CDA refutes OPA report on building renovation

Contrary to a preliminary report prepared by the Public Auditor, monthly rental at the building currently occupied by the Commonwealth Development Authority in Gualo Rai will be in status quo until 2007, Board Chair John S. Tenorio said yesterday.

Mr. Tenorio was reacting on a report from OPA which claimed that renovation of the structure along Middle Road will eventually increase CDA’s monthly rental of the property by $5,000 to $19,212 per month.

Mr. Tenorio said CDA currently pays its lessor $1.25 per square-foot for the building and will continue to pay the same amount for the next seven years.

CDA has entered into a new lease agreement with the property owner Ms. Margarita P. Kintol on April 9, 1998 which allows the Development Authority to occupy the space for a total of 10 more years.

According to Mr. Tenorio, CDA had negotiated for a 10-year extension of the 20-year lease agreement before the renovation because the government lending agency intends to continue occupying the building.

He claimed the Office of the Public Auditor failed to review important documents, including minutes of the meeting when the CDA board discussed the renovation project, during its investigation.

He said official meeting records would reveal that he excused himself during the discussion and, eventually, when the board voted in favor of the renovation of the CDA building.

“A review of the minutes of the meeting would show that I declared myself in ‘conflict of interest’ with the proposed renovation on grounds that the lessor is my mother-in-law,” he pointed out.

Mr. Tenorio emphasized that seven members comprise the CDA Board of Directors, the policy and decision making body of the Commonwealth’s lending agency.

“I don’t make the decision. There are six other members who sit with me in the board. The renovation was a consensus of the board minus my vote because I officially abstained myself from voting,” he stressed.

The CDA chief also alleged that the OPA inquiry was apparently aimed at discrediting him because it focused on him being the chairman and not the entire board which makes the decision.

“It’s politically motivated. The investigation focused on me personally but I’m not bothered. The renovation did not benefit me so I could only care less,” he said, adding that CDA was in full compliance of the law when the renovation project was undertaken.

The OPA draft report noted that CDA failed to comply with proper procurement procedures which resulted to the lending agency spending more than what it should have on the project.

Mr. Tenorio disputed that the Development Authority complied with existing policy to announce the project for at least 30 days in order to solicit proposals and select the best offer submitted.

He said three companies have actually submitted proposals and that CDA has all these documented. He added that the lending agency has the legal capability to administer its own procurement and supplies regulation being an autonomous government office.

He also disputed OPA claims that awarding of the contract for the renovation was undertaken in violation of the Commonwealth Code by reprogramming money in excess of its annual budget to the project although it is not enough to cover the entire cost.

“We had excess money from our annual budget, which we independently make, from 1994 to 1998. We used that money in the renovation, we did not ask from the general fund,” he said.

Mr. Tenorio also admitted that CDA had been short-sighted in giving out an interest-free loan to the property’s lessor but promptly added that the board will try to recover the interest which he was sure the lessor would not dispute.

Under the lease agreement, the lessor is responsible for the parking lot renovation costs. But CDA failed to include interest of the loan when Ms. Kintol agreed to absorb the costs through a monthly reduction in lease payments until the debt was liquidated.