Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Go down

Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by suizoph on Tue May 03, 2011 11:24 am

1. May we be clarified of the implication of RA 7160 vis a vis RA 9184 on procurement requests by the Local Legislative Chief on goods, services, and infrastructure needs of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Who will sign the Purchase Order, NOA & NTP for all the request of the Office of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan including the SP Secretariat, ... will it be the Governor or the Vice-Governor?

2. For those request of goods, services and infrastructures coming from the Executive Branch of the Local Government who were bidded twice but was failed twice, IS IT mandatory that these requests be procured through alternative mode with the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan? How about those past requests specifically in the early part of 2011 which were not subjected to SP approval? The SP approval would entail another month of delay in addition to the reglamentary period of 120 days. What remedial measures can be taken up by BAC if these requests were already completed and delivered to end-users?

3. Can we be clarified in all these querries in writing pls? Thanks so much Very Happy Smile Shocked

suizoph
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 18
Company/Agency : BAC Iloilo
Occupation/Designation : Head, BAC Secretariat
Registration date : 2011-05-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by engrjhez® on Tue May 03, 2011 9:47 pm

suizoph wrote:1. May we be clarified of the implication of RA 7160 vis a vis RA 9184 on procurement requests by the Local Legislative Chief on goods, services, and infrastructure needs of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Who will sign the Purchase Order, NOA & NTP for all the request of the Office of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan including the SP Secretariat, ... will it be the Governor or the Vice-Governor?

2. For those request of goods, services and infrastructures coming from the Executive Branch of the Local Government who were bidded twice but was failed twice, IS IT mandatory that these requests be procured through alternative mode with the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan? How about those past requests specifically in the early part of 2011 which were not subjected to SP approval? The SP approval would entail another month of delay in addition to the reglamentary period of 120 days. What remedial measures can be taken up by BAC if these requests were already completed and delivered to end-users?

3. Can we be clarified in all these querries in writing pls? Thanks so much Very Happy Smile Shocked

For Question No. 1, let me post here the content of GPPB Policy Matter Opinion No. PM-001-2010.
PM No. PM 001-2010
Date 1/26/2010
Requesting Entity Department of Budget and Management - Regional Office I
Subject Head of Procuring Entity in Local Governments
Issues/Concern 1. Head of Procuring Entity in Local Governments

[The GPPB] is of the considered opinion that the procurement activities of the Sanggunian should not be isolated from the procurement activities of the local government as a whole. It believes that the Sanggunian should be considered as an end-user, similar to another bureaus or offices in the local government, and not as a separate procuring entity. Thus, the procurement activities of the Sanggunian remains part of the local government, where the LCE continues to be regarded as the HOPE.

This is without prejudice, however, to the oversight function of the Sanggunian over the LCE. In resolving this issue, the GPPB was guided by the Supreme Court decision in Quisumbing vs. Garcia,2 which it believes, delves more deeply into the contract approval function of the Sanggunian. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sanggunian is the "appropriate authority" which approves the contract before the HOPE is allowed to issue the notice to proceed under Section 37 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) 9184. Accordingly, the Supreme Court considers the foregoing section, on the power of the Sanggunian to approve contracts, to blend seamlessly with Section 22(a) of RA 7160, on the power of the LCE to award contracts.

Based on the foregoing pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the GPPB believes that there are separate and distinct levels of contract approval in local procurement transactions. The role of the LCE in approving contract awards and notices to proceed partakes of an executive function. On the other hand, the contract approval by the Sanggunian partakes of an oversight function over the LCE and cannot be construed as an exercise of the authority as HOPE under Section 37 of the IRR of RA 9184. One should not be confused with the other.

2. Creation of a Separate BAC for Sanggunian

[If] the LCE deems necessary, in view of the number and complexity of items to be procured, he/she may create a separate BAC for the Sanggunian procurements, which shall be composed of representatives from the regular offices under the Office of the LCE and a representative from the Sanggunian, as end user unit. It should be emphasized, however, that such separate BAC does not in any way affect the fact that the HOPE in a local government is the LCE.

For Question No.2. It is no longer required that the procurement (whether from the executive or the sanggunian, coz they are considered under the same procuring entity) pass thru the Sanggunian (again), provided that (a)The procurement under public bidding was definite as to the title and scope, (b) the amount consistent with the annual budget, and (c) the procurement is in accordance with the annual procurement plan (APP) of the agency.

