CASE STUDY ON

JAVAYAVA
PORT
JULY 17, 2024

GR OUP 5
JULIUS GERALD MATTHEW
VILLALON QUITORIANO
ZARA MHAE DE JERICKSON BELOY
GUZMAN JABES JAMES
HILARY TORIO COLARDO
JOYCE MATANGUIHAN BRYAN STEVE NGO
 TABLE OF
01 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF EVENTS

02 CONTENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

03 KEY PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT

04 PROBLEM STATEMENT

05 ASSUMPTIONS

06 DATA ANALYSIS

07 KEY DECISION CRITERIA

08 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

09 SWOT ANALYSIS

10 RECOMMENDATIONS
11 ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

12 EXHIBITS
BACKGROUND
AND SUMMARY
 BACKGROUND AND
SUMMARY
• The Javayava Port Project , which is located at Maursam, Labuk City, a
semi-industrial and agricultural city serving overseas and domestic
vessels, started on December 26, 1993 , by the Development Engineering
Corporation through public bidding held by the Department of Public
Work and Highway s.

• Because of the old smal l port's ina bili ty t o handle the growing
volume of both loc al a nd int ernat ional ma ri time traffic, the Javayava
Port was constructe d 100 met er dist anc e from t he old port.
 BACKGROUND AND
SUMMARY
• The total cost the project was P 7.75M

• P 5.5M was funded und er PD #0330 while the remainin g P 2.25M was
taken from a foreig n loan .

• The contract included the construction of Retainer Columns (RC) and

steel sheet pile walls, fencing and reclamatio n.
 BACKGROUND AND
SUMMARY
• The assigned Project Engineer from the DPWH is Engr. Bimbo Makabanta, 45, who
had an experience in a similar project of bigger magnitude.

• Julian Tirador, a C ivil Engineering Aide and resident of Labuk C ity, was assigned to
assist E ngr. Makabanta.

• Engr. Makabanta’s assignement to the Javayava Port Project proved convenient to

him since his wife, Mrs. Cecilia Makabanta, was also commuting between Silang and
Labuk almost every week for business purposes.

• Mrs. Cecilia is the owner of a lumber and hardware store w hich has a branch in
Labuk City.
 BACKGROUND AND
SUMMARY
• Engr. Angel David, working under the Development Engineering Corporation,
was assigned as Project Engineer in the Javayava Port project.

• Together with Engr. David was 4 foremen and approximately 40 laborers

• Mr. Tirador and Engr. David used to be rivals in academics and extracurricular
activities and both Graduated Cum-Laude.

• However, Engr. David passed the Board Exam and is now holding a key position
in Development Engineering Corporation while Mr. Tirador is a Civil
Engineering Aide and failed the Board Exams Twice.
 01 02 03 04

DECEMBER 26, 1993 APRIL 26, 1994 NOVEMBER 26, 1994 MARCH 11, 1995
Start o f Co n tr acto r ’s Pr o ject En g r. D av id r ep o r ted to After th ree (3 ) m on ths o f
Co n stru ctio n En g in eer ( A n g el D av id ) En g r. Mak ab an ta th at th e su sp ensio n , the
r ep o r ted to D PW H co n str u ctio n w ill b e materials, Steel Sh eet
Pr o ject En g in eer ( Bimb o d elay ed . D u e to Piles and Tie Ro ds,
Mak ab an ta) r eg ar d in g in av ailab ility o f Steel arriv ed .
th e ab sen ces r en d er ed b y Sh eet Piles an d Tie Ro d s
D PW H CE A id e ( Ju lian ( Su p p ly b y G o v er n men t)
Tir ad o r )
 05 06 07 08

MARCH 19, 1995 MAY 12, 1996 JULY 12, 1996 DECEMBER 1996
Exp ected Date to Th e p r o ject is su sp en d ed The contractor was advised
finish ed . ag ain d u e to th e to resume after R e-boring The p ro ject has n o t b een
r eco m men d atio n o f test. Also, the contractor co mp leted d ue to
D PW H f o r Re- b o r in g requested for 45-day tech nical an d
Test extension due to inclement
o rg anizatio nal pro b lems.
weather and some changes
in design.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Project Title : Construction of the N ew Jav ayava Port
• Project Location : Maursam, Lab uk City
• Contractor : Development Engineering Corporation
• Contract Cost : PhP 7,75 0,000.00
• Source of Fund : PD No. 0330 (PhP 5,500,000.00), Foreign Loan (PhP
2,250,000.00)
• Contract Effectivity : December 2 6, 1993
• Target Completion Date : March 19, 1995
• Contract Duration : 804 c.d.
• Scope of Works : Construction of R.C. (Retainer Columns), Steel Sheet Pile
Walls, Fencing and Reclamatio n
KEY PERSONNEL
INVOLVED IN THE
PROJECT
 KEY PERSONNEL involved in
the project
DEPARMENT OF PUBLIC W ORKS A ND HIGH WAYS

• DPWH Project Engineer : Engr. Bimbo Makabanta

• DPWH Engineering Aide : Mr. Julian Tirador

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERIN G CO RPORATIO N

• Contractor ’s Project E ngineer : Engr. Angel David

• Contractor ’s Manpower : Foreman – 4 and Laborers - 40
PROBLEM
STATEMENT
 PROBLEM STATEMENT
• There was a lack in project monitoring and control of the DPWH Project Engineer in
the project.

