-Southern Mindanao 424 137,800 407 152,634
12- Central Mindanao 238 77,350 137 51,348
CAR 96 31,200 81 30,473
NCR 579 188,175 377 141,504
CARAGA 199 64,675 130 48,903
ARMM 211 68,575 168 63,160
Sub- total 5,538 1,799,850 4,797 1,799,999
10% Unallocated 616 200,000 533 200,000
Grand Total 6,154 P 2,000,000 5,330 P 1,999,999
These allocations are not sufficient to eliminate the classroom shortage of both
elementary and secondary schools of 35,986 for SY 2001-2002. The National
Government is, however, not alone in this endeavor. The Local Government Units
(LGUs) and a number of government and private entities are also constructing
school buildings to help the National Government.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AUDIT OBJECTIVE
The audit was conducted to determine whether or not the implementation of the
school building program has been effectively and economically managed giving
consideration to:
¾ Selection of School Sites

¾ Utilization of School Buildings
¾ Cost Measures
¾ Project Administration
AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The audit focused on the implementation of the school building program for
elementary education covering allocation for SY 2002-2003. The agencies
included in the audit are the DepEd and DPWH with ocular inspection in selected
Division/District Offices in the National Capital Region (NCR) and Regional
Offices Nos. VI and X, the City Government of Iloilo and the Provincial
Government of Bukidnon.
The performance of the DPWH was assessed using the following criteria:
¾ Sound Identification/Selection of School Building Sites;

¾ Reasonable Cost Measures;
¾ Effective Quality Assurance; and
¾ Responsive Project Administration
To meet the audit objective, the team performed the following procedures:
¾ Reviewed existing policies and guidelines on the allocation of school

building fund, identification/selection of school sites, and costing of school
buildings;
¾ Reviewed existing reporting system to determine completeness, accuracy
and validity of reported data;
¾ Interviewed personnel involved in the implementation of the program;
¾ Reviewed accomplishment reports and other relevant reports pertaining to
the implementation of the program;
¾ Inspected selected schools and assessed the different buildings designs; and
¾ Determined if the actions taken by the different offices involved in the
implementation of the SBP are coordinated.
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The audit was conducted from July 7 to November 28, 2003 in compliance with
COA MS/TS Office Order No. 2003-009 dated June 24, 2003 and TS Office
Order No. 2003-068 dated October 17, 2003.
AUDIT CONCLUSION
Overall, the audit concluded that the implementation of the school building
program was not effectively and economically managed. The implementation
was affected by deficiencies in the process of implementation from selection of
school building site to monitoring of contractor’s performance and a slow paced
performance by the DepEd and DPWH as discussed below:
¾ The selection of sites was adversely affected by the absence of

coordination among the agencies involved in the program. At present,
there are a number of schools with more than enough classrooms and yet
were continuously receiving allocation from different sources at the
expense of other unserved schools which are resorting to shifting &
conducting classes in makeshift structures, school hallways and
dilapidated classrooms with large number of students.
¾ There is no single standard design and costing for school buildings. Each
implementing agency is adopting its own design and standards which are
based on its cost allocation per unit. This practice led to a situation where
school premises are crowded with different designs and structures which
is no longer in conformity with the government’s policy of properly
laying out school buildings in the school ground to achieve the most
advantageous display. The absence of uniform designs and costs hinders
the opportunity for comparing and evaluating the performance of the
implementing agencies involved in the construction of school buildings.
¾ The DPWH was delivering unfinished school buildings to the School

Principals which could not be used for academic purposes. Apparently,
the DPWH contracted scope of works were not sufficient to complete the
structures. This is not in consonance with the Joint DepEd-DPWH
Memorandum which provided that cost constraints should not be used by
the DPWH as a ground for delivering unfinished classrooms. This may
have been caused by the failure of the DPWH to prepare a standard
Program of Work (POW) for each plan. As such, individual POW is
prepared for every bid out project using the same plan. These POWs,
however, reflected different quantities and amount for the same item of
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
work. This condition then contributed to the delivery of unfinished

structures.
Moreover, considering the limited government resources, the adoption of

multi-storey building even in school sites with ample space which proved
to be costly compared with one-storey building is uneconomic. The cost
allocated per classroom for this type of building is more than twice the
cost of a one-storey classroom.
¾ The performance of the contractors was not properly monitored as

manifested in classrooms with cracks in interior walls and flooring, of
poor workmanship, and not complying with the desired specifications.
¾ Of the 2,971 classrooms programmed for elementary schools to be

completed during 2003, only 68 were completed as of March 31, 2004.
The DPWH’s accomplishment was affected by the slow paced
performance in all stages of work, from issuance of guidelines for the
preparation of priority list to awarding of contract and construction
activities. It would appear that it took the DepEd and DPWH combined,
344 to 450 days from January 1, 2003, to complete the construction of
one project.
These lapses hinder the achievement of the government’s objective of providing

adequate classrooms for each school on time thereby affecting the quality of
education offered to students.
Considering the importance of school buildings in the delivery of quality

education, the team recommended measures to address these concerns for
consideration by the DPWH and other implementing agencies.
MANAGEMENT’S REACTION TO AUDIT OBSERVATIONS
The results of the audit were discussed with the Undersecretary and Chairman for
DPWH Task Force on School Buildings and other concerned officials of the
Department in an exit conference held on July 5, 2004. Overall, the Officials
acknowledged the team’s observation and is in accord with the proposed
recommendations.
6
Part II
School Building Program
7
SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The provision of adequate resources for education is one of the priority concerns of
the government. One of the components under this program which the government
is committed to provide is adequate school buildings. For this reason, the national
government is allocating P2.0 Billion annually to address the school building
shortage. As reflected in the DepEd records for SY 2001-2002, the government
schools offering elementary education is short by 8,040 classrooms nationwide as
tabulated below:
Actual Excess Classrooms still

Region Classrooms Classrooms Needed
I 19,392 5,722 0
II 12,998 2,994 0
III 30,044 4,841 310
IV 39,975 4,574 4,042
V 23,164 3,998 47
VI 30,952 8,008 10
VII 23,173 3,514 769
VIII 20,221 6,002 0
IX 13,228 1,244 584
X 12,722 1,993 202
XI 19,262 1,220 622
XII 8,682 1,179 51
CARAGA 9,651 1,445 155
NCR 13,955 2,545 900
CAR 7,566 2,686 0
ARMM 10,414 862 348
TOTAL 295,399 52,827 8,040
It can be gleaned from the above tabulation that while there is a need to construct
8,040 classrooms to address the shortage of other unserved schools, the number of
classrooms in some other schools is more than enough for their academic needs by
52,827. These numbers are even several times sufficient to address the existing
needs.
8
AGENCIES IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM
The school building program is participated by a number of government and non-

government organizations with the DepEd as the lead Agency. Their specific
functions and responsibilities follow:
Agencies Functions & Responsibilities
¾ Issuance of Guidelines on:

• Selection of School Sites
• Collection of Annual School Data
Standard
Cost estimate per
classroom
DepEd ¾ Preparation of Allocation List per Legislative
(CO, RO & DO) District pursuant to Roxas Law
¾ Consolidation of priority list submitted by the
Division Offices
¾ Identification of school sites
¾ Implementation of the 10% unallocated
SEMP Fund and TEEP Fund
¾ Monitoring & reporting of the status of school
buildings per school
¾ Preparation of standard plans and specification

¾ Preparation of cost estimate for each project to
Department of be bid out
Public Works & ¾ Implementation of 90% SBP funds
Highways ¾ Monitoring and reporting of the status and
inspection of accomplishments
¾ Provision/allocation of funds for the

construction of school buildings
Local
¾ Implementation of school building construction
Government
funded from the Special Education Fund (SEF)
Units
¾ Monitoring and inspection of accomplishments
9
Agencies Functions & Responsibilities
¾ Provision/allocation of funds for the

construction of school buildings
Presidential ¾ Implementation of school building construction
Management thru partners (AFP Eng’g. Brigade, LGUs, &
Staff selected NGOs)
(Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce

and Industry, Inc. and other private institutions)
Private
Corporations and ¾ Provision/allocation of funds for the
Non-Government construction of school buildings
Organizations ¾ Implementation of school building construction
thru Local Chambers and Private Corporations
SOURCES OF FUNDS
For CY 2002, these agencies, excluding the LGUs’ budget out of the Special
Education Fund (SEF), have allocated about P3.72 Billion for school building
construction.
Budget 2002
Funding Source
(Billion)
GAA P 2.000
DPWH 90%
DepEd 10%
Loans (FAP-TEEP) (P17.0B for 5 years ) 1.400
PMS 0.055
CIA/CDF 0.100
FFCCCII (P350 M for 2 years) 0.165
Total P3.720
10
THE ROLE OF THE DPWH
The DPWH, being the State’s engineering and construction arm, is tasked to
implement the School Building Program of the DepEd. The DPWH’s
participation on this program is defined under Rule VIII of the Rules and
Regulations for the Effective Implementation of RA 7880 adopted on March 31,
1995. It provides that appropriation for the construction, rehabilitation,
replacement and repair of school buildings shall be directly released to and
administered by the DPWH.
To ensure the smooth administration by the DPWH of the 90% appropriation, the
DepEd and DPWH entered into a Joint Memorandum on July 10, 2003 defining
the following:
¾ The DepEd and DPWH should agree on the average cost per classroom.
The costs may be adjusted upwards especially for multi-storey school
buildings provided that the total/target number of school buildings are
met within the approved GAA budget (P1.80 Billion or 90% of the SBP
component).
¾ The creation of DPWH-DepEd Technical Working Group with the

following responsibilities:
A. For On-going SBP Construction
(1) Provide Principals with adequate information needed for acceptance of

the school building;
(2) Provide timely information on deficiencies which will affect
acceptance;
(3) Benchmark good practices in the procurement process; and
(4) Provide factual and timely reports to DepEd and DPWH management
on the status, performance and problems on the SBP.
B. For Completed SBP Construction
(1) Provide information on the conditions and utilization of the school

buildings constructed under the SBP; and
(2) Tender necessary action on feedback from the schools on the
conditions of the school buildings constructed under the SBP.
¾ During the pre-Construction Stage, the DPWH District Office shall

provide the DepEd Division Office and the Heads of the recipient schools
copies of the plans, specifications, program of works and schedules of the
11
construction project under their areas of jurisdiction for review and

comments prior to construction. It shall likewise invite a representative
from the DepEd Division Office to sit as observer during bid opening.
¾ The DPWH Project Engineer shall furnish the Principal with a copy of
each of the following reports, during the Construction Stage:
Results of material testing

Monthly project status report
¾ A joint inspection by the DPWH representative, the DepEd Division

Physical Facilities Coordinator, the school head, a professional
community representative and the contractor shall be conducted to ensure
all the items listed in the punch list have been rectified.
The Flow Chart for Monitoring of DPWH-Constructed School Buildings is

presented in Figure 1.
12
Flowchart for Monitoring DPWH Constructed School Buildings Figure 1
TE C H N IC AL D IV IS IO N R E G IO N AL C E N TR AL
C O N TR AC TO R DPW H SCHOOL
C O M M ITTE E O FF IC E O FF IC E O F FIC E
IDENTIFICATION
ST AR T ID EN T IF IC AT IO N O F SC H O O L S IT E AN D C L ASS R O O M N E ED
C O N D U C T S IT E
AP P R AIS AL & P R E P AR E
SITE
D E S IG N S & P L AN S ,
P R O G R AM O F W O R K
F U R N ISH A C O P Y O F
PL AN S, S P EC S & R E V IE W P L AN S , S P E C S
P R O G R AM O F W O R K AN D P R O G R AM O F W O R K
T O P R IN C IPAL
NO
CONSTRUCTION
R E S O L V E S C O N F L IC T IF
N O T S E T T LE D R E F E R T O
S U P E R IN T E N D E N T & AC C E PT AB L E
PROCUREMENT D IS T R IC T E N G IN E E R
Y ES
PRE-
AC C E PT S AW AR D & S T AG E (B U D D IN G ,
N O T IC E T O PR O C E E D C O N T R AC T IN G &
AW AR D IN G )
R E C E IV E S N O T ICE O F
AW AR D & C O N T R AC T O R
IN T R O D U C E D
M O B IL IZ AT IO N 1. M O N IT O R S
C O N S T R U C T IO N
S U P E R V IS IO N C O N S T R U C T IO N W O R K
2. O B S E R V E C R IT IC AL P R O G R E S S M O N IT O R IN G
S T AG E S O F
C O N S T R U C T IO N
CONSTRUCTION
R E S O L V E S C O N F L IC T IF
N O T S E T T LE D R E F E R T O NO AC C E P T AB L E
P R O G R E S S /Q U AL IT Y
S U P E R IN T E N D E N T &
D IS T R IC T E N G IN E E R Y ES C O N S T R U C T IO N
P AR T IC IP AT E S IN
R E Q U S T P U N C H L IS T IN G C O N D U C T P U N C H L IS T IN G
P U N C H LIS T IN G
R E C T IF Y P U N C H LIS T E D
P U N C H LIS T E D IT E M S
IT E M S
NO
CO MPLETED?
POST-CONSTRUCTION
RECOM MENDS
AC C E P T AN C E
Y ES
R E S O LV E S C O N FL IC T AN D
S E E K S AP P R O V AL O F
AC C E P T AB L E
S U P E R IN T E N D E N T AN D
D IS T R IC T E N G IN E E R
NO
Y ES
S IG N S CE R T IFIC AT E O F
AC C E P T AN C E (FO R M 1), P R E P AR E S F IN AL R E P O R T
P R E P AR E S P R E P AR E S
B O O K S U P AS S E T & (D E P E D -D P W H R E V IE W
P AY M E N T O F R E T E N T IO N C O N S O L ID AT E D R E P O RT C O N S O LID AT E D R E P O R T
P R E P AR E S C O M P L E T IO N C O M M IT T E E )
(U S E FO R M N O . 3) (U S E F O RM N O . 4)
R E P O R T (U S E FO R M N O . (U S E FO R M N O . 5)
2)
END
13
ALLOCATION
To partially address the more than 8,000 classroom shortage for elementary
education, the DepEd scheduled the construction of 5,094 new classrooms
during CYs 2002 and 2003, distributed as follows:
No. of Classrooms
Region CY 2002 CY 2003
1 - Ilocos Region 168 129

2 - Cagayan Valley 132 90
3 - Central Luzon 282 229
4 - Southern Tagalog 451 399
5 - Bicol Region 254 138
6 - Western Visayas 249 162
7 - Central Visayas 164 164
8 - Eastern Visayas 230 118
9 - Western Mindanao 178 68
10- Northern Mindanao 185 118
11-Southern Mindanao 187 147
12- Central Mindanao 120 113
CAR 38 41
NCR 66 * 8
CARAGA 159 33
ARMM 162 112
Total 3,025 2,069
* excluding the number of classrooms costing P11.2M.