For No. 3: I hope the foregoing is already self explanatory. If you will need an official document, please write and address your concern to:

GPPB-Technical Support Office
Unit 2506, Raffles Corporate Center,
F. Ortigas Jr. Road, Ortigas Center,
Pasig City 1605

Have a nice day! 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: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by suizoph on Fri May 06, 2011 2:51 pm

Maraming salamat po. We hope to have continuous communication with you in some matters that are not so clear to us. God bless.

suizoph
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 18
Company/Agency : BAC Iloilo
Occupation/Designation : Head, BAC Secretariat
Registration date : 2011-05-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by engrjhez® on Fri May 06, 2011 3:08 pm

suizoph wrote:Maraming salamat po. We hope to have continuous communication with you in some matters that are not so clear to us. God bless.
You are welcome. You may contact me thru IM (instant messaging) channels at the right (see icons) except Skype. 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: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Sat May 07, 2011 8:45 am

engrjhez® wrote:[justify][color=green]
suizoph wrote:1. May we be clarified of the implication of RA 7160 vis a vis RA 9184 on procurement requests by the Local Legislative Chief on goods, services, and infrastructure needs of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Who will sign the Purchase Order, NOA & NTP for all the request of the Office of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan including the SP Secretariat, ... will it be the Governor or the Vice-Governor?

2. For those request of goods, services and infrastructures coming from the Executive Branch of the Local Government who were bidded twice but was failed twice, IS IT mandatory that these requests be procured through alternative mode with the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan? How about those past requests specifically in the early part of 2011 which were not subjected to SP approval? The SP approval would entail another month of delay in addition to the reglamentary period of 120 days. What remedial measures can be taken up by BAC if these requests were already completed and delivered to end-users?

3. Can we be clarified in all these querries in writing pls? Thanks so much Very Happy Smile Shocked

For Question No. 1, let me post here the content of GPPB Policy Matter Opinion No. PM-001-2010.
PM No. PM 001-2010
Date 1/26/2010
Requesting Entity Department of Budget and Management - Regional Office I
Subject Head of Procuring Entity in Local Governments
Issues/Concern 1. Head of Procuring Entity in Local Governments

[The GPPB] is of the considered opinion that the procurement activities of the Sanggunian should not be isolated from the procurement activities of the local government as a whole. It believes that the Sanggunian should be considered as an end-user, similar to another bureaus or offices in the local government, and not as a separate procuring entity. Thus, the procurement activities of the Sanggunian remains part of the local government, where the LCE continues to be regarded as the HOPE.

This is without prejudice, however, to the oversight function of the Sanggunian over the LCE. In resolving this issue, the GPPB was guided by the Supreme Court decision in Quisumbing vs. Garcia,2 which it believes, delves more deeply into the contract approval function of the Sanggunian. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sanggunian is the "appropriate authority" which approves the contract before the HOPE is allowed to issue the notice to proceed under Section 37 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) 9184. Accordingly, the Supreme Court considers the foregoing section, on the power of the Sanggunian to approve contracts, to blend seamlessly with Section 22(a) of RA 7160, on the power of the LCE to award contracts.

Based on the foregoing pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the GPPB believes that there are separate and distinct levels of contract approval in local procurement transactions. The role of the LCE in approving contract awards and notices to proceed partakes of an executive function. On the other hand, the contract approval by the Sanggunian partakes of an oversight function over the LCE and cannot be construed as an exercise of the authority as HOPE under Section 37 of the IRR of RA 9184. One should not be confused with the other.

2. Creation of a Separate BAC for Sanggunian

[If] the LCE deems necessary, in view of the number and complexity of items to be procured, he/she may create a separate BAC for the Sanggunian procurements, which shall be composed of representatives from the regular offices under the Office of the LCE and a representative from the Sanggunian, as end user unit. It should be emphasized, however, that such separate BAC does not in any way affect the fact that the HOPE in a local government is the LCE.


I have a long discourse (5-page letter) with the GPPB-TSO on the subject of Quisumbing vs. Garcia, particularly on the ruling of the Supreme Court that: the Sanggunian is the "appropriate authority" which approves the contract before the HOPE is allowed to issue the notice to proceed under Section 37 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) 9184.

With due respect to the SC, the sanggunian has not been given the contract-approving power under the LGC. What Sec. 22(c) of the LGC (RA 7160) requires is a "prior authorization" from the sanggunian and not an after-the-contract approval or ratification. In several opinions of the DILG also, it is the opinion of the DILG, the proper administrative agency to provide interpretation to the LGC, that ratification by the sanggunian of a contract entered into by the HOPE is not required under the LGC.

I have prepared another letter, which I have yet to send (since I was 'offline' for a whole week), providing the TSO with that DILG opinion.

