Performance evaluation of contractors in Cavite State University for the last five years (2000-2004)

• Main Author: Peña, Roslyn Pielago
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2005
• Subjects: Public works—Philippines—Evaluation; Government contractors—Philippines—Evaluation; Civil Engineering
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/6823
• Institution: De La Salle University

The study on the “Performance Evaluation of Contractors at Cavite State University (CvSU) for the Last Five Years (2000-2004)” was conducted in the main campus of the University located at Barangay Bancod, Indang, Cavite. The study specifically aimed to review past contractor’s performance based on the approved accomplishment reports certified by the CvSU-Project Team; evaluate the effects of the contractors’ performances in relation to the use of the building and its facilities; recommend contractors with satisfactory performance to BAC; serve as a reference to the previous and new contractors; and to formulate guidelines and policies to the Bids Awards Committee (BAC) in relation to the awarding of new projects to qualified contractors. There were twenty-one (21) Capital Outlay Projects (COP) implemented by CvSU administration for the period under this study covering ten (10) buildings. These projects were implemented under PD 1594 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), Prescribing Policies, Guidelines, Rules and Regulation for Government Infrastructure Contracts. However, the current projects of CvSU are under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform Act. The chronological events of each project were presented. The performances were evaluated based on the rating systems of the four basic assessment elements: a) schedule; b) technical performance (quality of product or service); c) cost control; and d) business relations. Five basic ratings were used, excellent (5), very good (4), satisfactory (3), marginal (2), and unsatisfactory (1). There were nine projects or equivalent to 42.86 percent that obtained a rating of Very Good (VG). The contractors who had handled these projects are highly recommended for future projects in the University. These nine projects were turned over to the University with one hundred percent (100%) work accomplishment on or before contract’s expiration date. There were five projects or equivalent to 23.81 percent that got rating of satisfactory (S) and the contractors who had handled these projects are recommended for the future projects in the University. These five projects were turned over to the University with one hundred percent (100%) work accomplishment on the revised expiration date that the contractor promised to accomplish. The comments or the ‘to-do’ items in the punch list were also attended or accomplished. There were two projects (2) or equivalent to 9.52 % that got marginal ratings. The University had terminated their contract because the incurred negative slippage of more than 20% and the contractors were not willing to finish the projects even with the more than 80% work accomplished. These two contractors are minimally recommended for future projects in the University. Five projects or equivalent to 23.81 percent got ratings of unsatisfactory (U) because the work accomplished were less than 80 % on the said revised expiration date including the granted time extension. The University terminated/rescinded their contract because more than 20% negative slippage incurred. The contractors who handled these projects are not recommended by the proponent to handle future projects in the campus and will be placed in the blacklisted contractors in CvSU. These ten additional buildings considered in this study are additional come-on for parents to let their children study in CvSU. New buildings and facilities are deemed important factors in the selection of a school to study. The terminated projects undertaken negatively affected the University’s operations. Adjustments in rooms and class schedules, for examples, have to be done due to the non-completion of building on the target dates. In implementing projects, nobody is perfect. Problems are always encountered in the site whether lack of personnel; equipment; scarcity of construction materials, calamities and lack of financial resources to continue the projects. Financial constraint is one of the major problems. It was noticed that the seven contractors with unsatisfactory rating belong to Medium A (above P3M up to P15M contract cost) category. Based on the cost analysis of the percentage in difference of Approved Agency Estimate (AAE) and the Bidding Price (BP) of the unsatisfactory contractors (presented in Appendix W), five out of seven bids were more than fifteen percent lower than AAE. Or contractors with satisfactory performance, two out of fourteen bids were more than fifteen percent lower than AAE. These two projects belong to Small B category (above P0.5M up to P3M contract cost). Seven out of fourteen projects belong to Medium A category. In order to minimize the said problems, it is recommended that for projects belonging to Medium and Large category, the difference in the bid price should not be lower than 15% of the AAE, [and if possible] and apply the Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A. 9184 Section 34.2 b (ii) checking the performance of the bidder in its ongoing government and private contracts (if any of these on-going contracts shows a reported negative slippage of at least fifteen percent (15%), or substandard quality of work as per contract plans and specifications, or unsatisfactory performance of his obligations as per contract terms and conditions, at the time of inspection, and if the BAC verifies any of these deficiencies to be due to the contractor’s fault or negligence, the agency shall disqualify the contractor from the award), for the procurement of infrastructure projects. Proper implementation of the Constructors Performance Evaluation System (CPES), a system of grading the performance of a constructor for a specific kind of infrastructure projects using a set of criteria or guidelines as Approved by NEDA Infracom Pursuant to the IRR R.A. No. 9184 known as the “Government Procurement Reform Act” (Appendix S) be adopted in CvSU.