Motion for Reconsideration

Go down

Motion for Reconsideration Empty Motion for Reconsideration

Post by rvskyemarie2608 on Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:06 pm

Good Morning.

I am new at this forum and i would like to seek an opinion or assistance.

We have a bidding recently for the procurement of Fertilizers. We only have 2 bidders for the said project. Bidder A was declared the lowest bidder as read over Bidder B.

As part of the the post evaluation process, some of the members of the BAC, TWGs went to DA-ROF 5 wherein Bidder A stated that they have a similar contract made thereat.

However, the post-evaluating team found that Bidder A is non responsive on the ground that the awarded project (similar contract) is not completed within the contract time as a result even as to the date of the post evaluation supported by the undated Notice to Proceed from the DA RFO 5.

The BAC Notified the Bidder A of their post disqualification but they have filed an appeal/reconsideration based on the alleged facts stated in their letter as follows;

1. The contract for the supply and delivery of 10525 bags of Urea, and 10525 bags of Triple 14 with the DA RFO 5 was signed and duly notorized on July 10, 2014.

2. We under that the members of the BAC TWG inquired us to why we did not indicated a date on the Notice to Proceed issued by the DA FRO 5. We wish to clarify that when our representative accepted the NTP, a meeting the the DA RFO 5 APCOs has yet to be set to finalize the schedule of delivery to various destinations, including the readiness of the warehouses. This is the reason why there was no date indicated on the NTP

3. Eventually, the delivery schedule was re-adjusted because of Typhoon Glenda that hit the Bicol Region on July 16, 2014

4. Finally, we commenced delivery on July 21, 2014 despite incessant raining and limited road access to the delivery destinations due to the havoc wrought by Typhoon Glenda

5. When we submitted our bid to the City Government of Alaminos, we included therein, as one of the "on-going" projects, our contract with the DA RFO 5. As indicated in our bid document dated August 1, 2014, the percentage of good delivered was cited 25%, we commenced delivery on July 21 (and not july 2 as per date of the NTP and July 10 as per date of the contract) and we further hampered by incessant raining and poor access to the delivery destinations.

With their claims of alleged facts, we would like to be enlightened if should we or should we not grant their appeal on the following grounds;

1. Can we use the non-indication of acceptance date on the NTP a ground for technicality?
2. We understand that compliance on the delivery schedule is indeed a requirement in the bidding document as originally crafted, therefore should there be a revision or change in the delivery requirement, it should be made through a validly issued supplemental bulletin. However, Bidder A failed to support their claims with a valid supplemental Bid bulletin or a suspension / resume order from the Procuring entity or any written agreement that there is a re-adjustment of schedule.
3. And we are being confused by the dates of the commencement of their delivery due to non indication of date of acceptance of the NTP and the date of the contract.

Is there a valid ground for the BAC to deny their MFR? Thank you


New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 2
Company/Agency : LGU Alaminos City, Pangasinan
Occupation/Designation : Member, BAC Secretariat
Registration date : 2014-08-26

Back to top Go down

Back to top

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