P1.3-B builder’s payment questioned
AT LEAST P1.3 billion collected by Hillmarc’s Corp. could be disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA) due to “dubious accomplishments reports” on the construction of the Makati City Parking Building II, according to state auditors.
A special audit on the allegedly overpriced P2.28-billion building involving Hillmarc’s showed that the favored contractor of Vice President Jejomar Binay purportedly submitted false accomplishment reports for payment by the Makati City government during the five phases of its construction.
The Binays have consistently denied any wrongdoing, blaming the accusations against them on politics.
The building was started while Vice President Binay was mayor of Makati City. Construction continued through the administration of his son, Mayor Junjun Binay. The Binays have been charged by the Office of the Ombudsman with plunder and graft and corruption in connection with the overpriced building, for which the younger Binay had been forced to step aside.
Hillmarc’s was also the recipient of several other infrastructure projects in the city, according to the 57-page COA report by a three-member special team. A copy of the report was secured by the Inquirer.
“The construction of the Makati parking building without an approved reference plan for an 11-story building with roof deck and corresponding ABC to establish the limit of construction and basis of cost per phase appears to be irregular and casts doubt on the integrity of the construction cost,” the report said.
“It appears also that the implementation of the phases is misleading and questionable,” it said.
For Phase 1, involving the basement to ground floor, the report said that the actual accomplishment was only 13.91 percent equivalent to P53,818,248.43 compared to the 100 percent reported by Hillmarc’s on Jan. 6, 2009, that resulted in a discrepancy of P334,033,993.51, or 86.31 percent of the total.
For Phase 2, involving the second floor to the roof deck, the actual accomplishment was only 62.26 percent equivalent to P310,894,911.75 as compared to the reported accomplishment of 100 percent dated Sept. 28, 2009, with a discrepancy of P189,049,710.37 or 37.86 percent.
Phase 2 was awarded on Jan. 19, 2009, with a contract duration of 240 calendar days. The reported accomplishment as of April 27, 2009, was 90.20 percent and was completed in 96 days, while the remaining work of 9.80 percent was completed in 131 days.
“The reported accomplishments as of April 27, seems untenable as it would not be feasible to complete the superstructure from ground floor to 10th or 11th floor and roof deck for only 96 calendar days,” the report said.
The one-page accomplishment report prepared by the management had no detailed supporting documents.
For Phase 3 (added eleventh floor and roof deck), the actual accomplishment was only 28.27 percent, or P169,450,400.66, compared to the 100-percent accomplishment report submitted on May 23, 2011, and resulted in a budget discrepancy of P430, 367,391.36, or equivalent to 71.80 percent of the approved budget.
The report also stated that a comparison of pictures stamped “pre-audited” on Oct. 28, 2009, and Dec. 20, 2010, by COA resident auditor Renato Salvador and attached to the final billing for Phase 2 and the first billing of Phase 3 showed that some of the roof deck items had not yet been completed nor the slab poured with concrete, contradicting photographs attached to the final billing for Phase 2 and “indicating irregular reporting of accomplishments.”
For Phase 4—a mixture of architectural, mechanical works, electrical, plumbing and fire protection—the actual accomplishment was only 60.51 percent, or P392,873,437.93, compared to the 100 percent reported by Hillmarc’s on June 8, 2012, resulting in a discrepancy of P827,061,003.16, or 39.59 percent.
“The ABC and the approved contract cost for Phase 4 had no detailed unit price analysis for all the work item involved in the project as provided in the contract wherein some of the items are lump sum amounts,” the auditors said.
For Phase 5—a combination of architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection—the actual accomplishment was only 37.27 percent, or P52,798,736.59 compared to the 100 percent reported by the contractor dated March 7, 2013, that resulted in a difference of P91,008. 231.65, or 64.25 percent .
“The reported accomplishments on all progress and final billings had no detailed breakdown to support the accomplished quantity claimed paid per progress and final billing,” the auditors said.
