“The greatest insult to the public is spending P389-Million for what DENR officials admit as a ‘short-term’ intervention to the very real problem of pollution in Manila Bay. The fact that they compared the effectivity of dolomite to aquarium sand shows that they grasping at straws to justify such enormous expense without scientific basis. Let this be clear: We are spending P389-Million simply to window-dress a thin stretch of Manila Bay, nothing else. Not to clean it, not to improve water quality levels. This much for a project not even included in any Manila Bay master plan. This much for a project without an actual environmental study.”
This was the statement of Terry Ridon, Infrawatch PH convenor.
P28-Million for dolomite sand
During the briefing of the House of Representatives on the budget of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, DENR Undersecretary Jonas Leones admitted that only P28-Million was spent to purchase dolomite sand from Cebu.
Upon the query of House Minority Leader Rep. Bienvenido Abante, Mr. Leones said that only around six percent of the entire beach nourishment project was spent on dolomite sand.
“Yung P389-Million ito po ang gagamitin sa buong proyekto ng beach nourishment, about six percent lang po yung sa dolomite doon, the amount of P28-Million.”
Pressed further, Mr. Leones clarified where the rest of the funding will be used –
“Sa P389-Million ang kasama po ditong mga activity unang una po yung tinatawag nating desilting, kailangan po kasi nating linisin ang ilalim ng Manila Bay. … Pangalawa po sa paglalagay po natin ng buhangin, kailangan po … merong tayong geo intervention to make sure that the sand will not easily be washed out in case of strong current. … Ito po ang mga activities na nakapaloob po sa P389-Million.”
From 54% to 64% project return: Single bidder, bid variance of 2% from approved budget
With respect, this makes the case for the project far worse, because by any measure, the costs of the project minus the admitted costs of dolomite sand will not approximate the total contract price of P389-Million without overstating the actual costs of the project.
Updating our own estimates, P28-Million of dolomite sand and other costs yields a baseline cost of only P118,820,000.00.
Correspondingly, the eight-percent return for the project should only be around P10,332,173.91, and all other added costs no more than P20-Million.
Unless the DPWH clarifies the cost calculations for the project, it would be reasonable to assume that the remainder of the P389-Million budget would amount to profits with around 64% return, as all other remaining project components are negligible costs as compared to sand supply and backfilling costs.
This amount is more than double the estimated baseline total costs of the project.
It is important to note that the price variance of the total contract price to the approved project budget stands at only 2.04%, and there was only one single bidder.
You have vast choices to treat https://pdxcommercial.com/property/1405-ne-broadway-st-portland-or/ viagra tadalafil it as needed. Medications recommended for treating erectile dysfunction differ according cialis purchase online to its root. It is chewable tablets of 5mg and complete pack contains cheap canadian viagra 100mg tablets. Being old means getting health ailments like high blood pressure, a rare inherited eye buy cheap levitra you could try this out disease called retinitis pigmentosa, in this case taking these medicines can lead to sudden loss of vision.Beach nourishment: ‘Short-term activities’ not part of Manila Bay master plan
On the other hand, Mr. Leones also admitted that the project is part of ‘short-term activities’ for Manila Bay.
“… Ito pong ginagawa natin ngayon na beach nourishment and desilting and grubbing, these are short-term activities which we believe will support the NEDA [Manila Bay master] plan in the long-term.”
In fact, Muntinlupa Rep. Ruffy Biazon categorically asked Mr. Leones if the current project is not part of any of two existing Manila Bay master plans.
Mr. Leones answered in the affirmative —
“Yes, Mr. Chair. That is correct, Mr. Chair.”
COA and SC urged: Clear basis to suspend project
Given these new developments, the following facts are clear, and should serve as basis to suspend the project:
a. There is no ECC for the project, despite clear environmental rules requiring ECCS for developments in tourist spots and historical areas.
b. The Manila Bay white sand project is considered a short-term activity despite the high project cost.
c. The beach nourishment project is not part of the overall Manila Bay master plan.
d. Without DPWH clarification on costs, the projected return on the project will reach almost seventy percent.
Both the Commission on Audit or the Supreme Court should intervene to protect public funds and the environment.
The Commission on Audit can immediately conduct a special audit on the project, while the Supreme Court can immediately activate the Manila Bay Advisory Committee, both of which can intervene to determine whether the processes undertaken by the project are all aboveboard.