Cost per Unit · Peer comparison

Disclaimer. Unit costs are screening comparisons calculated from parsed POW amounts and quantities, not verified market prices, contract prices or proof of spending. Extraction errors, specifications, quantities, site conditions and project scope can affect comparisons. Unusual values are prompts to check the cited source pages; they do not establish overpricing, overpayment or wrongdoing.

This site is updated as additional source documents are ingested and reviewed. Its records and calculations are preliminary and open to correction. Additional documents, stakeholder input, and independent review can surface missing information, errors, or context and improve accuracy over time; they may support more complete calculations but do not by themselves verify a record. Inviting people to examine the underlying sources and share corrections is part of the purpose of this work. These are preliminary, document-based observations, not allegations or findings that any person, office, contractor or other entity acted unlawfully. A flag, unmatched record, repeated amount or title, price or location outlier, or missing document is a prompt for review; it does not establish intent, responsibility, benefit, overpayment, duplicate scope or wrongdoing. Names and geographic or district associations indicate possible coverage only, not sponsorship, authorship, control, receipt or personal involvement. Source documents, data completeness, parsing, matching, categories, timing and boundaries may affect results. Verify cited primary records and seek relevant context before drawing or publishing conclusions.

DPWH · POW analysis

Compare like-for-like bill items

Choose a bill and unit below to see its project count, median and outliers. Check each cited source page before comparing values.

—projects with usable unit costs

—median · selected unit

—outliers · 1.5×IQR rule

Road and bridge project billboards · price per each

Billboard/signboard line items are separated from the overall road or bridge allocation. The chart compares the same parsed item and unit across project groups; the table gives high extracted rates for source review.

Cost basis

A unit price alone cannot show whether a signboard was installed, what specification was required, or whether its quality was acceptable. High values are review leads, not findings.

Loading road and bridge billboards…

One bill · project cost distribution

Unit cost is calculated as the selected cost-basis amount divided by quantity. The compact table ranks projects from highest to lowest unit cost. Open a project for its full POW bill details; verify extracted values against the cited pages. The chart uses a logarithmic price scale; compare only the same bill and unit.

Project groupCost basis

Find bill / unit

Projects with this bill · highest unit cost first

Find a project

Rank	Project / office	Calculated cost per unit	POW pages

Top summaries by project group

Category summaries are combined using the reviewed label rules. Original printed labels and source pages remain linked from the compact table; open a project for full evidence.

Project groupMeasure

Find project or category

Combined category / printed label	Project / office	Printed summary	Source

Project summaries and parsed document evidence

Projects · top summary and top bills

Select a project to see its highest printed summary category and leading bill items. Switch between its summary and itemized details. The project list is kept compact; open a project for its bill rows, source pages, signatories, and other evidence.

Find projectView

Summary

Printed category summaries and qualitative scope facts from the selected project POW.

Chart measure

Printed cost category	Printed summary values	Source

Project evidence and signatories

The cost columns show the largest three printed general categories with their percentage and total, then the largest three recovered specific items within each category. Specific items retain quantity, unit, direct-cost share and amount when recoverable. Details lists missing fields and pages that need human review. Names and roles below are extracted from the cited documents. Exact name and designation matches to ODV roster entries add historical locality and year context; they do not establish current office, project sponsorship or responsibility. A Governor may govern a different province from the project location. Some Rainwater Collector System POWs identify schools; system-level schedules may have no school or building contexts. Other projects may list buildings or components.

SearchShowSort

Project / office	NEP allocation	POW snapshot	Project documents

How to read this evidence

Only bill rows with an explicit item heading are included in the cost chart. Quantities retain their original units. Direct costs exclude markup, VAT and engineering/administrative overhead unless the source explicitly says otherwise.
The cost columns show the largest three printed category summaries and the largest three specific items within each category, with percentage, total, quantity and unit when recovered. Details lists school or component names, missing numeric fields, unusually small shares compared with the NEP allocation and pages needing manual review.
A matching printed direct-cost subtotal establishes that itemized table’s reconciliation only. It does not reconcile the full project allocation, contract or actual spending. Category summaries are not added to itemized rows.
Unit prices and amount ÷ quantity are displayed separately. Printed rounding and arithmetic discrepancies remain visible for source review.
Signatories require a name next to an explicit role in the same signature column. DE and ADE remain separate. Governor and mayor designations are matched by exact name to ODV roster records when available; roster dates and localities provide context, not proof of current office or project responsibility. Missing or unreadable evidence remains unassigned; no official is inferred from project geography.
Photos open as direct source PDF links. POW and Development Council source links include page references. Downloadable records show the values and source references included in this review. Original documents remain at their cited sources.
The project evidence table covers the currently reviewed NEP proposal-document set; it is not a complete programme inventory. The coverage and peer sections separately use HGAB 3rd project rows title-matched to the FY2027 DPWH Transparency snapshot; stage scopes may differ. Peer rates are screening comparisons only and do not adjust for project dimensions or site conditions.
Access failures indicate retrieval problems, not absent or incomplete official documentation. The coverage note is a dated data snapshot, not a live claim about the entire DPWH programme.