Quantity not specified in the Priority List of Malabon-
Navotas & Pasay.
As a requirement, a school building to be constructed must be stable and safe

against typhoons, earthquakes, fire, and secured against stray animals and other
intruders. It must have adequate water supply, lighting, ventilation and liberal
air circulation.
THE DPWH ACCOMPLISHMENTS
As of March 31, 2004, the status of construction of elementary school

buildings and repairs/reconstruction of old buildings out of CYs 2002 to 2003
appropriation are on various stages of completion with a significant number not
yet started, as illustrated on the next page:
14
CY 2002 CY 2003
Particulars Number % Number %
Projects to be implemented 5,134 2,971

Status of Implementation
Completed 4,342 84.57 68 2.29
On-Going 389 7.58 312 10.50
Not Yet Started 403 7.85 2,591 87.21
TYPES OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS
The existing buildings at present are of different sizes and designs as tabulated
below:
Gross Area Per Place

Types of Buildings Dimensions Floor Area Per Pupil of a Class of 40
Gabaldon Type 7.00 x 9 63.00 1.575

Army Type 6.00 x 7 42.00 1.050
Marcos Type 6.00 x 7 42.00 1.050
Magsaysay Type 7.50 x 6 43.80 1.095
Bagong Lipunan I NS 48.00 1.200
Bagong Lipunan II 6.00 x 8 48.00 1.200
Bagong Lipunan III 8.00 x 6 48.00 1.200
RP – US Bayanihan 7.35 x 6 47.70 1.192
ESF Building NS 48.00 1.200
Imelda Type 6.00 x 8 48.00 1.200
Pagcor Building 8.00 x 6 48.00 1.200
JICA – EFIP Building 6.00 x 8 56.00 1.400
JICA – TRSBP Building 8.00 x 7 52.00 1.350
Multi-Purpose Shop 8 x 6.25 112.00 2.800
Workshop NS 48.00 1.200
DECS One-Room Building 7.00 x 8 56.00 1.400
FVR 2002 School Building NS
Readily Assembled NS
Multi Optima Shelter (Ramos) 7.00 x 8 56.00 1.400
Royal Building System 7.00 x 8 56.00 1.400
EVG-3D Panel System 7.00 x 8 56.00 1.400
FFCCCII 7.00 x 8 56.00 1.400
Little Red School House 7.00 x 8 56.00 1.400
NS - Not Specified
FFCCCII - Federation of Filipino Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc.
15
REPORTS TO BE RENDERED
The following reports are required to be prepared at each level:
AGENCY REQUIRED REPORTS
¾ Nationwide consolidated Priority List of

DepEd Schools with corresponding Allocation
for SBP
¾ Nationwide BEIS- Quick Count
Instruction Room Analysis (Module 1)
Central ¾ Nationwide BEIS-Performance Indicator
Office (Module 2)
¾ Nationwide Enrolment Data
¾ Nationwide Classroom Inventory
¾ Status Report of Project Implementation
¾ Monitoring Reports
¾ Consolidated Government Elementary

Regional School Profile of all Division Offices
Offices ¾ Regional Enrolment Data
¾ Regional Classroom Inventory
¾ Consolidated Government Elementary

School Profile to be integrated into BEIS
Division for all elementary schools
Offices ¾ Priority Lists for SBP
¾ Enrolment Data
Department of
Public Works & ¾ DepEd Physical Status Report
Highways ¾ Summary Report – DepEd School Building
(DPWH) Program
16
Part III
Audit Observations
17
Chapter 1
Sound Identification/Selection of School Sites
18
SOUND IDENTIFICATION/SELECTION OF SCHOOL SITE
INTRODUCTION
The government’s and private organization's efforts to provide funds for school
building would only be meaningful if the funds are used efficiently and
effectively. The funds are considered effectively used if the same, upon use,
address the very purpose for which the funds were appropriated/allocated. The
school building funds were intended to address the surmounting classroom
shortage the schools are experiencing at present.
Considering that the funds allocated are not enough to completely address this
concern, the prioritization of the needs to be addressed is crucial. For this reason,
the DepEd had formulated guidelines on the selection of schools that should be
allocated with classrooms. Thus, as soon as the Planning and Program Division
of the DepEd had completed the allocation of funds per Legislative District, the
respective Division Offices is informed of the same and furnished with the
guidelines on the selection of schools qualified to receive classroom allocation.
The audit disclosed that the criteria for the selection of schools most in need may
be considered adequate. However, the team noted that in the selection process,
the Division Offices did not consider the plans of other funding agencies. Thus,
there were a number of cases where the needs were being addressed by different
sectors.
These cases could have been addressed by the DPWH and the DepEd before the
construction of the project started. After discovering that there were on-going
construction of classrooms by other agencies or new buildings constructed, the
DPWH should have informed the DepEd and worked out for the realignment of
the fund to another school in need within the same legislative district.
This condition manifests lapses in the selection process which, if remained

unchecked, would result in further wastage of government’s meager resources.
OBSERVATION
There is a need to enhance the consultation process in the identification

of school sites. There were a number of cases where DPWH constructed
school building in the same site simultaneous with other funding
agencies. This contributed in the construction of additional classrooms
19
in schools no longer in need of the same at the expense of other unserved

schools adopting three to four shifts a day with students cramming in
dilapidated classrooms, hallways and makeshift structures.
To maximize the benefits derived from the SBP funds, the DepEd is issuing
annually, guidelines on the selection of schools to be allocated with classrooms.
For CYs 2002 and 2003, the DepEd set the following criteria:
CY 2002 CY 2003
• Barangays without an elementary school and those • The results of the Basic Education Information
that can have one. This is in response to the SONA System (BEIS) Quick Count for SY 2002-2003.
commitment of providing schools in every These data present the classroom needs at the
barangay. At least 50% of the priority barangays school level and should be used as basis for
identified by the field offices for each division allocation of classroom needs. The following
should be targeted for inclusion in the 2002 School color spectrum has been devised to determine
building Program. At least a two-room school which schools are in greatest need of
building should be proposed for a new elementary classrooms:
school.
Pupil : CL Ratio Color Code
• School buildings which were damaged by
calamities such as fires, typhoons, earthquakes, etc.
45 and below Blue
• Schools with large classroom shortages due to 46 – 50 Yellow
expanding enrolment. 51 - 55 Gold
56 & above Red
• Provision of schools in fast growing areas such as no classroom Black
resettlement/relocation sites.
• Installation of water supply system and electrical Preference should be given to the hot colored
connections (to be considered as new project schools in terms of classroom allocation (i.e.
categories). gold, red & black).
• Completion of unfinished structures utilized for

academic instruction.
• School buildings which were damaged by

calamities such as fires, typhoons, earthquakes,
etc.
• Replacement of demolished buildings.
• Provision of school building/ classrooms in fast

growing areas such as resettlement/relocation
sites, tribal communities.
• Installation of potable water supply and

electrical connections.
• Any of the remaining Batch 2 barangays or

proposed Batch 3 barangays under the PGMA
School-less Bgy Project that will be newly
validated.
20
The team noted that these criteria maybe considered valid and adequate to guide
the Division Offices in their selection process. However, considering that the
school building program is also implemented by the LGUs and a number of
government and private organizations, the Division Offices should have
considered the plans of these agencies in their respective district.
The consultation process among the funding agencies is important to ensure that
the actual needs are addressed and to avoid duplication of actions and wastage of
meager resources.
In view of the absence of consultation and proper evaluation of needs, inspection

revealed that in a number of schools, several funding agencies have been
constructing school buildings simultaneous with the DPWH in the same school or
in schools without actual needs resulting in a situation where there are now more
than enough classrooms than the schools’ actual needs.
These cases are evident on the following schools:
Region/ Construction for CY 2002 & 2003
Required
Province/
Existing
Existing
CIA/ CDF
Excess
City/
FFCCII
Total
DPWH
TEEP/
Deped
Municipality School
AR
AR
SMP
10%
PPC
SEF
NCR
Quezon City GSIS Village ES 32 4 36 34 2
Camp Crame ES 24 12 36 33 14
Mandaluyong FP Javier ES 4 8 12 8 4
Hi-Way Hills ES 46 15 61 39 22
Region VI
Iloilo City Arevalo ES 29 2 3 31 28 3
repairs
Ticud Es 20 3 2 2 2 26 20 6
repairs
Bo. Obrero ES 24 2 3 2 28 25 3
repairs
Taal ES 9 2 2 13 12 1
A. Montes II ES 27 1 Sci. 2 29 26 3
Lab
L. Mirasol ES 11 2 13 12 1
Sambag ES 27 2 29 26 3
Sto. Nino Sur ES 21 2 23 21 2
21
Construction for CY 2002 & 2003
Existing AR
Required
Existing
Region/
Excess
CDF/CIA
Province/City/
FFCCII
DPWH
Total
DepEd
TEEP/
AR
SMP
10%
PPC
SEF
Municipality School
Region VI
Iloilo City A. Bonifacio ES 30 2 32 29 3
NJ Ingore ES 17 2 19 15 4
MV Hechanova 15* 2 17 13 4
ES
I. Arroyo ES 25 4 29 25 4
Capiz
Pontevedra Dna. VC Dais ES 21 2 23 20 3
Hipona ES 20 2 22 19 3
Pres. Roxas Pres. Roxas East 25 2 27 25 2
ES
Tapaz Bag-ong Barrio 6 1 7 6 1
ES
Camburanan ES 7* 1 8 6 2
Sapian Dapdapan ES 12 1 13 12 1
Jamindan Lucero ES 13 1 14 13 1
Mambusao Manibad ES 6 1 7 6 1
Dao Dao CES 36 3 39 34 5
Antique
Sebaste Aguilar ES 6 1 7 6 1
Nauhon ES 5 2 7 6 1
Barbaza Igpalge ES 7 2 9 7 2
Bugalong Cubay ES 13 2 15 13 2
Culasi Fe Caridad ES 5 2 7 6 1
Valderrama ES 8 2 10 7 3
Lana-an Guisijan ES 17 3 20 18 2
Libertad Bulanao ES 7 4 11 7 4
San Roque Es 5 2 7 6 1
Aklan
New
Washington Polo ES 12 2 14 12 2
Region X
Cagayan de Oro
City Camaman-an ES 63 2 65 63 2
Kauswagan ES 43 1 44 41 3
South City ES 49 4 53 50 3
Bukidnon
Valencia Kilangi ES 2 1 3 2 1
San
Fernando Halapitan ES 29 2 31 27 4
Camiguin
Mahinog Mahinog CS 18 2 20 18 2
Maramag Musuan ES 23 2 1 26 23 3
Legend: * - rounded-up to the nearest whole number

SMP - Shoemart Primeholdings
PPC - Panay Powers Corporation
AR - Academic Rooms
FFCCII – Federation of Filipino Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Inc.
TEEP - Third Elementary Education Project
22
The excess classrooms were found during inspection being used for non-academic
purposes such as Principal’s Office, Property Room, PE Room and the like.
The team further noted that the possibility of using the excess classrooms in the
near future for the intended purpose is remote considering the declining/negative
growth in enrollment on some of these schools ranging from 0.26% to 23.63% as
tabulated below:
GROWTH
ENROLLMENT RATE
CONSTRUCTIONS
EXISTING
EXCESS
CY 2001
CY 2002
CY 2003
CY 2002
CY 2003
SCHOOL
TOTAL
NEEDS
(In %)
(In %)
Camp Crame ES 1,820 1,590 1,519 -1.85 -4.47 24 12 36 22 14
Taal ES 401 384 361 -4.24 -5.99 9 4 13 12 1
A. Bonifacio ES 1,134 1,083 1,056 -4.50 -2.49 30 2 32 29 3
NJ Ingore ES 851 684 680 2.00 2.41 17 2 19 15 4
MV Hechanova ES 581 572 545 -3.21 -4.72 15* 2 17 13 4
I. Arroyo ES 1,097 1,093 1,007 -0.36 -7.87 25 4 29 25 4
Dna Victoria Dais ES 890 825 734 -7.30 -11.03 21 2 23 20 3
Hipona ES 692 677 675 -2.17 -0.30 20 2 22 19 3
Panay CES 1,229 1,182 1,126 -3.82 -4.74 31 3 34 30 4
Pres Roxas East ES 848 808 792 -4.73 -1.74 25 2 27 25 2
Dapdapan ES 381 378 377 -0.79 -0.26 12 1 13 12 1
Lucero ES 437 413 392 -5.49 -5.08 13 1 14 13 1
Maribad ES 181 180 174 -0.55 -3.33 6 1 7 6 1
Polo ES 582 519 488 -7.65 -5.97 12 2 14 12 2
South City ES 2,269 2,243 2,219 -1.15 -1.07 49 4 53 50 3
Halapitan ES 1,219 1,179 1,114 -3.28 -5.51 29 2 31 27 4
Mahinog CS 809 574 562 -5.75 -2.09 18 2 20 18 2
Legend: * - rounded-up to the nearest whole number
The duplication of actions could have been avoided by the DPWH, as the
implementing arm of the SBP, and the DepEd had there been proper coordination
before the construction of the project. The DPWH should have properly informed
the DepEd before starting the project that there were on-going or about to start
construction by other agencies or new building constructed. That way, the funds
intended for construction or repair should have been realigned to another school
also in need within the same legislative district.
Rule VI of the Rules and Regulations for the Effective Implementation of RA

