Latest topics
» PhilGEPS Issuance of Certificate of Registration for New Suppliers
Today at 3:55 pm by vicong_grandcorp

» BIDBULLETIN
Yesterday at 9:15 am by zeph03

» QUERY ABOUT PHILGEPS PENDING TASK
Yesterday at 9:14 am by zeph03

» Additional Member of TWG
Thu May 24, 2018 5:26 pm by Gracy0527

» Postponement of a Schedule Bidding
Thu May 24, 2018 10:35 am by alvsvb6

» Post in PhilGEPS
Thu May 24, 2018 10:21 am by richel2015

» WITNESS for the Procuring Entity in the Contraxt Agreement
Tue May 22, 2018 8:26 pm by amilan2018

» forgotten password of email address
Tue May 22, 2018 4:56 pm by leafranee

» PUBLIC AUCTION
Tue May 22, 2018 8:14 am by ford15

» PARTIAL PAYMENT OF WORKS UNDER SMALL VALUE PROCUREMENT
Thu May 17, 2018 4:50 pm by amilan2018


BAC Decision Against HOPE

Go down

BAC Decision Against HOPE

Post by jstaskng on Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:11 pm

“As RDV clearly pointed out, the BAC has no authority to invoke Sec.41 as it is a reservation for the HOPE. The BAC is a recommendatory body only, and under such instances that there is a single/lowest calculated responsive bid, the BAC has no choice but to recommend the award of the SCRB or LCRB. Only the HOPE can decide on whether to award or not to award. If the BAC really made such issuance, they (the BAC) may be guilty of "abuse of discretion".

THANK YOU SIR FOR SHARING THIS VALUABLE INFORMATION TO ME. Smile


Last edited by jstaskng on Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar
jstaskng
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 1
Company/Agency : RO3CORP.
Occupation/Designation : Manager
Registration date : 2010-10-15

Back to top Go down

Re: BAC Decision Against HOPE

Post by jcolas on Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:31 pm

Sir smsai07 wrote:
Greetings. I would like to know if the BAC erred in its decision not to award the project to the winning bidder after waiting for more than four months of the result.
Welcome to the Forum Sir and yes, the PE erred.
Delaying with out justifiable cause, the screening for eligibility...post evaluation of bids beyond the prescribed periods of action provided for by the Act is punishable under Section 65.1.b, Rule XXI of the Revised IRR; and public officers who commit this act shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day, but not more fifteen (15) years. The PE can not invoke the Reservation Clause in the case at bar, as it is very glaring that he has been remissed in his duty and obligation to act on a very specific procurement activity within the prescribed period of action. The PE, under Section 34.8, Rule X of the Revised IRR is given seven (7) days from the determination of the LCB to post qualify the LCB. With this it can not shield itself with the Reservation Clause.

The Reservation Clause is a legal remedy available for the Procuring Entity to invoke but it should not be used with impunity and just to wiggle out of a situation. The story could have been different, if the PE has not dilly dallied on the matter. So for me, Sir smsai07, youhave a case against the PE.
avatar
jcolas
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 517
Company/Agency : DepED RO 2
Occupation/Designation : Administrative Officer V
Registration date : 2009-07-02

Back to top Go down

Re: BAC Decision Against HOPE

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:46 pm

smsai07 wrote:Greetings. I would like to know if the BAC erred in its decision not to award the project to the winning bidder after waiting for more than four months of the result. The following is the chronology of events starting from the bidding process until the BAC's decision dated 24 September 2010 but was relayed to us on 13 October 2010 only;
What is unclear to me is the period of the contract for the project (security services, I suppose). Considering that the bidding has started in the middle of the year, is the contract to take effect January of 2011? If that is the case, what is the funding source of the ABC as indicated in the bidding documents?

smsai07 wrote:1.) 1st week of June - The BAC announced a public bidding for security services. A pre-bid conference was held on June 15, 2010 at 10:00 A.M. During the pre-bid conference, it was declared that the opening of the bids will proceed on July 1, 2010, instead of its original date which is June 30, 2010.

2.) July 1, 2010 - The bid opening for the security services proceeded as scheduled. At least four (4) proponents were present. One of the proponent, the incumbent security agency, was declared ineligible due to non-compliance to technical specification.

3.) July 22, 2010 - Our Agency received a notice from BAC declaring us with the lowest calculated bid, requiring us to submit post-qualification requirements which we immediately complied.
These chronology of events seems to be in order.

smsai07 wrote:4.) September 22, 2010 - Our Agency sent a letter to the BAC to follow-up the result of the post-qualification. But we did not receive any answer of our follow-up;
Maybe the reason why you did not receive a reply to your follow-up is because the procuring entity is only following the "No Contact Rule" as provided for under Sec. 32.1 of the IRR.

smsai07 wrote:5.) October 13, 2010 - The BAC called us in a meeting and handed us a prepared letter dated 24 September 2010, signed by the BAC's Chairman, explaining in the letter of its decision not to award a contract to the winning bidder, citing Section 41 of the IRR of RA 9184, explaining further that "The approval of the PVAO Rationalization Plan, a government-wide streamlining program recommended by the Department of Budget and Management and approved by the President of the Philippines on June 28, 2010 which placed the Military Shrines Service (MSS) as an organic division under the PVAO thereby dissolving their capacity as an independent budgetary unit and that PVAO shall assume all financial obligations of MSS once the PRP has been fully implemented." and further, "That only one (1) security agency should be servicing both PVAO and MSS installations and facilities."

In view of the above, we find the BAC's decision unacceptable. The so-called PVAO Rationalization Plan was approved by the President of the Philippines on June 28, 2010, before the opening of the bid. The bidding was also conducted under PVAO BAC. The budget for the bidding was already approved by the DBM that's why its called Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC), therefore, we believed that placing the MSS as an organic division of PVAO technically includes all approved budgets of the MSS under the supervision of PVAO in order not to hamper all MSS ongoing projects.

Another reason why we cannot accept the BAC's decision is the fact that on July 22, 2010, they required us to submit a post-qualification requirements which simply means that the bidding process for the procurement of security services for MSS, PVAO proceeded as planned.

You keep saying that the decision not to award to you was a BAC decision, invoking Sec. 41 of RA 9184 and its IRR. Section 41 can only be invoked by the HOPE and not by the BAC. The justification also for not awarding the contract should be limited to any of the situations mentioned in that Section, and no other.
avatar
RDV @ GP3i
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 1611
Company/Agency : DBM-Reg'l Office IV-B
Occupation/Designation : Regional Director/ Procurement Trainer
Registration date : 2008-09-04

http://gppphil.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: BAC Decision Against HOPE

Post by engrjhez® on Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:08 pm

smsai07,

Can you post a copy of the said letter (from the BAC) here? I can help you in posting if you could send me an electronic copy (*.jpg) at engrjhez@gmail.com.

As RDV correctly pointed out, the BAC has no authority to invoke Sec.41 as it is a reservation for the HOPE. The BAC s a recommendatory body only, and under such instances that there is a single/lowest calculated responsive bid, the BAC has no choice but to recommend the award of the SCRB or LCRB. Only the HOPE can decide on whether to award or not to award. If the BAC really made such issuance, they (the BAC) may be guilty of "abuse of discretion". Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2482
Age : 39
Company/Agency : City Government of Bacoor [Region IV-A, Province of Cavite]
Occupation/Designation : Office of the City Legal Service (OCLS) / Certified National Trainer - PhilGEPS
Registration date : 2008-10-31

http://www.bacoor.gov.ph

Back to top Go down

Re: BAC Decision Against HOPE

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum