You are on page 1of 6

PHILGEPS REGISTRATION

by vtpelias on Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:56 pm

Is Philgeps Registration of suppliers mandatory in all forms of procurement like SHOPPING, NEGOTIATED and PUBLIC BIDDING?

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION


by sunriser431 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:39 pm

vtpelias wrote:Is Philgeps Registration of suppliers mandatory in all forms of procurement like

SHOPPING, NEGOTIATED and PUBLIC BIDDING?

Hello vtpelias welcome. Yes its mandatory to all suppliers doing business with your agency. For your information and perusal. Refer to the following Section of the Revised IRR of 9184 8.5. Registration, Eligibility Requirements and Submission of Bids under the PhilGEPS 8.5.1. To ensure the widest dissemination of the Invitation to Bid/Request for Expression of Interest, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, contractors and/or consultants shall register with the PhilGEPS. All Procuring Entities already maintaining an electronic registry upon the effectivity of this IRR shall integrate the same with that of the PhilGEPS. A manufacturer, supplier, distributor, contractor or consultant duly registered with the PhilGEPS may participate in a procurement undertaken by any procuring entity, provided that the said manufacturer, supplier, distributor, contractor or consultant maintains its registration current and updated in accordance with the provisions of this IRR, and its registration is proper and relevant to the particular type of procurement.

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION

by jcolas on Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:59 pm

To all members of the Forum: In relation to the topic on PhilGEPS Registration, one problem that we should confront is the indifference of local suppliers to the mandatory requirement that they should be registered with the PhilGEPS. In our region, even in the capital city of Tuguegarao, there are few establishments which are registered. Those who are selling construction materials have not bothered to register with the PhilGEPS. In the transportation business, even Victory Liner, the biggest in region 02, is not registered with the PhilGEPS. When we transported our athletes from the region to the Palaro site which is Tarlac City, we found out that no one

from among the bus companies is registered. It is suggested that the DBM, through the PhilGEPS, should come up with an aggressive information dissemination geared towards educating business establishments on the nitty-gritty of transacting business through the PhilGEPS. It is only in having local business establishment who are internet savvy, that we can expect responses to the RFQ's that we posted. It is sometimes frustrating when nobody responds on the request for quotation that we post. It actually hinders the deliveries of basic services. This is just my observation but I am sure that this is also true to other regions.

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION


by Ligaw na Binatog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:59 am

I think to hasten the process of dissemination of information is with the help of the Procuring entities, by informing them in the pre bid conference. actually you could register with the PhilGEPS through electronic means... send the payment through a bank etc all you need to do is call the PhilGEPS on how to do it.

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION


by charlie brown on Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:57 am

jcolas wrote:To all members of the Forum:

In relation to the topic on PhilGEPS Registration, one problem that we should confront is the indifference of local suppliers to the mandatory requirement that they should be registered with the PhilGEPS. In our region, even in the capital city of Tuguegarao, there are few establishments which are registered. Those who are selling construction materials have not bothered to register with the PhilGEPS. In the transportation business, even Victory Liner, the biggest in region 02, is not registered with the PhilGEPS. When we transported our athletes from the region to the Palaro site which is Tarlac City, we found out that no one from among the bus companies is registered. It is suggested that the DBM, through the PhilGEPS, should come up with an aggressive information dissemination geared towards educating business establishments on the nitty-gritty of transacting business through the PhilGEPS. It is only in having local business establishment who are internet savvy, that we can expect responses to the RFQ's that we posted. It is sometimes frustrating when nobody responds on the request for quotation that we post. It actually hinders the deliveries of basic services. This is just my observation but I am sure that this is also true to other regions.

perhaps another way would be to tie up with the SEC/DTI/CDA and LGUs to require philgeps

reg as a document to support application for mayors permit or SEC/DTI registration. A similar tie up was done by the BIR with GPPB so we have the EFPS as a mandatory requirement in the filing of ITR in IRR-A. under the revised IRR filing thru the EFPS is optional

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION

by jcolas on Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:01 pm

That is a good suggestion Charlie Brown; but may I lay my one cent worth of a suggestion: It would be faster and easier, i believe if the GPPB can come up with a resolution requiring Local Government Units and the SEC/DTI/CDA to include the submission of the PhilGEPS Registration Certificate as one of their requirements before permits are released to business men. With the GPPB Res., businessmen will NOW have to secure the PhilGEPS cERT. The Procuring Entity, on the other hand can conduct a seminar, in coordination with the PhilGEPS, on how to use the PhilGEPS portal so that these businessmen can now transact business with the government. what do you say?

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION

by Niwram on Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:23 pm

It is already a settled rule that one of the requirements to be submitted during postqualification is the certificate of registration with the PhilGeps. wherein failure to submit such document shall be a ground for the forfeiture of the bid security and disqualify the bidder for award.
Last edited by Niwram on Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:25 pm; edited 1 time in total Occupation/Designation: Katulong Pambatas II/Tagapayo sa Tawad at Parangal na Komite Registration date: 2009-10-06

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION


by Ligaw na Binatog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:24 pm

The problem with such suggestions is that the power of the GPPB only pertains to procurement and it cannot dictate another agency what to do unless it is provided by law. GPPB Resolution has no power to be a condition for a permit to be released or not it is beyond the power of the GPPB,

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION

by Berna on Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:32 pm

in our province po, only infra contractors are registered to philgeps.

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION

by jcolas on Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:51 pm

Ligaw Na Binatog wrote: The problem with such suggestions is that the power of the GPPB only pertains to procurement and it cannot dictate another agency what to do unless it is provided by law. GPPB Resolution has no power to be a condition for a permit to be released or not it is beyond the power of the GPPB, Then who should do it LNB? Is there a need for a new legislation to that effect? If that is what is needed, then let us awaken congress, d ba? Or can the gppb not tie up with Local Government Units/CDA/SEC/DTI as what Charlie Brown has posted? To Bernadette; that is true. Contractors took it upon themselves to learn the ropes, that is why some of them are even better than some members of the BAC. If only our local suppliers will do the same, learn the ropes, then all our postings(RFQ) will be responded upon.
by jcolas on Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:21 pm

D Ba sa Local government Code, LGU's are bestowed with regulatory p0wers? Can the Local Government not enact laws that will include Cert. of Registration from PhilGEPS as one of the requirement before they will issue permits? As for the CDA/DTI and SEC, dont they have the power to include the certification as a requirement?

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION


by Ligaw na Binatog on Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:28 am

I think a local legislation must first be executed so that such requirement of RA 9184 will be a condition before a Mayors permit could be released. However this is subject to several consideration because the purpose of Mayors permit is for taxing purposes.

Ligaw na Binatog

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION

by charlie brown on Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:59 pm

Ligaw na Binatog wrote:The problem with such suggestions is that the power of the GPPB only

pertains to procurement and it cannot dictate another agency what to do unless it is provided by law. GPPB Resolution has no power to be a condition for a permit to be released or not it is beyond the power of the GPPB,

As for my suggestion, the idea is not to enforce the requirement to LGUs, DTI, SEC etc in a way similar to a central office enforcing policies to its regional office. the operative word is a tie-up wherein the agencies will work out a scheme - as equals and as procurement champions - and not in a superior/subordinate set-up. I believe that was the background in the requirement for EFPS before. It would be difficult to understand how the BIR could have imposed its requirement with the GPPB if it was not done in a colegial manner.

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION


by charlie brown on Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:05 pm

vtpelias wrote:Is Philgeps Registration of suppliers mandatory in all forms of procurement like

SHOPPING, NEGOTIATED and PUBLIC BIDDING?

In a public bidding and in some alternative methods, the philgeps registration is required. However, in some AMP such as under shopping A (unforseen contingencies) and procurement at the PS a philgeps registration will not only not make sense but would tend to make a simple procurement into a tedious one - thus defeating the concept of efficiency and convenience

Re: PHILGEPS REGISTRATION


by Ligaw na Binatog on Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:25 pm

charlie brown wrote: Ligaw na Binatog wrote:The problem with such suggestions is that the power of the GPPB only

pertains to procurement and it cannot dictate another agency what to do unless it is provided by law. GPPB Resolution has no power to be a condition for a permit to be released or not it is beyond the power of the GPPB,

As for my suggestion, the idea is not to enforce the requirement to LGUs, DTI, SEC etc in a way similar to a central office enforcing policies to its regional office. the operative word is a tie-up wherein the agencies will work out a scheme - as equals and as procurement champions - and not in a superior/subordinate set-up. I believe that was the background in the requirement for EFPS before. It would be difficult to understand how the BIR could have imposed its requirement with the GPPB if it was not done in a colegial manner.

I understand. If the procedure of obtaining a permit is tied up with a certain law, ordinance or memo etc. it should be amended or a latest issuance should be release. it is not enough that there is a MOA between GPPB and an LGU. Furthermore, The registration to PhilGEPS as a condition for the release of a Mayor`s Permit would be prejudicial to those businesses which do not want to be registered. We should also consider that PhilGEPS registration is 500 pesos, if a tieup was obtained, don`t you think that getting a mayors permit is like getting penalized for doing whats right.