7880 allows for the realignment/relocation of projects funded from the capital
outlay of DepEd in case of the following instances:
¾ Imbalanced allocation of projects within the district;

¾ Duplication of project; and
¾ Overlapping of funding source.
23
It was further provided that the realignment/relocation shall be made upon the
initiative and consent of the representative of the district office concerned with the
concurrence of any one of the following regardless of the cost of the project being
realigned/relocated:
¾ The School’s Division Superintendent;

¾ The Regional Director; or
¾ The Secretary of DepEd.
The construction of classrooms in schools no longer in need cannot be considered

logical in the presence of schools within the same district deeply in need of
additional classrooms.
A classic example of school inspected by the team which is in dire need of

additional classroom is Commonwealth Elementary School under Legislative
District II of Quezon City. Considering its population, the school needs 139
classrooms while there are only 85 classrooms as of inspection date.
This school was not among the priority schools identified by the DepEd, hence,
was not allocated any classroom for CYs 2002 and 2003. To accommodate all
students, the school adopted 3 shifts for grades 2 and 3 with classes from 6:00-
10:00am, 10:00am – 2:00pm and 2:00 – 6:00 pm. Under this condition, the
number of minutes per subject for Grades 2 and 3 were reduced as illustrated
below:
Number of Minutes
Subject Should Be Actual Difference
English 100 80 (20)

Math 80 60 (20)
Filipino 80 50 (30)
Makabayan 60 40 (20)
320 230 (90)
The team also noted that this school, together with a number of schools in the
Regions inspected by the team, resorted to the use of temporary classrooms such
as stage, open hallways, enclosed corridors and makeshift structures made of
bamboo, plywood or corrugated galvanized iron just to conduct classes as
illustrated on the next pages.
24
Province / Makeshift Rooms

Name of ES City Utilized by
No. of CL Made of
1. Commonwealth ES Quezon City 4 Plywood at the Grades 1, 2 & 3; (11

Basement classes)
2 Open space at Grades 2 & 3; (6 classes)
the Hallway
4 Plywood at the Grades 1 & 3; (8 classes)
Corridor
1 Corrugated GI Grade 4 (2 classes)
Sheets
2. Old Balara ES Quezon City 1 Stage Grade 3 (1 class)
3. Francisco Benitez ES Manila 9 Plywood & GI Grades 1 & 2 (18 classes)
sheets
4 Plywood at the Grades 3, 4& 5 (8 classes)
Hallway
4. Baseco ES Manila 2 Tent Grades 4 (6 classes)
5. Tagbac PS Iloilo City 1
6. Arcangel Sur Aklan 1 Bamboo Grade 4
7. Bay-ang ES Ext. -do- 2 Bamboo Grades 6 & 3
8. Muguing ES -do- 1 Bamboo Grade 6
9. Oloc ES -do- 4 Bamboo Grades 3, 4, 5 & 6
10. Macarina ES -do- 1 Bamboo Grade 4
11. Tubudan ES, San -do- 2 Bamboo Multi-Grades 3&4, 5&6,
Remigio I
12. Macanhan ES -do- 8 Stage as CL Grades 2, 4, 5 & 6
13. St. John ES -do- 3 Bamboo Grades 1, 2 & 6
14. Cahaponan ES Bukidnon 1 CHB Grade 6
Cyclone Wire
15. Valbueco ES -do- 1 Corrugated GI Grade 1
Sheets
16. Macanhan ES -do- 8 Stage Grades 2, 4, 5 & 6
Examples of temporary classrooms used by the schools follow:
Classes conducted at Hallway, Classes conducted at Makeshift Structure

Commonwealth ES, Quezon City made of GI sheets, Commonwealth ES,
Quezon City
25
Classes in enclosed corridors, Classes on Stage , Old Balara ES,

Commonwealth ES, Quezon City Quezon City
Classes in corridors in between two Classes held in 8 makeshift rooms used

school buildings, Baseco ES, Manila by 16 sections of Grade 2, F. Benitez
Classes on stage, Macanhan ES, Classes in makeshift classrooms made

Cagayan de Oro City of bamboo, Oloc ES, Antique
26
Makeshift Classroom, Cahaponan ES, Makeshift Classroom, Valbueco ES,

Bukidnon Bukidnon
This condition is also experienced by other schools that could not be provided
with adequate classrooms.
Considering the amount of funds allocated to the program by a number of

agencies, proper consultation would play a crucial role in ensuring synchronized
action towards eliminating the total classroom shortages.
Management’s Comments Team’s Rejoinder
Response provided by the DPWH

Central Office
It is the role of the DepEd to The team agrees that the identification
identify/select the sites per item 4.A of school sites is primarily a
of the Joint Memorandum of DepEd responsibility of the DepEd. However,
and DPWH, regarding the Guidelines for as discussed in the report, under Rule
Coordination and Monitoring of DPWH- VI of the Rules and Regulations for
Constructed School Buildings dated 10 the Effective Implementation of RA
July 2003. Likewise, per Memorandum 7880, a realignment/relocation of
of Agreement between DPWH and project should be undertaken when
DepEd, Deped shall prepare allocation there were project duplication or
list and see to it that there is no overlapping of funding source. It was
duplication or overlapping of projects further provided that such relocation
while DPWH ensures that the allocation should be made upon the initiative of
list is followed. the District Office concerned with the
27
concurrence of the DepEd Officials. It is

therefore very clear that the
responsibility of the DPWH was not
merely to follow the allocation prepared
by the DepEd but likewise to ensure that
the duplication and overlapping of
projects are avoided.
Response provided by Quezon City

Second Engineering District
The partial construction of three (3) storey Even after the demolition of the two
twelve (12) classroom building at Camp storey building with eight classrooms,
Crame Elem. School, which is located at the existing classrooms are still adequate
Barangay Bagong Lipunan, Quezon City, for the needs of the school. There are
was funded under CYs 2001 & 2002 even classrooms which were being
School Building Program (DECS), in the utilized only in the morning or in the
amount of P2.550 Million and P5.2 afternoon and another eleven good
Million, respectively. The construction was classrooms being used for non-academic
a replacement of a demolished two-storey purposes. The newly constructed school
building with eight (8) classrooms, that building is not yet being used as of
was gutted by fire on April 1997. Funds for inspection date.
completion was released under CY 2003
School Building Program (DECS) with an
allocation of P2.0 Million. Thus, the final
completion included construction of CHB
partition, plastering and floor tapping at the
3rd floor, installation of grills and
fabricated materials, construction of
ceilings, electrical works and painting of
the whole building.
28
Chapter 2
Reasonable Cost Measures
29
REASONABLE COST MEASURES
INTRODUCTION
It is the policy of the State to safeguard life, health, and property consistent with
the principles of sound environmental management and control, and to provide for
all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and
requirements.
To attain this end, buildings proposed for construction shall comply with existing
regulations and specifications set forth governing quality, characteristics and
properties of materials, methods of design and construction, type of occupancy
and classification. All buildings or structures, as well as accessory facility thereto,
shall conform to the principles of sound construction and must be suited to the
purpose for which they are designed. The designs and requirements, however, are
in most cases, dependent on the costs allocated for the purpose.
The SBP is implemented by a number of government and non government

organizations. Each implementing agency prepares its own designs and cost
analysis, implements its own projects and monitors the performance of the
selected contractors until the project is turned over to the School Principal.
The team, however, noted that the practice of the implementing agencies of
adopting its own designs and standards within the same school did not support the
government’s policy of properly laying out school buildings on the school
grounds to achieve the most advantageous display. It resulted in crowded
vicinities due to the difficulty of arranging site locations. This also hinders an
effective comparative evaluation and assessment of the performance of different
implementing agencies.
The team also noted that the DPWH is contracting scope of works not sufficient
to construct a completed classroom at a cost set by both DepEd and DPWH for a
complete construction. Thus, there are a number of school buildings which could
not yet be used. As provided in the DepEd-DPWH Joint Memorandum, costs
constraints should not be used by the DPWH as a ground for delivering
unfinished classrooms.
The audit further disclosed that the DPWH failed to prepare a standard Program
of Work (POW) for each plan. In the absence of a standard POW, an individual
POW is prepared for every project to be bid out using the same plan. Ironically,
each POW reflects different quantities for the same item covered by the same
scope of works. This condition contributed in the DPWH’s failure to complete the
project at the prescribed unit cost.
30
Likewise, considering the limited government resources, the adoption of multi-

storey buildings proved to be very costly compared with the one-storey building
which may not be realistic. This can, however, be adopted in schools with
limited spaces.
OBSERVATIONS
1. The implementing agencies have been adopting their own designs

and standards even within the same school site without due
regard to economy and efficiency in the implementation. This
resulted in the difficulty of laying-out the school ground to get the
most beneficial effect and comparing and evaluating the
performance of the implementing agencies.
Prudence dictates that programs should be implemented in an effective,

efficient and economical manner. To attain this end, the different
participating agencies should conduct a continuous evaluation of costs
incurred per school building in relation to the benefits derived therefrom.
As discussed earlier, for CY 2002, the different implementing agencies,

not to include the accomplishments of LGUs, were able to construct about
4,038 classrooms nationwide.
The team noted that these agencies were constructing school buildings
with different designs and costs. Apparently, due to absence of specific
pronouncement on the designs and standards to be followed, these
agencies have been adopting their own designs and policies which are
based on the costs allocated for the purpose.
For CY 2003, these agencies have set the following costs based on their
respective designs:
Agency Description Cost
DPWH One storey one (1) classroom building, rafter type P 375,000.00
(7m x 9m/ One storey two (2) classroom building, rafter type 690,000.00
classroom) One storey three (3) classroom building, rafter type 1,020,000.00
31
Agency Description Cost
Two storey four (4) classroom building, GI roofing P2,888,000.00

Two storey six (6) classroom building, GI roofing 3,933,000.00
Two storey eight (8) classroom building, GI roofing 5,388,000.00
Three storey six (6) classroom building, with GI
roofing 5,876,000.00
Three storey nine (9) classroom building, GI roofing 6,212,000.00
LGU One storey, one standard classroom

8m x 6m – Bukidnon Province 220,000.00
7m x 8 m – Mun. of Maramag 230,000.00
7m x 8m – Malaybalay City 296,744.00
FFCCCII Two (2) classroom building 350,000.00

(7m x 7m)
per classroom
It can be noted that the DPWH and LGUs in the Province of Bukidnon
were all constructing one-classroom, one-storey building at a cost of
P375,000 and a range of P220,000 to P296,744, respectively. The
FFCCCII was not constructing one classroom building. However, at a
cost of P350,000 for two classroom building, it may be able to construct
one classroom at P175,000. Considering the differences in costing, the
team compared the features and other related aspects of the different
designs using their respective plans and specifications.
DPWH Bukidnon City of

STEEL TEK Province Mun. of Maramag Malaybalay FFCCCII
7.0m x 8.0m 6.0m x 8.0m 7.0m x 8.0m 7.0m x 8.0m 7.0m x 7.0m
P325,000 P220,000 P230,000 P296,744 P175,000
Description 1 CL 1 CL 1 CL 1 CL 1 CL
EARTHWORKS
Footing .70x.70x.70mx6 9x.9x1.05mx6 1.1x.8x.8mx8 .8x.8x1.25mx8 .75x.75x1.55mx4
.60x.60x1.55mx3
Wall Footing .10x.50x28.80m 26.3x.3x.55m .25x.35x28.8 .3x.5x38.8m .45x1x2.75mx6
.40x.15x.25mx2
Corridor .10x.30x11m None none none .10x1.80x15mx1
SV None None 1.2x1.8x1.8mx1 none None
EMBANKMENT
Filling Materials 8.902 22.40 15.00 Not in POW 16.25
Footing .70x.70x.50mx6
Wall Footing .10x0.35x28.80m
Concrete Slab 8.0x8.50x0.05x1.00
Gravel (cu.m.) 4.000 5.600 Not in POW 18.170 6.16
CONCRETING,
REBARS,
FORMWORKS
Footing .70x.70x.20mx6 .90x.90x.25mx6 .2x.8x.8x8 .25x.8x.8mx8 .75x.75x.25mx4
.60x.60x.25mx3
Wall Footing .40x.15x28.80mx1 26.3x.30x.15mx1 .25x28.8x_ .01x.3x34.3m .45x.25x2.75mx6
.40x.25x2.75mx2
Slab Fill .10x8.50x8x1 8x7x.05x1 .09x7x8mx8 .1x7x8m .10x7x7m
Corridor 8x1x.05x1 .09x1x8mx1 .1x1.7x8m .1x1.8x7m
32
DPWH Bukidnon City of

STEEL TEK Province Mun. of Maramag Malaybalay FFCCCII
7.0m x 8.0m 6.0m x 8.0m 7.0m x 8.0m 7.0m x 8.0m 7.0m x 7.0m
P325,000 P220,000 P230,000 P296,744 P175,000
Description 1 CL 1 CL 1 CL 1 CL 1 CL
CR 1.5x1x.05mx1 .09x1.5x1m .1x1.3x1.5m -

Ramp 2x1.50x.1x1m Not in POW Not in POW Not in POW .10x1x1.20mx1
Column .20x.20x1.20mx6 3.9x.20x.35mx6 .15x.3x3.8mx6 .2x.4x4mx6 .15x.30x4.25mx4
5x.15x.40mx2 .15x.3x5.3mx2 .15x.4x5.9mx2 .15x.30x4.65mx4
.35x.10x.40mx2
.30x.15x4.25mx2
.30x.30x1.20mx3
Lintel Column .1x.2x5.05mx2 no lintel beam no lintel beam no lintel beam no lintel beam
Beam & Girders None 2.85x.15x.3mx4 .15x.2x19.6mx1 .15x.3x8mx1 .20x.25x28mx1
1.3x.15x.2mx2 .15x.4x30mx1
FORMS & 1 lot