I believe that it is very important for GPPB to clarify its Policy Matter Opinion No. PM-001-2011 in the light of the SC rulings in Quisumbing vs Garcia and Atienza vs Villarosa, and the provisions of Sec. 37 of RA 9184 and Section 22(c) of RA 7160, as well as a number of DILG opinions on sanggunian ratification of contracts.
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: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by engrjhez® on Tue May 10, 2011 11:22 pm

RDV,

Kindly provide us update on the response of GPPB from your concern. Is it really distinct? I mean, do the meanings of "prior authorization" and "prior approval (contract)" different?

To my understanding, when the SC cited that the Sanggunian is the "appropriate authority which approves the contract..." it means that the LGU is highlighted as a corporate entity, with powers emanating from the Sanggunian (Board) and not exclusively from the Chief Executive alone. Hence, my readings are agreeable with the blending of Local Government Code.

I hope you could provide me a copy of your letter (thru email) so I can have a better understanding of your arguments. Smile

Thanks.
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: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Wed May 11, 2011 3:56 pm

engrjhez® wrote:RDV,

Kindly provide us update on the response of GPPB from your concern. Is it really distinct? I mean, do the meanings of "prior authorization" and "prior approval (contract)" different?

To my understanding, when the SC cited that the Sanggunian is the "appropriate authority which approves the contract..." it means that the LGU is highlighted as a corporate entity, with powers emanating from the Sanggunian (Board) and not exclusively from the Chief Executive alone. Hence, my readings are agreeable with the blending of Local Government Code.

I hope you could provide me a copy of your letter (thru email) so I can have a better understanding of your arguments. Smile

Thanks.

Engrjhez, I have just emailed you the copies of my two (2) letters to GPPB-TSO. Your comments will be appreciated.
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: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by Guest on Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:20 am

Thank you very much,It is important to me


__________________________
Buy office 2007
Buy MS office 2007

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by Mikel on Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:52 pm

Please allow me to contribute my ‘very belated’ two-cents worth re: prior authorization and post-approval of the sanggunian vis-a-vis procurement contracts. The GPPB PMO No. PM 001-2010 may have inadvertently missed a very crucial statement found in the same paragraph from which they (GPPB-TSO) culled their opinion, which is – “Read together, the cited provisions [Sec. 22 (c) of RA 7160 and Sec. 37.3 of the IRR of RA 9184) mandate the local chief executive to secure the sanggunian’s approval before entering into procurement contracts and to transmit the notice to proceed to the winning bidder not later than seven (7) calendar days therefrom.” (italicized items supplied and underscoring for emphasis)

Taken as a whole, the SC did not really gave the sanggunians the ‘approving authority’ after contract is signed by the HOPE, rather it harmonized the provisions the two seemingly-repugnant provisions of different laws dealing on the same matter. However, reading RA 7160 and RA 9184, I find no provisions therein which requires the approval by a higher authority in contracts entered into by HOPE of LGUs. Sec. 37.3 of RA 9184, in my opinion, is more applicable to NGAs and GOCCs, wherein procurement functions are delegated to regional offices and branches, wherein the these regional offices and branches are required to secure approval of their central offices if the amount involved is beyond the delegated authority of the former.

By and large, in Quisumbing case, the SC merely reiterated the need of a prior authority from the sanggunian BEFORE the HOPE/LCE may enter into a procurement contract.

Mikel
Active Poster
Active Poster

Male Number of posts : 72
Company/Agency : Gobyerno ng Pilipinas
Occupation/Designation : Empleyado
Registration date : 2009-03-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by engrjhez® on Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:07 pm

Mikel wrote:Please allow me to contribute my ‘very belated’ two-cents worth re: prior authorization and post-approval of the sanggunian vis-a-vis procurement contracts. The GPPB PMO No. PM 001-2010 may have inadvertently missed a very crucial statement found in the same paragraph from which they (GPPB-TSO) culled their opinion, which is – “Read together, the cited provisions [Sec. 22 (c) of RA 7160 and Sec. 37.3 of the IRR of RA 9184) mandate the local chief executive to secure the sanggunian’s approval before entering into procurement contracts and to transmit the notice to proceed to the winning bidder not later than seven (7) calendar days therefrom.” (italicized items supplied and underscoring for emphasis)

Taken as a whole, the SC did not really gave the sanggunians the ‘approving authority’ after contract is signed by the HOPE, rather it harmonized the provisions the two seemingly-repugnant provisions of different laws dealing on the same matter. However, reading RA 7160 and RA 9184, I find no provisions therein which requires the approval by a higher authority in contracts entered into by HOPE of LGUs. Sec. 37.3 of RA 9184, in my opinion, is more applicable to NGAs and GOCCs, wherein procurement functions are delegated to regional offices and branches, wherein the these regional offices and branches are required to secure approval of their central offices if the amount involved is beyond the delegated authority of the former.

