Thursday, August 23, 2007 Speak out: Issues the mayor raised against me By Primitivo C. Cal
Second of Two Parts
OTHER reasons cited by the Supreme Court to nullify the Piatco contract, for which I had no participation (it also resulted in cases being filed against Piatco officers and government officials) include:
--That the concession agreement contained provisions that substantially departed from the draft concession agreement attached to the bid documents.
--That the original and amended concession agreements provided a direct government guarantee.
--That the original and amended concession agreements required the government to pay “reasonable cost for the use of the terminal and/or terminal complex” in case of temporary government takeover.
The same issues raised with the Supreme Court were subject of three separate investigations by committees of the House of Representatives, and all found no irregularity or illegality in the NAIA IPT III Project bidding process and the Piatco contract.
The committee on transportation and communications submitted its report on March 7, 2000. The same committee, under a different chairman, submitted its report on Dec. 18, 2001. The committee on good government submitted its report on Dec. 11, 2002.
Offers
Has the prequalification of Piatco caused damage to and prejudiced the government?
Bidding rules for the project provide as basis for the award of contract guaranteed payments to the government in addition to fixed minimum percentage shares of gross revenues.
AEDC’s offer: P5 million per annum (p.a.) for 2 years during construction and P5million p.a. in 25 years of operation.
Piatco’s offer: P300 million p.a. for 2 years during construction; P510 million p.a. for first 2 years of operation; P610 million p.a. for third and fourth year of operation; P710 million p.a. from fifth year to 25th yearr of operation.
Under the BOT law, AEDC, being the unsolicited proponent, will still be awarded the contract if it matched the offer of Piatco.
AEDC opted not to match Piatco’s offer, hence Piatco was awarded the contract after complying with other BOT law requirements.
Traffic study
Meanwhile, I accepted the task of undertaking the Banilad-Talamban Traffic Engineering Study because transportation and traffic in Metro Cebu is close to my heart being a Cebuano and project director of the Metro Cebu Land Use and Transport Study (Mcluts) from 1979 to 1986.
Mcluts produced a Structure Plan for Metro Cebu to guide its development to year 2000, as well as prepared and implemented transportation and traffic engineering projects in Metro Cebu.
I also served as project director of MCDP and its predecessor, Central Visayas Urban Project, from May 1, 1981 to March 31, 1988.
Note that the following Mcluts recommendations, among others, have been implemented:
--Mandaue and south reclamation projects; widening of South Expressway/South road; widening of Katipunan St.; widening of V. Rama Ave. and B. Rodriguez St.;
--Widening of Banawa road; widening of A.S. Fortuna St.; widening of M.L. Quezon St.;
--Traffic engineering schemes including a modern traffic signal system; rationalization of jeepney routes, including the introduction of jeepney route numbering scheme.
Part of my Gov. Cuenco Ave. Traffic Engineering Study Report said:
“Seven years have passed since the expiration of Mcluts and yet no successor plan is in place. It is about time that a new round of transportation master planning exercise is undertaken to produce a structure plan that would guide the development of Metro Cebu for the next 20 years.
“Such a study should test the continuing relevance of unimplemented road proposals of Mcluts, such as the extension of Gov. Cuenco Ave. all the way to Consolacion and an outer circumferential road.”