Not in the POW 1 lot 1 lot 1 lot
SCAFOLDING
MASONRY
WORKS
CHB Laying 76.425 74.930 67.920 135.640 77.54
Plastering 152.850 148.560 102.450 271.280 155.08
PRE-FAB
COMPONENTS
Steel Columns 150x90x20mmx2LC None none none None
250x90x5500mmxL 2”x6”channel
Steel Rafters
Z rafters
Steel Purlins 100x40x150mm LC 2”x4” C- Purlins
2”x1.5”x3/16”( Rafters
Steel Truss
Angle bar)
Wood Truss 2” x 6” 2”x6”
DOORS &
WINDORS
Door
Steel Door 2.1x.90mx2
Wood Panel 2.1x1.0mx1 2.1x.90mx2 2.1x1mx1 1x2.10mx1
2.1x.60mx1 2.1x.60mx1 .80x2.10mx1
Windows
Wood Louver none 3.2x1.2mx2 1.8x2m .8x1.5mx1
Jalousy 1.5x1.8mx2 2.4x1.2mx2 2.1x1.5mx2
1.5x2.5mx3 0.6x0.6mx1 1.5x1.5mx1
Quantity 17.00 21.600 1 lot 14.4 9.75
PAINTING 164.200 370.320 1 Not in POW 297.33
CARPENTRY
Ceiling Insulation 48.000 56.00 56.00 49
BILLBOARDS 1 Not in POW Not in POW Not in POW No Billboards
ELECTRICAL Not in POW 1 1 1 1
BLACKBOARD 2 Not in POW 2 Not in POW Not in POW
COMFORT
ROOM
Excavation 1.4x3.3x1.5x1 1.5x1.5mx2
Quantity 6.930
Ceramic Tiles Not in POW 1 1 1 None
33
It may be noted that the differences in costing can be attributed to the

difference in designs and circumstances surrounding the construction. The
differences in design and structures could easily be captured in the
following photos:
SteelTek Building constructed by One Classroom Building

DPWH at Impasugong ES, constructed by the Provincial
Malaybalay, Bukidnon Government of Bukidnon at Kuya
ES, Malaybalay, Bukidnon
One classroom building (center) One Classroom Building

constructed by the Municipality of constructed by the City
Maramag at Famador ES Government of Malaybalay at
Airport Village ES
Two-Classroom Building constructed

by the Federation of Filipino Chinese
Chambers of Commerce and Industry,
Inc. at Sto. Niño ES, Iloilo City
34
Due to absence of a standard building design, no objective comparison

and evaluation of performance of the different implementing agencies,
could be done.
The team further noted that the lack of uniform design of school building
resulted in crowded vicinity due to different sizes and designs and the
improper selection by schools for the most appropriate site for the design.
As a policy, a school building should be properly laid out in the school
grounds to achieve the most advantageous display. The laying out of the
different school buildings, as a general rule, should be according to
functional groupings. The distances between school buildings should be
such that:
• Ventilation is not obstructed
• Natural illumination is not obstructed
• Sounds in one building do not permeate through adjacent or next
building
Apparently, however, these concerns were no longer strictly observed.

The conditions of school grounds with different sizes and designs of
school buildings could be best captured in the following photos:
Newly constructed school building by Different types of school buildings

the FFCCCII at Sumpong Elementary constructed by the LGU, PTA and
School, Malaybalay, Bukidnon. The National Government at Opol ES,
building obstructed the ventilation and Opol, Misamis Oriental.
natural illumination of the existing
building.
35
Response provided by DPWH

Central Office
DPWH will adopt single and uniform The team appreciates the DPWH’s
school building designs to arrive at reaction to this observation.
uniform costings.
Response provided by Cagayan De

Oro District Engineering Office
Anchored through the VISION and The team was aware that the District
MISSION of the Department (DPWH), Offices merely implement the designs
the District offices, being the prepared by the DPWH Central Office
implementing arm of various and appreciates its response of
infrastructure project especially the upholding the team’s campaign for an
DepEd School Building Program (SBP), integrated uniform and homogenous
is bound to adopt the Agency’s (DPWH) design and standards for SBP.
Plan, Design and Standards as a guiding
tool for implementing projects. It is
therefore emphasized that the District
level is not in the position to prepare,
establish and adopt its own standards
and even designs. Except, however, in
cases where the Agency’s Standard
Plan and Designs are not feasible nor
suitable to actual field condition or
where schools have already existing
unfinished structures which they, as
end-users, would prefer to be
completed or expanded. In instant cases,
the District Office is forced to redesign
and prepare the corresponding Program
of Work (POW) as deemed from the
Standard Plan, Designs and Standards as
set forth by the Department for SBP.
Consistent with the basic principles in
programming, accuracy and economy
were also religiously observed.
Notwithstanding, the District Offices
will strongly uphold the audit team’s
campaign whose plan envisioned is
geared towards attaining an integrated
uniform and homogenous design and
standards for SBP which is to be adopted
by all participating agencies in the
succeeding implementation years.
36
Preparation of Scope of Work and

computation of quantities was in
accordance with the Standard Plans and
Designs and in adherence with the
existing office policies, guidelines, rules
and regulations. Unless the audit team
vision for an integrated, uniform and
homogenous standard designs would be
realized , thus the District Office will
immediately adopt such revised
Standard Designs and Plans in preparing
programs for SBP.
2. The DPWH contracted the construction of several school

buildings with scope of works not sufficient to complete the
buildings. These buildings then could not be used unless
additional funds are again allocated for its completion. Under the
DepEd-DPWH Joint Memorandum, the DPWH is required to
deliver completed classrooms. With a limited budget, this practice
and the construction of multi-storey building which proved to be
costly as it costs almost twice the costs of one storey classroom
would delay the realization of the government’s objective of
providing adequate resources in due time. The construction of
multi-storey building is, however, applicable in schools with
limited sites.
To facilitate the smooth implementation of the school building program,

the DepEd and DPWH entered into a Joint Agreement where the
following unit cost for each type of structure for CY 2002 was set:
Particulars Unit Cost
A. Academic Classroom (9m x 7m)

New construction
a. Single-storey (2 classroom) building P 720,000
37
Particulars Unit Cost
inclusive of toilet (with septic vault)

b. Two-storey school building 400,000/classroom
c. Repair/rehabilitation 40,000/classroom
B. Multi-purpose Workshop (16m x 7m) 639,000/bldg.
Repair/rehabilitation 80,000/bldg.
C. Science Laboratory (12m x 7m) 512,000/bldg.
Repair/rehabilitation 64,000/bldg.
D. Water supply system / electrical costing would depend
connections/Fire prevention system on actual site condition
It was also provided in the agreement that if funding is insufficient to

complete the two storey building, a phased implementation may be
resorted to, with the upper floor to be completed first. As defined in the
Agreement, a classroom is one with:
a. cemented floor
b. smooth finished walls
c. painted walls, ceiling and roofing
d. full cathedral-type ceiling ( for single storey construction) or
drop-ceiling ( for multi-storey building)
e. complete set of windows (2 facing walls)
f. two entrance with doors
g. complete electrical wires and fixtures
h. roofing or weather protection
It was further explained in the guidelines that the average cost set by both
parties per classroom is based on required specifications and for budget
purposes only, and should not be used by the DPWH as a cost constraint
to deliver unfinished classrooms.
The construction of school buildings was delegated to the DPWH

Engineering Districts where the schools are located. One of the
implementing District is the City Engineering District Office of Cagayan
de Oro City. Records show that this District entered into contract with a
single contractor for the construction of 12 two-storey buildings covering
one to two classrooms.
The team, however, noted that while the contracted amount almost equal
the total budget set for each classroom, the contracted scope of works
were not sufficient to deliver completed classrooms. Not all components
of a completed classroom enumerated above were included in the
38
contract. Moreover, audit disclosed that the scope of works differ from
one project to another with almost the same contract cost.
Thus, these projects as constructed, could not be used for academic

purposes unless additional funding is again allocated for their completion.
The contracting for unfinished structure runs counter to the provision of
the Joint Agreement that DPWH should not deliver unfinished
classrooms.
Examples of projects covered under this contract which were inspected

by the team follow:
A. Construction of two-storey building (2 classrooms) with
prescribed unit cost of P800,000
School Project Description
Gusa ES – 2nd Floor
Original Contract - P770.703.26

9m x 8m school building including corridor,
attached to existing building. Bldg. has no
painting and ceiling. For comfort room, only
walls are provided and for electrical, only
piping embedded to walls and 2nd floor slab.
Change Order 1- P752,568.69

Reduction in reinforcing steel bars, structural
excavation, structural concrete
Gusa ES – Ground Floor
39
Bugo CS
Contract Cost – P770,703.26

9m x 8m school bldg. including corridor,
attached to existing bldg. At 2nd floor, only
CHB walling and roofing. Walls has no
smooth finish. Reinforcing steel bars, for 2nd
floor beams and slab shall be extended @
L/2 and roof beams shall be extended @L/2
on both sides for future extension.
Macabalan ES
Original Contract – P771,422.05

Construction of 2 CL 2 storey type attached
to the existing building. As per structure,
building is complete but there is no ceiling,
painting and railings @ ground floor. For
electrical, only provision and for comfort
room, only walls and piping provisions.
Change Order – P707,183.98

Reduction in reinforcing steel bars,
structural concrete, CHB laying at 2nd floor,
smooth finish at 2nd floor, window frames
and grills, door panel cement plaster finish.
Extra Work Order - P729,267.43

PVC Door, galvanized iron pipes, plumbing
fixtures, wires and wiring devices.
City CS

9m x 8m per classroom school building
including corridor. As per structure, building
is complete but there is no ceiling, painting
and railing @ ground floor. For electrical,
only provisions and no toilet bowl at comfort
room.
Change Order - P744,132.46

Reduction in reinforce steel bars and
structural concrete.
40
B. Construction of 1 CL (2 -Storey Type) with prescribed unit cost

of P400,000
Bulua ES

8m x 9m including corridor attached to
existing building. Building has no walls.
CHB is only up to ground floor slab up with
no plaster finish. All slab shall be smooth
finish. 2nd floor slab and columns shall be
poured at L/4 and dowels shall be provided
@ 40d after the poured concrete. Dowels on
slab, beams and column shall be provided.
For electrical, only piping @ second floor
slab
Change Order – P384,235.07

Decrease in reinforcing steel bars, structure
excavations, filling and backfilling and
structural concrete
Macasandig
ES
Original Cost – P384,998.74

1 CL Building attached to existing building.
Building has footing, column, tie beams and
2nd floor beams and slab. Columns, slabs
and beams shall be poured at L/4 and dowels
shall be extended @ 40 d after the poured
concrete. All dowels shall be painted with
red oxide paint. Provide dowels at column,
beams and proposed walls.
41
East City CS
Original Cost – P385,293.61
9m x 8m including corridor attached to

existing building. Building is only up to 2nd
floor slab. CHB is only up to ground floor
slab. 2nd floor slab, beams & columns shall
be poured L/4 & dowels shall be provided @
40d after the poured concrete. All dowels shall
be painted with red oxide paint.
It would then appear that the prescribed cost of P400,000 per classroom
for two-storey building would not be sufficient to deliver completed
classroom. This only shows that the adoption of multi-storey building is
costly when compared with one-storey building. This is evident upon
analysis of the costs estimates of DPWH on the following structures:
Description Costs Cost/Classroom
One-storey one classroom P 375,000 P 375,000

One-storey two classrooms 690,000 345,000
One-storey three classrooms 1,020,000 340,000
Two-storey four classrooms 2,888,000 722,000
Two-storey six classrooms 3,933,000 655,000
Two-storey eight classrooms 5,388,000 673,500
Three-storey six classrooms 5,876,000 979,333
Three-storey nine classrooms 6,212,000 690,222
The schedule shows that the cost of constructing one classroom under the
multi-storey structure is twice or thrice the costs of one-storey classroom.
With limited resources then, the adoption of multi-storey building and the
DPWH practice of contracting unfinished classrooms would delay the
realization of the government’s objective of providing adequate resources
in due time. The construction of multi-storey structure is, however,
applicable in schools with limited sites.
42

Central Office
Due to congestion problem and/or The team agrees that in some schools,
limited school sites, the construction of the construction of multi-storey school
multi-storey school building is building is the only solution to address
recommended. However, due to limited the limited school site. Considering
budget annually which is usually based the limited budget, however, in
on the ceiling allocation per schools with sufficient sites for
congressional district, phase-by-phase construction of additional building, the
construction is allowed as long as a construction of one-storey building is
continuing allocation is assured to recommended. The team also
complete the building. Again, DepEd recognized that the budget allocation
should look into the funding scheme for per congressional district is limited.
multi-year projects that should ensure For this reason, the simultaneous
completeness of the building in doing construction of several buildings in
their programming works. different sites within the same
congressional district is not advisable
as it would only result in several
incomplete projects which could not
be used unless additional fund is
allocated. Such practice could not be
considered sound as these buildings
would remain idle when these could
have been used had the funds been
Response provided by Cagayan De concentrated on completing one
project after another.
Cagayan de Oro City District The team recognized the efforts being
Engineering Office, which is one of exerted by the District in ensuring that
the implementing District in DPWH-10, the required school buildings are
consistently implemented the delivered in accordance with the
government thrust in providing Quality standard plan and designs under the
Education as mandated by the pre-determined budget per classroom.
constitution by constructing School However, as the budget for each
Building Projects through Optimum classroom is limited, the District
utilization of available resources. The should properly inform the DepEd,
District Office adopts the Standard Plan thru the DPWH Central Office, that
and Designs in the derivation of the with the amount budgeted for each
Scope of Work using the pre- classroom, the District could not
determined Budget per classroom. deliver a completed school building.
Likewise, unit costs are prepared based This way, the problem on delivering
on a fair and reasonable approved incomplete school buildings could be
current prices as projected over the resolved by the two departments.
proposed construction period. In so
doing, the district office is really It would be a sound decision to
43
desirous and steadfast in the delivery of provide adequate funds for a

completed classrooms to the public completed project before starting
but budgetary constraints do not another project than to simultaneously
warrant such case. Guidelines for the construct several buildings in different
preparation of the priority lists of school sites within the same
School Buildings CY 2002 SBP, congressional district that could not be
provides: quote “In urban and high completed. Moreover, while the
growth areas, or where the cost of land guidelines allow for implementation
is at premium, the school building by phase in case of multi-storey
should be planned to be at least as two(2) building, it specifically provides that
storey structure. If funding is for each phase, a complete classroom
insufficient to complete the 2-storey should be constructed. A completed
structure, a phased implementation may classroom is well defined in the
be restored to” unquote. Therefore, guidelines.
strengthening the urgency for a need to
formulate an integrated uniform and
homogenous designs and standards for
SBP as conceptualized by the audit team
would be very timely and laudable to
attain the government objectives in the
near future.
The construction of (2) two storey type The team does not question the
SBP covering one to two classrooms clustering of classrooms into one
were clustered into one contract package contract package. Rather, the
to initiate simultaneous construction of contracting of scope of work which is
the project, thus, the agency could not sufficient to complete a classroom.
deliver early completion of the SBP as
per approved plan and program of work.
3. The DPWH does not have a standard program of work for each
plan. Thus, for every contract, an individual program of works is
prepared covering only the scope of work intended to be
contracted. The different programs of works which were based
on the same plan, however, reflect different quantities for the
same item of works. This condition contributed in the DPWH’s
failure to complete the classroom at the prescribed unit costs.
As discussed above, the DPWH was constructing different types of school

buildings depending on the needs of the schools. For this purpose, the
DPWH prepared different plans and specifications. The team noted that
while the DPWH was able to establish a standard cost for each type of
44
building, there is no program of work (POW) prepared for each plan to

guide the different District Offices in implementing the project.
Likewise, the District Offices did not prepare a standard POW for each
plan. Rather, as a matter of practice, individual POW is prepared for
every project to be constructed covering only the specific scope of work
intended to be contracted.
Comparison of the POW, however, revealed that apparently, different

quantities were derived/estimated for the same item of works under the
same plan. The differences ranged from 01% to 1,573% of the lowest
quantity derived as tabulated below:
1) Scope of Works : Construction of 1-CL (2 storey type) School Building (Ground Floor)
Bulua ES Macasandig ES East City
Items P385,639.81 P384,998.74 P385,293.61
Qty. % Qty. % Qty. %
Reinforce Steel Bar 5,353.65 104 5,631.60 109 5,166.40 100

Masonry Work
CHB Laying 33.10 123 NS 26.97 100
Smooth Finish 271 111 244 100 247.50 101
2) Scope of Works : Construction of 1-CL (2 storey type) School Building (Second Floor)
Camama-an ES West City ES Tablon CS Suntingon ES Bonbongon ES
Items P384,138.54 P384,508.97 P385,051.37 P378,722.51 P384,921.60
Qty. % Qty. % Qty. % Qty. % Qty. %
Reinforce Steel Bar 245.83 130 739.25 392 188.70 100 1,653.62 876 1,837.50 974
Structure Concrete 1.32 181 5.69 779 0.73 100 6.26 858 7.84 1,120
CHB Laying 46.37 111 41.70 100 57.04 137 112.66 270 86.19 207
Rough Carpentry 2.07 309 1.59 273 4.30 642 0.67 100 NS
Finished Carpentry 261.04 1,673 134.80 864 316.00 2026 NS 15.60 100
Rough Hardware 49.00 136 56.50 157 70.50 196 46.00 128 36.00 100
Corrugated Roofing,
Gauge 26 14.40 100 131.60 914 NS 118.58 823 122.40 850
Cement Plaster
Finish 128.03 112 776.26 680 114.06 100 275.84 226 136.87 120
3) Scope of Works : Construction of 2-CL (2 storey type) School Building (Ground & Second Floor)
Gusa ES Bugo CS Macabalan ES City CS
Items P764,659.47 P770,463.04 P771,422.05 P769,778.65
Qty. % Qty. % Qty. % Qty. %
CHB Laying 123.11 100 143.23 116 126.11 102 140.21 113
Smooth Finish 541.10 123 439.74 100 530.39 120 530.39 120
Trusses/Purlins 1,036.94 100 1,373.12 132 1,036.94 100 1,036.94 100
Corrugated Roofing G#26 96.00 100 108.00 112 96.00 100 96.00 100
Cement Plaster Finish 300.77 175 171.54 100 282.89 165 312.39 182
45
4) Scope of Works : Construction of 2-CL (Flat type) School Building

Dansolihon ES Balulang CS San Simon ES Bayanga CS
Items P693,996.11 P694,165.64 P693,682.84 P693,938.93
Qty. % Qty. % Qty. % Qty. %
Reinforce Steel Bar 2,952.50 107 2,745.30 100 2,815.60 102 2,745.30 100
CHB Laying 197.14 111 177.67 100 186.60 105 177.67 100
Smooth Finish 328.99 100 470.12 143 489.40 149 470.12 143
Cement Plaster Finish 353.71 109 323.65 100 359.50 111 323.65 100
The above tabulation shows the degree of disparity in the computation of

estimates using the same plans and specifications which could have been
detected and checked had there been standard estimates for each plan. As
it is, even within the same District Office, the estimators do not consult
one another and their outputs were not thoroughly reviewed. This
deficiency then contributed in the failure of the District Offices to deliver
completed projects.
As discussed in Finding No. 2, the contracted scopes of works under these

projects were not sufficient to complete the building although the
prescribed unit cost of P400,000 per classroom for two storey building
was almost exhausted and the prescribed unit cost of P690,000 for one-
storey two-classroom building was even exceeded.
This condition is not beneficial to the government considering that the

amount budgeted is expected to produce a completed classroom.

Central Office
DepEd and DPWH has already agreed to We appreciate the efforts exerted by
come up with a standard program of both departments in coming up with a
work, bill of materials and quantity take- standard program of work (POW), bill
off, and will only vary on the prices of of materials and quantity take-off.
the construction materials and other This move would facilitate the
indirect costs. However, a “balancing” preparation of POW as only the unit
cost adjustment thru clustering of costs of construction materials and
projects or contract packaging will indirect costs would be settled in the
substantiate any difference in cost such as District Offices.
terrain, handling, earth-moving and other
additional costs.
46
Response provided by Cagayan de

The implementing district really The team appreciates the actions taken
extended its unceasing effort in by the District Office in coming up
maintaining consistency in the with a standard Program of Work for
preparation of programs of work in each Plan. We also agree that there
conformance with the existing would be minor variations of quantities
guidelines, policies, rules, and regulation. depending on the actual field
Comparatively, computations of conditions and the presence of standard
quantities for two programs of same POW would provide a guidance in
item of work may always vary depending evaluating such variance.
on the conditions of the existing
structures, site grade line elevations, and
other physical and environmental factors
within the periphery. Though
programmers/estimators may differently
perceive a single idea, but technically, it
is also a fact that in terms of computation
of quantities for a detailed structural
member given a specific dimensions and
sizes would surely result a nearly zero
disparity since the process is only
procedural. As discussed earlier, actual
field conditions would be the governing
factor in computing quantities obtained
in a program. It is irrefutable that the
Standard Plan and Designs do not have a
standard program of work and the
district office welcomes the
recommendation of the team to come up
with a Standard Program for a Standard
Plan, especially on SBP which are yet to
be constructed, as guiding tool in
programming with reservations on
minor variations of quantities depending
on the actual field conditions.
The Planning and Design Section, this

Office, is now preparing the said
Standard Program which could be of use
in the succeeding implementation years.
47
Chapter 3
Effective Quality Assurance
48
EFFECTIVE QUALITY ASSURANCE
INTRODUCTION
Quality assurance implies a desired quality level in the implementation of one’s

program. To ensure the quality of the projects constructed under the school
building program, the participating agencies, specifically the DepEd and DPWH,
should establish adequate measures designed to meet the required standards. A
quality assurance should provide that:
• Adequate policies and procedures are properly in place;

• Accountability for each activity are clearly defined;
• Risk to the efficient and effective implementation are identified and
addressed;
• The services provided by contractors are satisfactory;
• The benefits to the stakeholders are not compromised; and
• There is adequate monitoring and review of quality assurance processes.
The monitoring and review of quality assurance is essential to ascertain adherence

to standards and specified processes/procedures in one’s operation. It is in this
aspect where a committee/body is tasked for the purpose of evaluating the
existing system including compliance thereof, identifying its strengths and
weaknesses and designing the propose treatment.
To ensure the smooth implementation of the school building program and assure
quality of its projects, the DepEd and DPWH established guidelines defining their
specific responsibilities from pre-construction stage to post occupancy evaluation.
The audit, however, disclosed that both DPWH and DepEd officials were not able
to ensure the quality of projects delivered by the contractors as manifested in the
construction deficiencies noted by the team during inspection which remained
uncorrected. The deficiencies included cracks on interior walls and flooring, poor
workmanship, non installation of the required materials and failure to comply
with the specifications, among others. These lapses in monitoring and evaluation
affect the quality in construction of school buildings.
Moreover, under the recently issued guidelines in monitoring of projects, the

responsibility to ensure that the construction was undertaken in accordance with
the standards rests with the School Principal. This set up may not be ideal
considering that the School Principals are not technical personnel to be able to
evaluate contractor’s performance.
49
OBSERVATION
The DepEd and DPWH were not able to ensure quality performance of
the contractors resulting in construction deficiencies in a number of
school buildings constructed by the DPWH, DepEd, and FFCCCII,
which remained unrectified at the time of inspection. The deficiencies
include cracks on interior walls and flooring, poor workmanship, non-
installation of the required materials and non compliance with the
required specifications. These deficiencies would result in costly
maintenance, pose danger to students and lessen the effective life of the
structures. Moreover, the recently issued guidelines requiring the school
principals to monitor contractor’s performances may not be appropriate
as they are not technical personnel to be able to evaluate contractor’s
accomplishments.
Under the provisions of RA 7880, the appropriation for the construction,

rehabilitation, replacement, completion and repair of school building shall be
directly released to and administered by the DPWH based on the priority listings
submitted by the DepEd. To enhance the relationship between the DepEd and the
DPWH, the scope and coverage of the program were defined under the
Memorandum of Agreement executed on January 15, 2000 as follows:
• The DepEd shall implement the unallocated portion of the fund amounting to
P200 Million yearly;
• The DPWH shall implement the balance of the fund amounting to P1.8 Billion
yearly;
• The DPWH will transfer to DepEd, P6 Million for monitoring and evaluation
purposes.
For the efficient and successful execution of the program, the DepEd agreed to
accept the projects completed in accordance with the approved program of work
and to monitor and assess the progress of construction work. Inspection of
completed school buildings, however, revealed that apparently, both the DPWH
and DepEd were not able to ensure quality performances of contractors as
manifested in the construction deficiencies on the projects contracted by the
District Offices in Region VI as illustrated on the next pages.
50
School/Location Observations
ANTIQUE PROVINCE PROJECTS

Guisijan Elementary School (1 CL), 1. Cracks on interior wall can be noticed. Repair
Laua-an, Antique, implemented by is needed.
DPWH-Antique Eng’g. District 2. Temperature cracks on flooring can be
noticed. Repair is needed.
3. No ramp provided as per Plan, Specification,
and Program of Works.
4. Septic Vault provided doesn’t conform to
plan. No manhole was provided.
5. Ceramic tiles provided was only 60 pieces
(with 10% allowance) while that on the
program of works totaled to 240 pieces. A
difference amounting to P1,200.00.
Macarena Elementary School (1 CL), Septic tank provided was not in accordance
Patnungon, Antique, implemented by with the plans and specifications. No
DPWH-Antique Eng’g. District manhole was provided.
Guisijan Elementary School (1 CL), Cracks on wall can be noticed. Repair is

Barbaza, Antique, implemented by needed.
DPWH-Antique Eng’g. District
Malacañang Elementary School (2 CL), Entrance cap for electrical works was
Culasi, Antique, implemented by DPWH- provided at a lower portion of the end wall
Antique Eng’g. District posing hazard for the end-user if the
electricity will be commissioned.
Candari Primary (Multi-Grade) School (2 1. Peeling of paint of ceiling can be

CL) , Culasi, Antique, implemented by noticed. Retouching is needed.
DPWH-Antique Eng’g. District 2. Temperature cracks on wall can be noticed.
ILOILO PROVINCE PROJECTS

Dumangas Central School (2 CL), 1. Temperature cracks on plastered walls.
Dumangas, Iloilo, implemented by 2. Defective/misaligned/improper installation of
DPWH 2nd Engineering District glass jalousie windows & round bar grills on
aluminum frame.
Bacay Elementary School (1 CL), 1. Some jalousie blades were already missing.
Dumangas, Iloilo, implemented by 2. Different specifications for C-Purlins.
DPWH 2nd Engineering District
Mostro Elementary School (1 CL), 1. Excess in estimates, 1 pc. Marine Plywood

Anilao, Iloilo, implemented by DPWH 2nd for 2-units doors.
Engineering District 2. Different specifications for C-Purlins.
3. 1 set 6 blades glass jalousie window on
aluminum frame with plain round bar with
grills not installed.
51
New Lucena Central School (1 CL), New 1. Installed clear glass instead of smoke glass
Lucena, Iloilo, implemented by DPWH for door transom.
2nd Engineering District 2. Several jalousie blades missing.
3. Wire screen for air vent were not provided
though said item was not indicated in the
detailed bid estimate, same was included in
the preparation of plan and work program.
4. Different specifications for slip angle bars.
Sapao Elementary School (1 CL), Absence of 2 sheets clear transom glass for
Dumangas, Iloilo, implemented by wooden doors.
DPWH 2nd Engineering District
Passi Central Elementary School (1 CL), 1. Several jalousie blades were missing.
Passi, Iloilo, implemented by DPWH 2nd 2. Cracks were observed on door jamb.
Engineering District
Calao Elementary School (1 CL), 1. Hairline cracks were observed at the interior
Dumangas, Iloilo, implemented by floor slab.
DPWH 2nd Engineering District 2. Roof leaks as evidenced by wood stains on
inside ceiling board.
3. Wooden door frames and jamb were already
termite infested.
4. Door frames not properly smooth finished.
5. Surface finish of baseboard at the interior
plastered walls were not properly
finished/plastered.
Mangorocoro Eleementary School, Ajuy, 1. 1 set frosted door transom glass already
Iloilo, implemented by DPWH broken.
2. Installation of windows and window jamb not
properly leveled.
3. Installed frosted glass instead of clear glass
for window transom area.
4. Ceiling boards (inside and outside) were not
properly nailed.
5. Electrical works were not functional/
operational
6. Design of roof eaves were not observed to be
too short for the constructed corridor,
resulting to flashing back of rain water.
7. Convenience outlets and three gang switch
were installed without cover.
Cabilauan Elementary School, Barotac 1. Several window jalousie blades were already
Nuevo, Iloilo, implemented by the DPWH missing.
2nd Eng’g. District
52
2. Red lead paint were not properly painted on

installed C-purlins (at the back portion of the
building)
Pagdugue Elementary School, Annex, 1. With missing jalousie blades

Dumangas, Iloilo, implemented by 2. Excess in estimates – 1 pc. 5 mm Marine
DPWH 2nd Eng’g. District Plywood for 2 units door.
San Salvador Elementary School (Annex), With missing jalousie blades

Banate, Iloilo, implemented by DPWH 2nd
Eng’g. District
Igtambo Elementary School, San Miguel, 1. With missing jalousie blades.

