Preliminary Review

1. Check whether the following documentary requirements for review of infrastructure contracts are submitted:

a.  Duly approved contract and all its integral parts;
b.  Complete set of the duly approved plans and specifications;
c.  Approved Agency Estimate including detailed breakdown of estimates and unit cost derivation for each work item;
d.  Approved PERT/CPM Network Diagram and/or equivalent, and detailed computation of contract time.

Section IB10, IRR of P.D. 1594 - Bid Tender and Award

IB 10.7 - Documents Comprising the Contract

1. The following documents shall form part of the contract:

a. Contract Agreement
b. Conditions of Contract
c. Drawings/Plans
d. Specifications
e. Invitation to Bid
f. Instructions to Bidders
g. Addenda
h. Bid Form including the following Annexes:

(1) Authority of the Signing Official
(2) Bid Prices in the Bill of Quantities
(3) Detailed Estimates
(4) Construction Schedule and S-Curve
(5) Construction Methods
(6) Project Organizational Chart
(7) Manpower Schedule
(8) Equipment Utilization Schedule and duly executed Contract of Lease of all equipment and machineries which shall be intended for use exclusively for the project, if any
(9) Cash flow by quarter and Payments Schedule
(10) Affidavit of Site Inspection

i. Performance Security
j. Prequalification Statements
 k. Credit Line issued by an authorized bank in an amount equal to the average operating expenses of the project for two (2) months or ten percent (10%) of the total project cost, whichever is less
 l.  Notice of Award of Contract and Contractor's "Conforme" thereto
 m. Other Contract Documents that may be required by the office/agency/corporation concerned.

1) To facilitate the approval of the contract, the following documents shall be submitted:
a.  Duly Approved Program of Work and Cost Estimates
 b. Certificate of Availability of Funds
 c.  Approved Agency Estimate (AAE) and Allowable Government Estimate (AGE)
d. Abstract of Bids
 e. Resolution of the PBAC or the PBAC recommendation for Award
 f.  Approval of Award by Approving Authority
 g.  Concurrence of Lending Institution in case of Foreign - Assisted Projects
 h.  Other pertinent documents as may be reasonably required by existing laws.

COA Memorandum No. 91-704, February 27, 1991 - Documentary Requirements for the Review of the Technical Aspects of All Types of Government Contracts, Annex A

Infrastructure Contracts Review Checklist

1. Copy of the perfected/proposed contract and all of its integral parts.
2.  Complete set of the approved plans and specifications including material source map
3. Copy of the Approved Agency Estimate (AAE) including detailed breakdown of estimates and unit cost analysis/derivation for each work item
4. Copy of the Approved PERT/CPM Network Diagram and detailed computation of contract time

Illustrative Decisions

COA Decision No. 2849 dated April 15, 1993

This is a claim for payment for dredging of various rivers in Pampanga and Bulacan under contracts of FF Cruz and DPWH. The Auditor noted that the volume of excavated materials for which payments were made in December 1985 and January 1986 could not have plausibly been dredged by the firm even if the dredging operations had started immediately upon the execution of the covering contracts, using the Ministry of Public Works and Highways' (MPWH) own formal and official evaluation of the equipment envisioned to be used and methods to be employed in the dredging operations.

The CP opined that since, as noted by the Technical Service Office, the submitted plans and cross-sections, in reference to which the agency's surveys were made, do not show the location or elevation of the bench marks for the projects, it cannot be ascertained whether the elevations shown in the cross sections based on the sounding made, refer to the same bench marks that would have been taken in original pre-dredging surveys. Nor is there an indication in the profile and cross-section maps of the water level and the status of the tide at the time sounding was made.

Likewise, the CP noted that the company failed to submit the following contract documentation requirements indicated in Section IB2-2.10 of the IRR of PD 1594:

(a) Approved programs of work
(b) Construction schedules
(c) Construction methods
(d) Manpower schedules
(e) Equipment Utilization schedules
(f) Cash flow and payment schedules
(g) Acceptable performance bonds
(h) Pre and post qualification statements
(i) Certification of cash deposits for operating expenses

Hence, the request for reconsideration was denied.

COA Decision No. 93-307 dated July 28, 1993

This pertains to the construction of a two (2) storey academic building of the Sorsogon College of Arts and Trades (SCAT), Sorsogon, Sorsogon. The winning bidder was sought to be disqualified, and suspension of payment was recommended on the ground of lack of prequalification requirements.

The CP, in its decision noted that the deficiency (non-submission of a credit line certificate-CLC, during the prequalification) may not be rightly attributed to the Contractor. It is indubitable from the checklist of required documents for prequalification issued by the PBAC to the herein Contractor that CLC was not among the required documents to be submitted by the latter for prequalification.

With respect to the alleged fake/forged CLC submitted by Jofel Construction, the CP did not consider the same as sufficient basis for disqualification of the contractor considering that the CLC was not a requirement of the PBAC.