Usually, project showcases depict models, something others should see because of their beneficial effects on society, especially if the showcase is worth several billion pesos of taxpayer money.
As I see it, there are two types of showcases: one is a positive showcase because it is useful as a model for other projects to follow or adopt. On the other hand, there is a negative showcase: a project that is useful not because it is an example of good practice of using public funds but because it is an example of how not to implement a project from planning to execution.
Sadly, the Tacloban Airport Development Project is an example of a negative showcase.
There are many reasons for this adverse view. I will cite a few.
First, the project has been delayed by over a year and it is not certain when Phases One and Two will be completed, despite the press releases from CAAP (Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines) that Phase One will be completed in 2024. The implementing agency CAAP, keeps changing its schedule almost as often as the winds of Leyte Gulf change in a day. CAAP has modified the completion date at least 5 times.
Phase One of the New Passenger Terminal Building was originally scheduled for completion last March 2022. Now, after changing the target date several times, it is planned to be completed in March 2024. That is a delay of 2 years. The project has overshot its schedule by 100 percent! The delay could last up to 3 years.
Right now, MAC Builders says it will complete its contracted work by March 2024. This is a very optimistic estimate bordering on a lie.
At present the negative slippage is 20 percent from a zero slippage in September. If this contractor continues this trend, which unfortunately is consistent with his past actions, the project will reach a negative slippage of 30 percent by the end of 2023. As things stand and with the continuous inaction of CAAP on effectively compelling the contractor to speed up and catch up with its original schedule, the project could be 70 percent behind the announced schedule of March 2024, instead of being completed in that month.
Another example is how the implementing agencies use Variation Orders to extend the construction period and keep negative slippage within tolerable levels, thus preventing termination of the contract. CAAP did not reply formally to the Resolution of the RPMC in August this year to initiate the termination of MAC’s contract and the consequent hand-over of the project to a qualified contractor,
This snob places in question the effectiveness of the RPMC in enabling speedy implementation of big-ticket projects like the Tacloban Airport Development Project. There is inadequate seriousness on the part of the monitored project implementors to solve problems cited by the RPMC.
In the next meeting of the RPMC, (it met last November 30, so the next one could be on February 2024) the Commission on Audit and the Ombudsman will orient the RPMC on their functions and how both agencies can use RPMC data and information with the end goal of accelerating project implementation.
The “whole of government” approach can be used. All agencies who can help facilitate project implementation should assist each other. The RPMC should not do this alone. It should lead the way in encouraging inter-agency cooperation.
Let us see what happens after this meeting. With this link, the COA and the Ombudsman can receive data and information it can work on to ferret the truth with the power to issue subpoenas and penalize the guilty parties when warranted by the evidence.
A tough task but any progress in this regard will be beneficial to Eastern Visayas. It will give teeth to RPMC work, give it more bite so it will be treated seriously by the implementors of big-ticket projects.
The unholy alliance in this project which I mentioned in my previous column will be treated in the next one. I need to do more research.
#IAmBack #JunieGoSoco #TaclobanAirport #Tacloban #TaclobanAirportDevelopmentProject #NegativeShowcase #CAAP #MACBuilders #RPMC #OpinYonColumn #OpinYon #WeTakeAStand