• The project encountered delay in the delivery of materials which caused the
suspension of w orks in the project site.

• Mr. Tirador exhibits unprofessionalism.

• There was no proper documentation of the construction activities.

ASSUMPTIONS
 ASSUMPTIONS
• Engr. Makabanta's job as a Project Engineer conflicts with managing his and his
wife's hardware store. A fter visiting the project site, he goes to run their store.
• Mr. Tirador has a personal issue against Engr. D avid since they w ere rivals during
their undergraduate years.
DATA ANALYSIS
 DATA ANALYSIS
There was a lack in project monitoring and control of the DPWH Project Engineer
in the project.
• Engr. Makabanta only visits the project site for only a few minutes every working
days since he had to attend to some aspects of the project.

• Mr. Tirador was absent most of the time since the start of the project. H e came to
the site but left just a few minutes just to fill-up the logbook.

• There was no Project Engineer or representative from D PWH to address the

problems and monitor the activities in the project site.
 DATA ANALYSIS
Mr. Tirador has a personal grudge against Engr. David which affected his
performance in the project.
• Both Mr. Tirador and E ngr. David graduated on the same school, course, and year.
• Mr. Tirador is still a Civil Engineering Aide, while Engr. David is holding a key
position at the Development Engineering Corporation.
 DATA ANALYSIS
The project encountered delay in the delivery of materials which caused the
suspension of works in the project site.
• The unavailability of Steel Sheet Piles, and Rods caused the suspension of
work in the project site.

Deficient first Boring Test resulting to re-boring and change in design

• The District Office recommended to conduct Re-boring Test after rock deposits were
found during the subsequent driving of concrete.
KEY DECISION
CRITERIA
 KEY DECISION CRITERIA
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
• Engr. Bimbo Makabanta’s experience in project implementation
• Error in the initial geotechnical investigation of the project which resulted in
the change in design.
• Lack of proper documentation
• Lack of supervision and monitoring from the DPWH personnel
 KEY DECISION CRITERIA
ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS
• Lack of supervision and monitoring from the DPWH personnel
• Capability of Engr. Makabanta to implement the project on schedule
• Engaging Mr. Tirador to fully cooperate in supervising the project
ALTERNATIVE
ANALYSIS
 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
There was a lack in project monitoring and control of the DPWH Project Engineer
in the project.

Issue a Warning/Sanction to Engr. M akabanta

Advantage:
• He will be aware of his actions, and may act accordingly to his role as Project
Engineer.

Disadvantage:
• He may ignore the sanctions.
• He may be demoralized, and negatively affect his decisions in the project.
 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
There was a lack in project monitoring and control of the DPWH Project Engineer
in the project.

Replace the Project Engineer assigned in the project

Advantage:
• The new Project Engineer may be more efficient and effective in executing
his/her role in the project.

Disadvantage:
• The new Project Engineer may have less experience and knowledge about the
project.
 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The project encountered delay in the delivery of materials which caused the
suspension of works in the project site.

Engr. Makabanta should Submit a Follow -up Letter to the Bureau

Advantage:
• This could expedite the delivery of materials.
• This document can be used by Engr. Makabanta as proof that he took action in
the delayed delivery of materials

Disadvantage:
• Additional paperwork
 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Mr. Tirador exhibits unprofessionalism.

Mr. Tirador should be replaced by a more professional Engineering Aide

Advantage:
• Professional work attitude between the contractor and DPWH

Disadvantage:
• Difficulty in looking for a replacement
 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
There was no proper documentation of the construction activities.

Submission of proper construction documents compliant to the DOs.

Advantage:
• Proper monitoring of the construction activities
• Fast tracking of the actual accomplishments of the project

Disadvantage:
• Additional paperworks
SWOT ANALYSIS
SWOT ANALYSIS
• Experienced in Similar Project of bigger • Poor Management (Engr. Makabanta)
magnitude (Engr. Makabanta) • Lack of Professionalism (Mr. Tirador)
• Convenience in Project Location (Julian Tirador • Poor Communication
& Engr. Makabanta)
• Educational Excellence (Engr. David & Mr.
Tirador)

WEAKNESS
STRENGTH

• Career Growth (Mr. Tirador) • Reversion of Funds

• Economic Impact (Labuk City) • Administrative Sanction as Project Engineer

OPPURTUNITIES THREATS
RECOMMENDATIONS
 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Sanction the DPWH Personnel and Replace with more competent and efficient
Personnel

• Submission of follow-up letters and necessary construction document.

• Strict implementation and thorough project monitoring by DPWH Personnel

• Develop proper communication between Implementing Office and the

Contractor
ACTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
 ACTION AND implementation plan

• Preparation of weekly progress report in accordance to revised project

schedule

• Conduct coordination meeting and joint site inspection

• Conduct of training and seminars to improve relevant skills on project

implementation
EXHIBITS
THANK
YOU!