SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS Consultation on the Implementing Rules & Regulations of RA 9184: Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA) 1.
A one-day Consultation on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9184 was conducted with the heads of procuring entities (HOPE) and members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of Government Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs). This was held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Pasig City on January 28, 2009. 2. The Workshop was attended by 42 participants from various GOCCs. Please see Annex 1 for a complete list of participants. 3. The Consultation began at 9:15 AM and ended at 4:47 PM. Please refer to Annex 2 for the list of activities actually conducted during the consultation. 4. Participants’ inputs were surfaced mainly through break out sessions and to a lesser extent, through the open forums. The break out grouping was based on the following procurement categories: Goods, Infrastructure and Consulting. There was a separate break out group for ICT because of its peculiarity of being classified under “mix procurement”. 5. • • • The discussions in the break out sessions were guided by the following questions: Question #1: Which provisions of the IRR best promote the GPRA principles of transparency, accountability, competitiveness, streamlined process, and public monitoring? Question #2: Which provisions of the IRR do not promote the GPRA principles of transparency, accountability, competitiveness, streamlined process, and public monitoring? Why? Question #3: Based on your experience, what factors hamper the implementation of RA 9184? What recommendations do you propose to address those factors?
6. In response to question 1, the break out groups commonly identified the following as good provisions of the draft IRR. (Please refer to Annex 3 for details.) Good Provisions 1. Section 21 on posting/publication of advertisement on invitation to bid and bid documents. 2. Section 13 on presence of Observers. 3. Section 23 on eligibility requirements. 7. In response to question 2, the participants identified the following priority provisions that should be revised or deleted from the IRR. (Please refer to Annex 4 for details.)
Provisions Section 37 on Notice of Execution of Award
Section 23 on Eligibility Requirements
Section 52 on Shopping as an alternative mode of procurement
Proposed Actions • Transfer the required documents to eligibility stage. • Retain the old provision • Shorten the 30 days to 7 days. • CLC issuance should not be limited to commercial/universal banks; make this open to all. • The track record requirements will limit competition. Reduce 5 years to 3 years; bring down 70% to 50%. • Increase the threshold. Recommendations include P250k and P500k. • Put clear provisions to govern shopping transactions. • Items that fall under shopping should be expanded to include services such as repair or maintenance work.
8. In response to question 3, the participants also gave the following priority recommendations that the GPPB-TSO should include or take in consideration in the IRR so that implementation of RA 9184 will not be hindered or hampered. (Please refer to Annex 5 for details.) Factors The law requires additional approval or clearances from higher officials, e.g., by the DPWH for infrastructure projects above P5 million and the OP for projects above P20 million. Protest Fee. Recommendations • This requirement should be repealed or revoked. 7 dots
Procurement of small value items that still require BAC approval. Corrupt and/or incompetent BAC members. Lack of GPPB personnel to answer queries of procuring entities.
• • •
The protest fee should be increased to approximately five percent (5%) in order to discourage frivolous results. 7 dots GPPB should set limit of amounts of purchases that requires BAC approval. 6 dots Impose maximum term (of 2 years) per BAC member. 6 dots Provide for BAC hotline and actively utilize the internet/web for FAQs. 6 dots
Lack of training for BAC personnel (members and support staff).
There must be a mandatory training sponsored by the Government. 6 dots
9. The Open Forums held during the consultation also surfaced a number of important comments from the participants. The most significant comments are summarized below. Please refer to Annexes 6 and 7 for details. • • Any treaty or international/executive agreements shall continue to be observed and remain to be outside the coverage of RA 9184; the appeal to development partners is that they will commit to use our IRR for national competitive bidding. Suggested to have the other requirements submitted prior to issuing the NOA so that the PE is guarded against winning bidders who later will not be able to comply with the rest of the requirements; would also help weed out nuisance bidders. Need to harmonize RA 9184 with the Cheaper Medicines Act For revenue-generating projects, possibility of setting an ABC in terms of a percentage of the revenue. How was the 2% bid security arrived at? An Executive Order mandates that government agencies only secure surety from GSIS; but there is always a problem in getting surety from GSIS. Warranty for permanent and semi-permanent structures and other similar infra terminologies: seeking a clear definition and differentiation of the two to avoid confusions and misunderstandings with suppliers. Inclusion of provisions that empowers BAC to go for postponement of bid openings (to insulate from “pressures”). Possibility of exempting revenue-generating corporations from RA 9184. Possibility of exempting trading/mining groups from RA 9184. 24/7 GPPB helpdesk.