By and large, in Quisumbing case, the SC merely reiterated the need of a prior authority from the sanggunian BEFORE the HOPE/LCE may enter into a procurement contract.

Welcome back Mikel!

This is the very same idea I am crafting before I was bulked with dozen of tasks. I was hoping to provide a 'full length' explanation (which I think I owe RDV) but I was deprived of ample time to do that. Hence, I am already (practically) in the same reasoning as this. Soon as I regain some time (which I expect the whole month of July), I will return to this issue.

Meanwhile, work mode again. study
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: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by aguada on Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:23 pm

please let me know the function of procuring head in GOCC, localwater district to be exact

aguada
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 18
Company/Agency : dds sst
Occupation/Designation : sales
Registration date : 2011-06-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by sunriser431 on Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:14 am

aguada wrote:please let me know the function of procuring head in GOCC, localwater district to be exact
Excerpts from the GPM. From the point of view of the GPRA.
a. Responsibilities of the Head of the Procuring Entity. The Head of the Procuring Entity, or his duly authorized representative, shall have the following responsibilities in the procurement process:
i.) He/she must ensure that the APP is regularly prepared, reviewed and updated by the PMOs and end-user units, in accordance with the guidelines set forth herein. He/she must also approve the same, or delegate the approval authority to a second-ranking official. He/she must ensure that all procurements are in line with the APP.
ii.) He/she must establish the BAC and the BAC Secretariat in accordance
with the guidelines previously discussed.
iii.) Upon submission by the BAC of the recommendation for award, the Head of the Procuring Entity or his/her representative must approve the same. He/she may, however, disapprove the recommendation but only on the basis of valid, reasonable and justifiable grounds to be expressed in writing, and furnished to the BAC.
iv.) He/she must ensure that the BAC and the BAC Secretariat gives utmost priority to BAC assignments over all other duties and responsibilities, until the requirements for the said assignments at hand are completed. (IRR-A Section 14.3)
v.) He/she must ensure that the staff of the Procurement Unit/Office and the members of the BAC, BAC Secretariat and TWG are given ample training on procurement and related matters, with the end in view of professionalizing the procurement organization of the Procuring Entity.
vi.) He/she must impose the necessary administrative sanctions on errant members of the BAC Secretariat/BAC/TWG, in accordance with Section 70 of the IRR-A.
vii.) He/she must ensure that the members of the BAC and the TWG shall receive their incentives.

From the point of view of Local water District. Follow the LINK bounce
avatar
sunriser431
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 1518
Company/Agency : Goccs Jolo Sulu All the way Downsouth
Occupation/Designation : IAS
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by sunriser431 on Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:20 am

engrjhez® wrote:
Mikel wrote:Please allow me to contribute my ‘very belated’ two-cents worth re: prior authorization and post-approval of the sanggunian vis-a-vis procurement contracts. The GPPB PMO No. PM 001-2010 may have inadvertently missed a very crucial statement found in the same paragraph from which they (GPPB-TSO) culled their opinion, which is – “Read together, the cited provisions [Sec. 22 (c) of RA 7160 and Sec. 37.3 of the IRR of RA 9184) mandate the local chief executive to secure the sanggunian’s approval before entering into procurement contracts and to transmit the notice to proceed to the winning bidder not later than seven (7) calendar days therefrom.” (italicized items supplied and underscoring for emphasis)

Taken as a whole, the SC did not really gave the sanggunians the ‘approving authority’ after contract is signed by the HOPE, rather it harmonized the provisions the two seemingly-repugnant provisions of different laws dealing on the same matter. However, reading RA 7160 and RA 9184, I find no provisions therein which requires the approval by a higher authority in contracts entered into by HOPE of LGUs. Sec. 37.3 of RA 9184, in my opinion, is more applicable to NGAs and GOCCs, wherein procurement functions are delegated to regional offices and branches, wherein the these regional offices and branches are required to secure approval of their central offices if the amount involved is beyond the delegated authority of the former.

By and large, in Quisumbing case, the SC merely reiterated the need of a prior authority from the sanggunian BEFORE the HOPE/LCE may enter into a procurement contract.

Welcome back Mikel!

This is the very same idea I am crafting before I was bulked with dozen of tasks. I was hoping to provide a 'full length' explanation (which I think I owe RDV) but I was deprived of ample time to do that. Hence, I am already (practically) in the same reasoning as this. Soon as I regain some time (which I expect the whole month of July), I will return to this issue.

Meanwhile, work mode again. study
For information purpose only. Opinion of the DILG. Follow the LINK bounce
avatar
sunriser431
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 1518
Company/Agency : Goccs Jolo Sulu All the way Downsouth
Occupation/Designation : IAS
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Clarification on Head of Procuring Entity

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

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