Iloilo, implemented by DPWH 4th Eng’g. 2. Wire screen on wood framing were not
District provided on air vents.
3. Clear glass were installed for door transom
instead of smoke glass (per POW and Plan)
4. Some C-Purlins and angle bars used for roof
framing were not fully painted with red lead
paint.
5. Cross bracings were not painted.
Leganes Central School (1 CL), Leganes, 1. Wire screen on wood framing were not
Iloilo, implemented by DPWH 4th Eng’g. provided on air vents.
District 2. Submitted Change Order not supported with a
detailed estimate.
Leon Central Elementary School (1 CL), 1. With missing jalousie blades

Leon, Iloilo, implemented by DPWH 4th 2. Clear glass installed for door transom
Eng’g. District instead of smoke glass (per POW and Plan)
Mayor F. Gorriceta Memorial Elementary 1. Hairline cracks on interior flooring.

School (1 CL), Pavia, Iloilo, implemented 2. With missing jalousie blades.
by DPWH 4th Eng’g. District 3. Door framing found termite-infested.
4. Installed locksets were made of Yale and not
of Kwikset.
5. Noticeable temperature cracks on plastered
walls.
Cagay Elementary School (1 CL), 1. With missing jalousie blades

Alimodian, Iloilo, implemented by 2. Wire screen on wood framing not provided
DPWH 4th Eng’g. District on air vents.
3. Clear glass installed for door transom instead
of smoke glass (per POW and Plan)
4. Temperature cracks on plastered walls.
Pavia Pilot Elementary School (1 CL), Airvents were not provided with wire screen.
Pavia, Iloilo, implemented by DPWH 4th
Eng’g. District
53
Buntatala Elementary School (Annex) Wire screen was installed to 1 unit airvent
(1CL), Leganes, Iloilo, implemented by (one side) only.
DPWH 4th Eng’g. District
AKLAN PROVINCE PROJECTS
Cabugao Elementary School, Batan, 1. Temperature cracks on plastered walls.
Aklan, implemented by Aklan Eng’g. 2. Roof leaks as evidenced by wood stain on
District ceiling board.
3. Installed ordinary plywood in combination
with marine plywood.
Tabayon Primary School (SONA Project), 1. Misalignment of Facia Board installed at right
Banga, Aklan, implemented by Aklan side portion.
Eng’g. District 2. Hairline cracks on plastered walls.
Calimbajan Primary School (SONA 1. Fabricated door not yet installed

Project), Makato, Aklan, implemented by 2. Painting of inside wall ( front only) not
Aklan Eng’g. District completed.
3. Plastering not completely accomplished,
other portion was rough finished.
Naisud Elementary School (CDF Funded), With damaged door knobs allegedly supplied
Ibajay, Aklan, implemented by Aklan by the school.
Eng’g. District
Sta. Cruz Elementary School, Ibajay, 1. Settlement of interior flooring/separation of

Aklan, implemented by Aklan Eng’g. flooring from side walls.
District 2. Traversal crack at the corridor.
3. Damaged door lock.
4. Installed frosted glass on door and window
transom with aluminum frame instead of clear
glass with quarter round mouldings.
5. Interior ceiling board not properly nailed.
Dongon Elem. School, Numancia, Aklan, Non-uniformity of roof paint.

implemented by Aklan Eng’g. District
Nabas Central Elementary School, Nabas, 1. Misaligned installation of fascia board at the
Aklan, implemented by Aklan Eng’g. left side portion.
District 2. Installed frosted glass on door and window
transom with aluminum frame instead of clear
glass with quarter round mouldings.
Tondog Elementary School, Tangalan, 1 unit bay window was converted to entrance
Aklan, implemented by Aklan Eng’g. door leading to the comfort room.
District
Makato Central Elementary School, 1. Roof leaks (inside and outside of ceiling)
Makato, Aklan, implemented by Aklan 2. Temperature cracks on some portion of
Eng’g. District plastered walls.
54
Alaminos Elem. School, Madalag, Aklan, Roof leaks at the outside portion of ceiling.
Lawaan Primary School, New 1. Temperature cracks on plastered walls.

Washington, Aklan, implemented by 2. Exterior portion of ceiling not properly
Aklan Eng’g. Dist. nailed.
Arcangel Sur Elem.School, Balete, Aklan, Several jalousie blades missing/broken.

Kinalangay Viejo Elementary School, 1. Installed folded plain G.I. for louver window
Malinao, Aklan, implemented by Aklan instead of wooden fixed louver window
Eng’g. District (airvent window)
2. Portion of ceiling not properly nailed.
CAPIZ PROVINCE PROJECTS
President Roxas East Elementary School Installed Hapslock door lock instead of Yale
(2 CL), Pres. Rozas, Capiz, implem. by Brand.
Capiz Eng’g. Dist.
Maluboglubog Elementary School (2 CL), 1. Roofing leaks as evidenced by wood stains on

Panit-an, Capiz, implemented by Capiz ceiling board.
Eng’g. District 2. Portion of the building was converted to
entrance door leading to the toilet.
3. With corroded C-Purlins (as Fascia Board)
Pasugue Elem.School (2 CL), Panit-an, Installed Guli door lock instead of Yale
Capiz, implemented by Capiz Eng’g. brand.
District
Agtatacay Norte Elementary School (1 1. Downspouts were not completely installed.

CL), Sapian, Capiz, implemented by 2. Exterior ceiling was already termite-infested.
Capiz Eng’g. District
Dapdapan Elementary School (1 CL), 1. 3” diameter downspouts were not completely

Sapian, Capiz, implemented by Capiz installed.
Eng’g. District 2. Portion of ceiling board not properly nailed.
3. Portion of exterior ceiling board made of
ordinary plywood.
4. Roof leaks as evidenced by wood stains on
ceiling board.
Don Catalino Andrada Memorial School 1. Installed door knob bear no brand (POW –
(1 CL), Brgy. Mianay, Ivisan, Capiz, Yale brand)
implemented by Capiz Eng’g. District 2. Absence of clear glass in some steel
casement.
3. Easily detached glass putty for window steel
casement.
55
Don Panfilo Mendoza Memorial School(1 1. Easily detached glass putty for window steel
CL), Brgy. Mianay, Ivisan, Capiz, casement.
implemented by Capiz Eng’g. District 2. 1 set steel casement window glass was
already broken/missing.
Ivisan ES (1 CL), Brgy. Poblacion - 1. Easily detached glass putty for window steel
Norte, Ivisan, Capiz, implemented by casement.
Capiz Eng’g. District 2. Ceiling (exterior and interior) was termite
infested and with roof leaks.
Review of the documents showed that these projects were inspected by

representatives from the District Offices as manifested in the inspection reports
attached to the vouchers for payment and duly accepted by the concerned School
Principals.
The monitoring and supervision of projects implemented by DPWH was also one
of the mandated functions of the Task Force Engineering, Assessment and
Monitoring (TFEAM) created under DECS Order No. 32 series of 1999.
Confirmation from the TFEAM showed that apparently, these projects were not
among the projects randomly inspected and validated or have been the subject of
their review. In a letter dated March 1, 2004 by the TFEAM Head, the team was
informed that their monitoring, assessment and evaluation were concentrated on
these areas:
Areas Visited
Calendar Year
Regional Offices Provinces/Cities
2001 Region I Pangasinan

Region II Nueva Viscaya
Region III Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga,
Tarlac, Bataan
Region IV – A Batangas, Laguna, Cavite
Region VII Bohol
NCR Manila, Las Piñas
CAR Benguet, Ifugao, Baguio City
2002 Region I Ilocos Sur, Ilocos Norte, La Union,

Pangasingan
Region II Cagayan, Nueva Viscaya, Tarlac,
Zambales
Region VI Negros Occidental
Region VII Bohol
Region VIII Leyte
CAR Pasig, Valenzuela, Malabon, Navotas,
Pasay and Quezon City
56
The team noted that recently, the DepEd and DPWH issued guidelines on
monitoring of DPWH constructed projects. The guidelines, released on July 10,
2003, was intended to address the following objectives:
• Provide principals with adequate information needed for the acceptance of

the school buildings;
• Provide timely information on deficiencies which will affect acceptance; and
• Provide factual and timely reports to management on the status, performance
and problems on the implementation of the program.
To attain these objectives, the coordination and monitoring procedures from pre-
construction to post construction evaluation were defined for each activity to be:
• Pre-Construction Stage
¾ The DPWH District Office shall provide the DepEd Division Office and
the Heads of the recipient school copies of the plans, specifications,
program of works and schedules of construction of the projects under
their areas of jurisdiction for review and comments prior to
construction. All comments should be sent to the DPWH District Office
within seven days from receipt of the documents.
• Construction Stage (For On-Going SBP)
¾ The Principal/School Head shall observe the following critical stages of

construction:
Layout and excavation

Fabrication of steel reinforcement
Concrete pouring (footing, beams/girders and flooring)
Fabrication and installation of truss/rafter system
Final Inspection/Punch listing
Within 24 hours after the activity, the Principal/School Head shall

submit a report on any observations/recommendations that require
action from the DPWH management to the DepEd Division Office and
the DPWH District Engineer’s Office.
¾ The DPWH Project Engineer shall furnish the Principal with a copy of
each of the following reports:
Results of the materials testing

Monthly project status report
57
¾ The Principals/School Heads shall invite a community and professional

organization representative (e.g. civil engineering and architectural
schools and professional practitioners who are not contractors),
preferably a member of its PTCA, to provide quality assurance during
inspection and critical stages of construction.
• Post-Construction Stage
¾ A joint inspection by the DPWH representative, the DepEd Division

PFC, the school head, a professional community representative and the
contractor shall be conducted to ensure all the items listed in the punch
list have been rectified. The Principal shall sign Form 1: Certificate of
Acceptance based on the Certificate of Completion and the result of the
Joint Project Inspection.
¾ The Physical Facilities and School Engineering Division (PFSED) of

the Central Office shall conduct random site inspection and validation
of reports prepared by the Regional and Division Offices and shall
submit the Quarterly National Report to the Office of the Secretary,
DepEd and the DPWH SBP Review Committee.
¾ The DepEd and DPWH Central Office shall create a-DPWH SBP
Review Committee to discuss SBP status and actions taken on the
Monitoring and Assessment Reports. The Committee shall submit
additional observations and comments on the program.
• Post-Occupancy Evaluation
¾ For purposes of determining the impact of the project, Form No. 6: Post
Occupancy Evaluation Questionnaire is provided. It will be filled out by
the teachers and students randomly picked by the school principal. This
survey tool will provide information about the experiences and
satisfaction levels of the stakeholders one year after the acceptance and
usage of the classroom.
The questionnaire shall be randomly filled out by at least 20 students

and 4 teachers and shall be submitted to the PFSED Office, Department
of Education, DepEd Complex, Pasig City.
• Protection Clause
¾ Personnel responsible for the construction and acceptance of a certain

unfinished school building shall be administratively sanctioned in
accordance with the existing pertinent government laws, rules and
regulations.
58
The team noted that under these guidelines, the responsibility to ensure that the
construction was undertaken in accordance with the standards and detecting
deficiencies rests with the School Principal. This set up may not be ideal
considering that the School Principals are not technical personnel and may not be
in a position to perform this function. This function could be better performed by
the DPWH personnel considering that they themselves prepared the designs, plans
and program of works and contracted the project.
Interviews with the School Principals during inspection revealed that they were
not yet provided by the District Office, copies of the plans and specifications and
were not involved in the inspection of the projects. They admitted that they have
not been observing the critical stages of construction as they were not yet aware
of their responsibility under the guidelines.
The team was informed by Ms. Ester T. Dijamco, Chief, Physical Facilities
Division that the guidelines issued on July 10, 2003 is applicable for CY 2003
SBP. However, said guidelines were disseminated to the field offices only
through DepEd Order No. 77 on September 17, 2003, while the guidelines for the
utilization of monitoring funds was disseminated only through DepEd
Memorandum 73 dated February 16, 2004. The corresponding funds for this
purpose has yet to be transferred by the DPWH to DepEd.
The presence of deficiencies was likewise observed on the DepEd and FFCCCII’s
implemented projects as tabulated below:
ILOILO CITY PROJECTS

A. Bonifacio Elementary School (2 1. Temperature cracks can be noticed on
CL), Iloilo City, implemented by wall and flooring.
FFCCCII 2. Doors and jambs needs repainting.
3. Wooden partition was removed by end-
user.
Sto. Niño Sur Elementary School (2 1. Cracks on wall and flooring can be
CL), Iloilo City, implemented by noticed. Repair is needed.
FFCCCII 2. Leakages on roofing exist as proofs of
stain mark on ceiling can be noticed.
3. Ceiling needs re-fixing.
Sto. Domingo Elementary School (2 Warping of ceiling board can be

CL), Iloilo City, CDF Funded, noticed. Rectification is needed.
implemented by FFCCCII
59
Arevalo Elementary School (2 CL), 1. Doors and jamb are infested with
Iloilo City, CDF Funded, implemented termites. Treatment is needed.
by FFCCCII 2. Cracks on wall and flooring can be
noticed.
Taal Elementary School (2 CL), Iloilo 1. Cracks along lintel beam (window jamb)
City, implemented by FFCCCII can be noticed.
2. Warping on ceiling board can be noticed.
Mandurriao Elementary School (2 CL), 1. Temperature cracks on wall can be

Iloilo City, implemented by FFCCCII noticed.
2. Damage jalousie blades can be noticed.
Balilao Elementary School (2 CL), 1. Cracks on wall and flowing can be noticed.
Iloilo City, implemented by FFCCCII 2. Interior and exterior ceiling boards need
fixing.
ILOILO PROVINCE PROJECTS
Barroc Elementary School (2 CL), 1. Interior ceiling board not properly nailed.
Tigbauan, Iloilo, implemented by 2. With damaged jalousie aluminum frame.
FFCCCII. 3. With glass jalousie missing/broken.
Barasan Este-Tigtig ES, Sta Barbara, 1. Peeling-off of paint roofing

Iloilo, implemented by FFCCCII 2. Roof leaks as evidenced by wood stain at
the ceiling board.
Sapao ES (2 CL), Dumangas, Iloilo, Outside ceiling board, not properly

implemented by FFCCCII nailed.
AKLAN PROVINCE PROJECTS
Naisud Central School (2 CL with 1. Cracks on walls were evident in most
toilets), Ibajay, Aklan, implemented by portion.
FFCCCII 2. Settlement of slabs/separation of flooring
below partition was also observed.
Balete Central School (out 10% 1. No interior ceiling

Unallocated), Balete, Aklan, 2. No roofing paint
implemented by DepEd 3. No submitted Change Order
Don Venturanza Memorial Elementary Portion of installed ceiling board was

School (out 10% Unallocated), Banga, already detached (needs renailing).
Aklan, implemented by DepEd
60
CAPIZ PROVINCE PROJECTS

Pina Elementary School (2 CL), 1. Toilet doors were already infested with
Maayon, Capiz, implemented by DepEd termites.
(TEEP) 2. Electrical and water lines were not yet
functional/ operational.
3. Installed 14 blades window glass jalousies
on aluminum frame instead of 17 blades.
Juan S. Jarencio Memorial Elementary 1. Chipped edge of water closet.

School (2 CL), Yabton, Ivisan, Capiz, 2. Clogged floor drain.
implemented by DepEd (TEEP) 3. Temperature crack on walls.
4. Bronze marker including anchors not
installed.
5. Only 2 units of cabinets/shelves were
accounted. All the rest were allegedly
utilized at the Principal’s Office.
6. Only 3”X3” loose pin hinges were used
instead of 4”x4”
7. Door stopper was not also provided.
8. Installed 7” blades clear window glass
jalousie (W1 & W2) on aluminum frame
instead of 9 blader.
9. Painted cabinets and shelves instead of
varnish.
10. Installed cold water lines not yet
functional.
11. 25 mm. dia. service entrance cap not yet
provided.
12. Incandescent bulb steel guard found not
securely fixed in place.
13. 1 unit incandescent lamp not functional.
Antonio Belo Memorial School (2 CL), 1. Sliding tracks (Aluminum) for partition walls
Timpas, Panit-an, Capiz, implemented by was not provided.
DepEd (TEEP) 2. Installed 14 blader window clear glass jalousie
on alum. frame instead of 17 blader.
Cudian Elementary School (1CL), 1. Temperature cracks on plastered walls.

Brgy. Cudian, Ivisan, Capiz, 2. Hairline cracks on interior flooring.
implemented by DepEd (TEEP) 3. installed Amerilock for door knob instead
of Kwikset brand (both to Panel and
Hollow core door).
4. Door stopper (floor type) was not
provided.
5. Red Cement was not applied to surface
finish of corridor.
6. Cabinets and shelves were painted and not
varnished.
61
7. Incandescent bulb was installed without

steel guard and was found not functional.
Cabugao Elementary School (1CL), Bronze marker including anchor was not
Brgy. Cabugao, Ivisan, Capiz, installed.
implemented by DepEd (TEEP)
Antonio Belo Memorial Elementary 1. Painting on fascia board and wall need
School (1CL), Brgy. Timpas, Panit-an, retouching.
Capiz, implemented by DepEd (TEEP) 2. Need to clean aluminum window
framing/glass jalousie blades.
3. Ceiling fan outlets not provided with screw
type male socket plug.
4. Need to remove paint stains on flooring.
5. Need to clean aluminum window
frames/glass jalousie blades.
6. Painting on exterior wall need retouching.
7. Need to clean tile/tile grout.
Don Juan Jarencio ES (2CL/1 Office), Interior:

Brgy. Ilalya, Ivisan, Capiz, Office:
implemented by DepEd (TEEP) 1. Toilet not provided with incandescent
lamp.
2. Defective floor drain at toilet.
3. Need to smoothen wall.
4. Ceiling finish should be improved.
5. Hairlines cracks on wall.
Room 1
1. Ceiling fan outlet w/o male socket plug.
2. Need to retouch baseboard.
3. Panel board without label.
4. Bulletin board not installed at its proper
location.
5. Need to improve wall finish.
Room 2
1. Crack on wall (near door)
2. Bulletin board not installed at its proper
location.
3. Baseboard need to be retouched.
4. Portions of wall (toilet) with hairline
cracks.
5. Need to smoothen wall finish.
6. Hairline cracks on flooring.
Exterior:
1. Need to retouch baseboard at front wall.
62
2. Hairline cracks at right end wall.

3. Need to smoothen wall.
4. Wall around toilet windows need to be
improved.
5. Ceiling and wall at right-end need to be
improved.
The DepEd projects were supposed to be monitored by the Physical Facilities

Division of Iloilo and TFEAM. The TFEAM is also responsible in evaluating
progress or delay in the project implementation and ensure among others that all
specifications are complied with. On the other hand, both DepEd and DPWH do
not have a hand in the construction of FFCCCII projects.
The acceptance of defective construction would result in costly maintenance,

poses danger to students and lessen the effective life of the structures.

Central Office
The DPWH has a QAU team tasked to Apparently, the QAU team was not able
check and ensure quality of completed to monitor the deficiencies noted by the
works in the region and district for team during inspection. They should
whatever deficiency or rectification therefore devise a mechanism where a
works. greater sample could be covered in their
monitoring activities to ensure the
quality of schools delivered to the end-
users.
Meanwhile, school principals or his Considering the lack of technical

authorized technical representative, e.g. expertise of the school officials, the
shop work teacher, serve only as an team agrees that they should only be
observer in the construction of the school considered as observers with the DPWH
building projects. representatives held responsible in
ensuring the quality of completed
works.
63
Chapter 4
Responsive Project Administration
64
RESPONSIVE PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
INTRODUCTION
The effectiveness of a government agency is being measured not only on the

quantity of services delivered but also on the timely delivery of the required
services. Thus, the importance of timeliness is emphasized in government
policies.
One of the projects that is expected to be delivered on time, in time for the
opening of classes are newly constructed, repaired, rehabilitated or replaced
classrooms. The delivery of these projects became significant in the light of the
acute classroom shortage experienced by a number of elementary and secondary
schools nationwide.
As discussed earlier, the National Government is appropriating P2 Billion yearly

for the construction of school buildings. A number of activities are, however,
undertaken before the benefits from such appropriation are enjoyed by the
students. This includes issuance of guidelines setting the criteria for selection of
sites, preparation of priority listings, submission of the priority lists to the DBM
for funding, releasing of SARO and Notices of Cash Allocation, conducting bids
and awarding of contracts, actual construction and turn-over to school principal.
The audit disclosed that it took the DepEd and DPWH from 344 to 450 days to
complete the construction of a school building reckoning from January 1, 2003.
As a result, as of March 31, 2004, only about 2.29% or 68 of the 2,971 classrooms
programmed to be constructed during the year were completed. Also, out of the
CY 2002 programmed construction of 5,134, only about 84.57 % was
accomplished or 4,347 classrooms completed, as of March 31, 2004. As it is
then, while funds were already appropriated, the students had to wait for quite
sometime before the benefits to be derived therefrom could be realized.
OBSERVATION
The slow paced activity of the DepEd and DPWH from the issuance of
Memorandum for selection of sites to awarding of contract and
construction activities adversely affected the timely delivery of school
buildings. It took the two Offices 344 to 450 days to complete a project
reckoning from January 1, 2003. This resulted then in the completion of
only 68 classrooms as of March 31, 2004 out of the total 2,971classrooms
to be constructed in CY 2003. Even the school buildings programmed in
65
CY 2002 were not completed as of March 31, 2004 with only about
84.57% accomplishment. This condition then deprives the students on
the timely delivery of benefits to be derived from such appropriations.
As discussed earlier, the National Government is appropriating P2 Billion yearly

to address the school building shortage of elementary and secondary schools. Of
this amount, 5,134 and 2,971 classrooms were programmed to be constructed for
elementary education nationwide for CYs 2002 and 2003, respectively.
The audit disclosed that of the total classrooms to be constructed, only 4,342 and
68 were completed as of March 31, 2004 representing only 84.57% and 2.29% for
CYs 2002 and 2003, respectively, as tabulated below:
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION
NOT YET
AMOUNT (in Php ‘000) COMPLETED ON-GOING STARTED
REGION PROGRAMMED RELEASED PROGRAM No. % No. % No. %
2003
NCR 112,033.00 109,085.00 147 15 10.20 53 36.05 79 53.74
CAR 15,810.00 15,810.00 66 0 0 0 0 66 100.00
I 53,534.00 53,533.60 143 0 0 0 0 143 100.00
II 35,764 34114.00 110 0 0 0 0 110 100.00
III 129,141.00 53,449.80 96 40 41.67 47 48.96 9 9.38
IV-A 172,631.00 172,631.00 524 0 0 19 3.63 505 96.37
IV-B 44,775.00 44,775.00 283 5 0 0 0 278 98.23
V 59,586.00 59,586.00 209 0 0 0 0 209 100.00
VI 86,504.00 86,311.40 257 0 0 0 0 257 100.00
VII 84,971.00 84,971.00 383 4 1.04 115 30.02 264 68.93
VIII 45,701.00 45,701.00 132 0 0 0 0 132 100.00
IX 51,405.00 56,435.50 161 0 0 57 35.40 104 64.60
X 45,926.00 45,925.50 134 0 0 21 15.67 113 84.33
XI 63,668.00 0.00 75 0 0 0 0 75 100.00
XII 46,648.00 42,176.00 122 4 3.28 0 0 118 96.72
XIII 27,710.00 27,710.00 129 0 0 0 0 129 100.00
ARMM 52630.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 1,128,437.00 932,214.80 2,971 68 2.29 312 10.50 2,591 87.21
2002
NCR 135,850.00 134,075.00 405 405 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
CAR 25,025.00 19,035.00 54 41 75.26 5 9.26 8 14.81
I 65,975.00 65,975.00 188 188 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
II 56,875.00 56,735.00 170 150 88.23 20 11.76 0 0.00
III 128,876.00 128,956.00 510 510 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
IV-A 184,600.00 166,229.30 843 843 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
IV-B 51,350.00 51,480.00 166 162 97.59 4 2.41 0 0.00
V 95,550.00 89,283.00 305 305 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
VI 107,250.00 102,425.00 453 353 77.92 92 20.31 8 1.77
VII 128,050.00 62,653.00 220 140 63.63 80 36.36 0 0.00
VIII 80,600.00 79,134.00 251 224 89.24 24 9.56 3 1.20
IX 73,125.00 71,938.00 225 165 73.33 60 26.67 0 0.00
X 69,395.00 69,395.00 626 257 41.05 5 0.80 364 58.15
XI 86,125.00 74,141.00 278 278 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
XII 74,750.00 58,480.00 205 166 80.98 39 19.02 0 0.00
XIII 56,550.00 55,760.00 197 147 74.62 50 25.38 0 0.00
ARMM 69,805.00 21,135.00 38 8 21.05 10 26.32 20 52.63
TOTAL 1,489,751.00 1,306,829.30 5,134 4,342 84.57 389 7.58 403 7.85
66
The team noted that the DPWH’s performance was affected by the slow paced
movement from one activity to another in implementing the program. The DepEd
and DPWH undertook the following activities:
OFFICES NARRATIVE
PROCESS FLOW
INVOLVED DESCRIPTION
DepEd Secretary issued

MEMORANDUM/ Memorandum/ Allocation List
DepEd Central Office ALLOCATION LIST Guidelines to the Regional/Division
GUIDELINES Offices for the preparation of the
Priority List per Legislative District.
PRIORITY LIST Division Office submits Priority List

DepEd Division Office
to DepEd Central Office.
BATCHING DepEd Central Office forwards

DepEd/DPWH
request for funding to DBM by batch.
SARO DBM releases Sub-Allotment Release