• • • • • • • • •
List of Annexes 1 - List of Participants 2 - List of Activities Actually Conducted at the Consultation 3 - Participants’ Responses to Question 1: Provisions that best promote the GPRA Principles 4 - Participants’ Responses to Question 2: Provisions that should be revised or not included in the draft IRR and why 5 - Participants’ Responses to Question 3: Factors that hamper/hinder the implementation of RA 9184 and recommendations to address these factors 6 - Participants’ Comments during Open Forum 1 (Discussion of Draft IRR) 7 - Participants’ Comments during Open Forum 2 (Clarification/Discussion of Break Out Outputs)
Reuyan Delfin L.landbank.ph
atty.gov. Buenafe II Edmund P.gov.com email@example.com FelyRondolo@clark.ph wilborja_aeb@yahoo. Rabuco III Mariflor Pelayo-Reyes Saturnino Mejia Noel G.E. Magsalin M. Sumisim Rosabella C. Sabong Saturnino R.ph firstname.lastname@example.org rosabellajose@yahoo.Annex 1 List of Participants
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NAME Atty. Valerio Alexander A.email@example.com plazo@mail.Baybay Mark Natalio M.gov. Alaras Wilfredo S. Chiu Maria Lourdes Jose Lizette F. Mortel Marissa Orpilla Christine J.com.M.gov. Rondolo Rolet.firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com. Hernandez Leila B. Martinez Nori Plazo Myrna Villarica Ricardo S.com mflpelayo@yahoo. Borja Cecilia E. Valera AGENCY BCDA BCDA BCDA CAAP CCP CCP CDC CDC CDC DBM DBP DBP FTI FTI FTI LBP MIAA MWSS NDC NDC NDC NEA NEA NFA NFA NFA NHA NHA NHMFC NHMFC NHMFC NIA NIA NIA NPC NPC NPC PAGCOR PAGCOR PCSO PCSO PCSO PHIC TELEPHONE 816-6666 loc 133 866-6666 879-9259 832-3667 832-3624 (045) 599-9000 loc 611 (045) 599-9000 loc 821 0915-9062177 815-1831 893-4912 838-4597 0918-9115469 405-7678 920-5413 840-4838 840-4838 840-4838 926-1302 929-2203 0917-8595098 927-9787 977-9787 929-5850 922-3321 893-0491 892-5522 926-2566 929-6070 to 78 loc 184 0917-5011344 926-1837 921-2737 922-8730 521-2200 521-8552 740-0494 0919-4611094 740-0325 0928-5061202 firstname.lastname@example.org lizette. Balba Mary Joy De Guzman .gov. Erbon Genever Dionio Reynaldo C.ph EMAIL rrlapuz@bcda. Funtinilla Eva Mari Salvado Felicisima S.ph email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org dlbuenafe@napocor. Arlanza Robert Uy Leonor C.com noelgh1232002@yahoo. Anguluan Melburgo S. Galanida Maripaz A. De Dios Pepito M. Regina Salve R.email@example.com jaescolano@bcda. Rolando Andaya Dolores Santiago Mario Pagaragan Ryan A.com
firstname.lastname@example.org marialourdes. Galang Sec.ryanmartinez@yahoo. Bonifacio Efren J. T.ph email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
.ph email@example.com bonifaciola@nea. Rola Jr. Cleofas Benjamin F.com joylaw@ymail. Ruben Reside Victor C. Jose Rodolfo N.com eyang14@yahoo. Lapuz Jeannine Escolano B.ph firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com mark.gov.
ph arrodrigiez@deszr. Martinez Atty.ph firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Octavino Q.email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org. Fe L. Cañaveral Sophia T.com fbredulla@yahoo. Ebriega Carmelita Belen Domondon Atty.ph rdmatibag@pnoc. Alejandro Rodriguez.gov. Steve Roldan Mario Leygo Christabelle P.com email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com. Pavia Nerrisa Esguerra Cezar Belangel Tess Garcia Ver Peña Cecille Vales GCC Al Agra Adzra A. M. Reyes Floro C. Auth.com ojmv07@yahoo. Remo Alex B. Suegay Victoria Magcase Atty.gov.com v.ph firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
. Borja Hazel Jane M.com. Mirano C. Magsombol David Simon Arnel F. Vidad Aniceto Calubaquib John Salom Ruby alvarez
PHIC Phil. Orge Evangeline B.com bbjugan@pnoc. Freddie T.cm jayccal@yahoo. Guirnalda Clarissa T. Philexim PhilHealth PhilRICE PhilRICE PhilRICE PhilRICE PhilRICE PITC PITC PITC PITC PITC PITC-Pharma PNOC PNOC PNOC PNOC PNOC EC PNOC EC PNOC EC PPA PPA PRA PRA SBMA SBMA SBMA TIDCORP AF Consultant Consultant Consultant Consultant CODE-NGO CIDA-E3 CIDA-E3 World Bank OGCC OGCC OGCC OGCC OGCC OGCC OGCC GPPB
687-1939 817-4711 0917-3270334 0917-5033558 456-0441 0921-3385589 0920-9473690 544-4560 loc 113 (088) 5670315 892-1190 0921-3079122 892-1560 892-3740 878-9801 0917-8505353 812-6189 812-5988 812-6209 840-1465 0920-9028701 0917-8419509 840-2044 301-9064 527-4436 817-4711 817-4711 0917-8878918 (047) 252-4130 (047) 252-4874 893-4758 911-9792 911-9792 0918-9007374 0917-8206817 0927-5984708 637-4427
email@example.com. Jr. Arbison Ferdinand Redulla Jun Santos Owen M.org 0917-8810855 0918-9067378 436-4456 436-3793 436-3793 0917-8961298 Adz_Arbison@yahoo.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com. Martinez Marcelino Sangui Eugenia Sinnung Joey Alegre Norman Jiao Cathy Gonzales Tina V.ph lggcalaor@pnoc. Jr.ph
firstname.lastname@example.org arnelreyes1@yahoo. Cosio Hyessa S. Esguerra Alfredo R. Sibayan Auria C.ph email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org. Jugan Monette Matibag Lino Calaor Glenda G.Rec.gov.com email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org mlguirnalda@pnoc-ec. Monzod.ph email@example.com afonline@info. Bernadette B.gov. Urcia Karen Villamil Cristina Millan Robert S.
Damian Warren Paul Nicdao
GPPB GPPB GPPB GPPB GPPB
0920-9004840 900-6741 900-6741 900-6741 900-6741
emiluisapenano@yahoo. Lejos Dennis Nacario Karl Paulo C.com firstname.lastname@example.org
.com email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org 92 93 94 95
Emiluisa Peñano Dimpna O.
Cezar Belangel Mr. Tina Pavia Mr. Karl Damian Mr. Goods Group 2. Goods Group 3. Nerrisa Esguerra Ms. OGCC Sec. Cecile Valles.Annex 2 List of Activities Actually Conducted at the Consultation Time Morning 9:15 9:25 Activity Opening Prayer Singing of the National Anthem Welcome Remarks Person(s) Responsible
GCC Atty. ICT Group Open Forum Closing Remarks
Mr. Consulting Group 6. Infra Group 4. GPPB-TSO
Mr. Rolando Andaya. Oman Jiao. Infra Group 5. DBM
9:35 9:43 10:14 Afternoon 12:00 1:00 3:30
Program Overview and Introduction of Participants Overview of the Draft IRR Open Forum Lunch Break Break Out Session Plenary Session & Group Reports 1. Dennis Nacario Ms. World Bank
. Bryan Bigalbal Ms. Consultant & Facilitator Executive Director Ruby Alvarez. Al Agra.
