Reaction on the Laiban dam project

In the interest of fairness, we’d like to devote some space to the reaction of Administrator Diosdado Jose Allado of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to criticisms we had raised in an earlier column against the multi-billion Laiban dam project, conceived to address the long-term water requirements of Metro Manila as well as adjacent areas, which his agency now appears keen to award.

Hereunder are some of the salient points contained in a briefer sent recently by special messenger:

1. The proposed dam, estimated to cost $1 billion, is the biggest infrastructure project in the country. Completed, it would add 1,900 million liters per day (MLD) to the water supply of the National Capital Region and surrounding provinces to meet the projected demand of 5,619 MLD by 2015. And it would end the dependence of the NCR on water coming from the 41-year-old Angat Dam which straddles a fault line and is heavily silted, and which also is burdened with providing irrigation water for 31,000 hectares of farmlands in some 20 towns in the Central Luzon provinces of Bulacan and Pampanga;

2. There is nothing secret or sinister about the project. It is merely a pro-active government initiative that seeks to address the water supply of Metro Manila in 2015 and to prepare for the inevitable deterioration of the only source of water for Metro Manila, the Angat Dam;

3. The Department of Justice has said that the joint venture guidelines are legal and not against public policy or morals. All legal issues concerning the rules have been passed upon by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and sustained by the DoJ in a number of similar cases;

4. The unsolicited proposal for Laiban is still subject to a process of competitive challenge, also known as the Swiss Challenge, that hasn’t yet been completed. The procedure covering this type of unsolicited proposal has been approved by the National Economic Development Authority, the OGCC and the Government Procurement Policy Board;

5. For the Laiban project, the proponent signed the MoU on Sept. 8, 2008 and submitted an unsolicited proposal on Feb. 9, 2009. Both the signing of the MoU and the submission of the unsolicited proposal were widely publicized in the big newspapers;

6. All that an interested party should do if it is serious in competing for the award is to purchase the tender documents. The MWSS had reserved a one-week period for the competitive challenge starting on July 2, 2009, but no serious contender showed up to buy the tender documents or even file a letter of intent, despite the fact that the MWSS already provided for a period longer than what is specified under Neda guidelines;

7. Instead of a suitable challenge, what materialized was a flurry of unfounded charges against the MWSS which found their way into the media. It was noted that the reports incessantly harped on the need for transparency or full disclosure of the details of the offer of the proponent which (it has to be stressed) goes against the grain of the Neda joint venture guidelines that say “proprietary information shall be respected, protected and treated with confidentiality… as such it shall not form part of the tender and related documents.”;

8. Neda joint venture guidelines provide for the confidential character of the data contained in the private sector proposal. Interested parties can examine the proposal if they wish but the proponent retains ownership of the data. If the MWSS allows them to photocopy the proposal, it would be open to criminal and administrative charges;

9. Since Feb. 9, 2009, MWSS has waited for a challenge to come from another private sector entity, but so far none has surfaced;

10. The charges raised in the newspaper reports are not based on facts… not one of those skewering the MWSS has read the proposal, the technical studies, the hydrological analyses and all other components of the project. –Louie Logarta, Daily Tribune