DBM
Order (SARO) to DPWH.
DPWH releases Sub-Allotment

DPWH SAA Advice (SAA) to DPWH Engineering
Districts.
DPWH Engineering Districts submit

Cash Program to DBM. In turn,
DPWH-Eng’g. District CASH PROGRAM DBM will deposit the amount
programmed in the MDS account of
the DPWH Engineering Districts.
DPWH Main Office releases the

DPWH NOTICE OF SAA Notice of SAA to the DPWH
Engineering Districts.
DPWH – Eng’g PROJECT DPWH Engineering Districts

District IMPLEMENTATION implement the project.
67
As a matter of practice, the DepEd is batching the list of priorities received

from the Division Offices for submission to the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) for funding. For CY 2003, the DepEd submitted five (5)
batches of lists to the DBM.
To determine whether all activities intended to be accomplished to deliver the

school buildings to the intended recipients were executed with dispatch, the team
analyzed the processes undertaken on school buildings allocated for NCR and
Regions VI and X. Analysis revealed the slow paced performance of both the
DPWH and the DepEd in delivering the required services. It took the two
agencies 344 to 450 days to complete a project as illustrated below:
BATCHES Range
Number of Days Lapsed in between Activities per
Particulars 1 2 3 4 5 Activity
DepED
a. Issuance of guidelines by
the DepEd (Reckon from
01/01/03) 100 100 100 100 100 100
• Date Issued 4/11/03 4/11/03 4/11/03 4/11/03 4/11/03
b. Submission of Priority List
by the Division Offices to
DepEd - CO (Reckon
from the issuance of
guidelines) 17 - 38 46 – 90 101 - 109 157 - 184 203 - 228 17 – 228
• Date of 4/28- 5/27- 7/22- 9/18- 11/04-
Submission 5/19/03 7/11/03 8/01/03 10/15/03 12/09/03
c. Submission of Priority List
by batch to DBM for
funding (Reckon from the
date of receipt of priority
list) 6 - 28 4 – 48 46 - 55 15 - 42 34 – 69 6 – 69
• Date of
Submission 5/26/03 7/15/03 9/17/03 10/30/03 1/13/04
Sub-total 123 - 397
DBM
d. Releasing of SARO by
DBM to DPWH (Reckon
from the date of
submission of priority list no SARO
to DBM) 30 91 53 31 yet 30 – 91
• Date of Receipt
by DPWH 6/26/03 10/16/03 11/10/03 12/01/03 - -
Sub-total 30-91
DPWH Main Office
e. Releasing of SAA** by
DPWH Main Office to
DPWH Engineering
District Offices (Reckon
from the date SARO
received) 14 21 9 21 N/A 9 – 21
• SAA Date 7/10 11/17 11/19 12/22 - -
Sub-total 9 - 21
68
BATCHES Range
Number of Days Lapsed in between Activities per
Particulars 1 2 3 4 5 Activity
DPWH Eng’g,. District

f. Conducting of bidding by
the Engineering District
Offices (Reckon from
SAA date) 69 - 74 100 – 131 8 - 111 77 - 90 N/A 8 – 131
• Date of Bidding 9/19- 9/24/03- 11/27/03-
9/24 3/18/04 3/10/04 3/9-22/04 -
g. Releasing of Notice to
Proceed (Reckon from 53 -
date of bidding) 107 13 – 85 14 - 42 16 13 - 107
• NTP Date 11/17/
03-
1/06/0 12/10/03- No award
4 3/09/04 3/15/04 3/25/04 yet
Sub-total 21 - 238
h. Construction Period
(Reckon from NTP Date) 55 -
178 6 – 106 60 6 – 178
• Completion Date 1/12-
7/14/0 12/16/03- Not yet
4 3/26/04 3/09/04 - completed
Sub-total 6 - 178
TOTAL 344-450
* used 30 days a month or 360 days a year in computing the days lapsed
** based on available SAA
It may be noted that the lapses in the implementation of the SBP started from the
issuance of Memorandum setting the criteria for selection of sites. For CY 2003,
the Memorandum was issued by the DepEd only on April 11, 2003. Considering
that this is a regular activity of the DepEd and the appropriation for SBP is almost
certain yearly, the DepEd should have issued the Memorandum at least two
months before the beginning of the year to allow the Division Offices enough
time to prepare the priority list.
Apparently, the submission of the priority list by the Division Offices was also
not properly monitored by the DepEd. It would appear that the preparation of this
list and submission of the same to the DBM for funding is a year round activity of
the DepEd. The Division Offices started to submit the list on April 28, 2003 and
completed the list only on December 9, 2003. Consequently, these lists were
forwarded to the DBM only between the period May 26, 2003 to January 13,
2004. It may be emphasized that unless the DBM released the funding
requirements, the DPWH would not be able to commence with its mandated
functions.
69
As borne by records, the DPWH started receiving SARO only on June 26, 2003
and has yet to receive the SARO for batch 5 as of March 31, 2004. This condition
greatly affected the performance of the DPWH as enough time is also needed by
the DPWH to complete the construction. It took the DPWH District Office 21 to
238 days from the date of receipt of SAA to conduct the bidding and release the
Notice to Proceed and another 6 to 178 days to complete the construction.
For CY 2002 projects, it took the DPWH 10 to 335 days to bid out the project
from the time the SARO was released and another 7 to 147 days to issue the
Notice to Proceed. The projects were constructed within another 30-331 days.
This lag time per activity then contributed in the completion of only 68
classrooms from CY 2003 appropriation and failure to complete the construction
of 792 classrooms from CY 2002 appropriation as of March 31, 2004. This
condition then deprived the students on the timely delivery of benefits that could
be derived from such appropriations.

Central Office
For CY 2002 – Major reason why some These reasons were not evident on the
projects were delayed in construction is documents evaluated by the team. In
due to non-payment of contractor’s fact, based on the documents
claim. Although the projects were supporting payments, the delay in
clustered per congressional district and to construction was due to issuance of
be implemented simultaneously, some suspension orders on account of
contractors did not implement the demolition of existing structures,
projects simultaneously as planned. curing period of the floor slab,
Moreover, there are cases where there are unfavorable weather condition and
no takers of the projects, while other issuance of various change and extra
delays are caused by the requests of the work orders.
representatives concerned to undertake
the projects by administration.
For CY 2003 – Some projects were not The DPWH started its activities only
yet started due to delayed in the after the lifting of the election ban as
tendering of documents due to the the 1st SARO for CY 2003
scheduled election ban. However, as of appropriation was received only on
May 2004 contracts of some projects June 26, 2003. Hence, the election ban
were just approved now with NTP. did not in any way affect the DPWH
performance. As discussed above, the
The slow pace implementation of the CY delay can be attributed to the failure of
2003 DepEd School Building Program the District Office to immediately bid
wherein the two Offices undertook 344 to out the projects upon receipt of SAA.
450 days could be attributed to the It took the District Office 21 to 238
following factors:
70
a. reprogramming of the fund

allocation; days to complete the bidding process
and another 6 to 178 days to
b. late release of funds;
complete the construction. Thus,
c. sudden increase in cost of despite continuous receipt of SARO
construction materials; from June to December 1, 2003, as of
d. ban on public works during the March 2004, only 68 classrooms were
election ban; completed.
e. lack of interest among
contractors; and Likewise, the DPWH is expected to be
f. stringent requirements of the familiar by now with the stringent
World Bank. requirements of the World Bank since
they have been dealing with the Bank
for a number of years.
DPWH’s reply to DepEd’s request
for comment
With respect to the proposed The team appreciates the DPWH

recommendations, this Office is in accord concern to improve the existing system
based on the findings/observations of the to address the team’s observations.
COA audit team on School Building
Program. Moreover, the following are
further recommended based on the
observations/findings of the audit team:
1. Strict enforcement of the

provisions stipulated in the
contract between the contractor of
school building and
DepEd/DPWH;
2. Strengthen compliance with the
joint DepEd-DPWH Memoran-
dum dated 10 July 2003,
regarding Guidelines for
Coordination and Monitoring of
DPWH-Constructed School
Buildings;
3. DepEd should increase the budget
allocation to solve the increase in
enrolment population yearly;
4. DepEd and DPWH should adopt
single and uniform school
building design to arrive at
uniform costings;
5. Electrical roughing-in should not
be deleted for future electrical
installation;
71
6. Strictly implement proper

coordination among the
implementing agencies to avoid
wastage of funds;
7. Establish proper monitoring and

evaluation of all succeeding
school building projects;
7.1 End-user should be furnished

plans and program of work and
be allowed to supervise the
project implementation.
7.2 There should be centralized
body on school building
program composed of members
from the DPWH, DepEd and
Non-Government Organization
in charge of monitoring and
evaluating the school building
projects in the course of
construction for effective
control purposes; and
8. Selected independent and

competent monitoring team who
officially conducted intensive
validation of the different school
building projects (in NCR,
Regions VI and X) may also
continuously inspect projects in
other areas to find a) whether the
projects are beneficial or not; and
b) a report be made to this effect.
72
Part IV
Recommendations
73
RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure the effective implementation of the project, the DPWH should:
a. Before the construction of the school building in the designated

site, inquire if new buildings were already constructed, being
constructed or programmed/scheduled to be constructed by other
implementing agencies. In such case, properly inform the DepEd
for possible relocation of school building in another school within
the same legislative district in need of the school building.
b. Coordinate with the DepEd on the possibility of adopting uniform

designs and standards for easy laying-out and utilization of
available school spaces. This would also facilitate comparison and
evaluation of performance of implementing agencies.
c. Avoid contracting for unfinished structures. Ensure that the scope

of work is sufficient to complete the project. Coordinate with the
DepEd to set a reasonable estimate for a completed classroom.
d. In view of limited resources, adopt a one-storey structure unless

there is no available space to accommodate intended expansion.
e. Prepare a standard program of work for each plan to guide the

District Offices in the implementation of the program. The issuance
of standard POW will also guide the DepEd and the DPWH in
prescribing the unit cost per classroom for each type of building
and avoid contracting based on excessive estimates.
f. Strictly monitor the contractor’s performance to ensure that the

projects are constructed in accordance with plans and specifications
and free from any deficiency. Coordinate with the contractors to
rectify the deficiencies noted by the team.
g. Facilitate the bidding process to ensure that the school buildings

are completed within the year the funds are appropriated. Strictly
monitor the performance of the contractors to avoid unnecessary
delay in the completion of the project.
74
Submitted in compliance with MS & TS Office Order No. 2003-009 dated June
24, 2003 and TS Office Order No. 2003-068 dated October 17, 2003.
CRISOSTOMO P. MEDINA FRANCIS NEIL H. BORRO

Team Member Team Member
EVE NIEVES R. ROMULO ARNEL G. PASCUAL

DEMETRIO A. ANCHETA, JR. JOAN AGNES D. NINI

JUANITA. S. CALIWAG ROSEMARIE R. MAGTAAN

MELBA E. ACUAVERA RENATO O. ROSALES

Co-Team Leader Co-Team Leader
IDA M. OANES EMELIE P. PESTAÑO

Co-Team Leader Team Leader
EMMA L. RACELIS
Team Supervisor
Reviewed by :
SUSAN P. GARCIA
Director III
Approved by:
ILUMINADA M.V. FABROA

Director IV
75

DPWH Sbp2003-03a PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DPWH Sbp2003-03a PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

August 29, 2004

Hon. Secretary Florante Soriquez

We are pleased to transmit the report on the sectoral performance audit of

The performance of the Department was assessed using the following

a. Sound Identification/Selection of School Sites;

We look forward to the proper implementation of the recommendations

Very truly yours,

By Authority of the Chairman:

ILUMINADA M.V. FABROA

School Building Program

Department of Public Works

Part I Executive Summary 1

Part II School Building Program 7

Part III Audit Observations 17

Chapter 1 Sound Identification/Selection 18

Chapter 3 Effective Quality Assurance 48

Chapter 4 Responsive Project Administration 64

The right of Filipino citizens to quality education at all levels is guaranteed

This mandate carries with it the responsibility of providing the different

In the Historical Inventory of classrooms prepared by the Department of

P2 Billion SBP Annual Allocation

1 - Ilocos Region 241 P 78,325 243 P 91,113

Grand Total 6,154 P 2,000,000 5,330 P 1,999,999

¾ Selection of School Sites

AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

¾ Sound Identification/Selection of School Building Sites;

¾ Reviewed existing policies and guidelines on the allocation of school

¾ The selection of sites was adversely affected by the absence of

¾ The DPWH was delivering unfinished school buildings to the School

work. This condition then contributed to the delivery of unfinished

Moreover, considering the limited government resources, the adoption of

¾ The performance of the contractors was not properly monitored as

¾ Of the 2,971 classrooms programmed for elementary schools to be

These lapses hinder the achievement of the government’s objective of providing

Considering the importance of school buildings in the delivery of quality

MANAGEMENT’S REACTION TO AUDIT OBSERVATIONS

School Building Program

Actual Excess Classrooms still

TOTAL 295,399 52,827 8,040

AGENCIES IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM

The school building program is participated by a number of government and non-

Agencies Functions & Responsibilities

¾ Issuance of Guidelines on:

¾ Preparation of standard plans and specification

¾ Provision/allocation of funds for the

Agencies Functions & Responsibilities

¾ Provision/allocation of funds for the

(Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce

THE ROLE OF THE DPWH

¾ The creation of DPWH-DepEd Technical Working Group with the

A. For On-going SBP Construction

(1) Provide Principals with adequate information needed for acceptance of

B. For Completed SBP Construction

(1) Provide information on the conditions and utilization of the school

¾ During the pre-Construction Stage, the DPWH District Office shall

construction project under their areas of jurisdiction for review and

 Results of material testing

¾ A joint inspection by the DPWH representative, the DepEd Division

The Flow Chart for Monitoring of DPWH-Constructed School Buildings is

1 - Ilocos Region 168 129

Total 3,025 2,069

* excluding the number of classrooms costing P11.2M.

Results of material testing