Section 29 and the pertinent provisions on eligibility requirements and post-evaluation all promote transparency and competitiveness in the procurement process.4 thereof. Karl Damian. Posting of performance/security bonds ensures accountability. 7. 2. 4. Moreover. GOODS Facilitator: Mr. GOODS Facilitator: Mr. 5. posting of invitation to bid and results of bidding or alternative mode of procurement in newspapers. 3. 2. Section 23 . The process of post qualification is a means of promoting accountability.Annex 3 Participants’ Responses to Question 1: Provisions that best promote the GPRA Principles Category & Facilitator 1. The requirement of publication. a more participative involvement through the engagement of observers. 6. Section 19 on access to information encourages and promotes transparency “in all stages of the preparation of the bidding documents.Eligibility requirements for the procurement of goods and infrastructure projects. GPPBTSO Provisions 1. understand and be more prepared in the performance of their duties. The presence of observers as a means of promoting transparency. Section 32 – Bid evaluation for the procurement of goods and infrastructure. CODE-NGO
. 6.” 5. Rule XXIII which lays down the provisions on administrative sanctions attaches accountability on prospective bidders. Section 21 which requires advertising including the publication of the Approved Budget for the Contract not only promotes transparency and accountability but also competition and public monitoring and awareness. The power of the BAC to require submissions of other necessary documents prior to the issuance of the notice of
2. PHILGEPS website promotes transparency and competitive bidding. 3. Section 2 “encompasses the declaration of the state” on the rationale behind the creation of the GPRA. 4. Cezar Belangel. 1. Section 13 which promotes “enhanced transparency” and particularly 13. the provision provides accountability and “preparedness” from the members of the BAC who are encouraged to know.
Bryan Bigalbal. Nerrisa Esguerra.1.
4. 2. 7. INFRASTRUCTURE Facilitator: Mr. Section 4.6. Section 47. Section 21. Sections 25. 4. Section 6 which requires the use of standardized forms promote streamlines procurement process. Rule VIII – All bids shall be accompanied by a bid security. This promotes streamlined procurement process. Sections 23. 5. 6. 8. 3.1 requires the submission of eligibility requirements in the technical proposal envelope. 1. Section 13. GPPB-TSO 1. competitiveness and streamlined procurement process. Section 37. sub-paragraphs 3a and 5 on the eligibility of prospective bidders promote competitiveness. Rule III – The procurement shall be done by electronic means. accountability and public monitoring. Rule VI – Disclosure of relations promotes transparency. promotes transparency. INFRASTRUCTURE Facilitator: Ms. Rule IV .The bid documents shall be posted at the procuring entity’s website. Section 13 which requires the presence of Observers promotes transparency.1 on notice and execution of awards promote competitiveness.The BAC shall invite during the procurement process two observers.4 B on the submission of technical proposals promote competitiveness.3 provides that all foreign-funded procurement activities be done through competitive bidding.21. Section 22. Rule VII . 3. This provision promotes transparency. 3. 5.2. Consultant
. 9.award. Rule VII – Pre-bid conference may be conducted before the opening of bid. 6. 2. 10. Section 20 on pre-procurement conference promotes streamlined procurement process. 8. Section 23. 4. 7. Rule XXI – Penal clauses promote the principle of accountability. Section 31 which provides for a ceiling of bid prices promote competitiveness. Section 27. competitiveness and a system of accountability.3 B and 24. Section 23. The inclusion of a provision of the technical description requirement is one way where the bidding process is streamlined.3 which requires the utilization of BACprepared forms and a set of criteria.
23. Section 29 on Bid Opening – This is an avenue where all parties involved (i. 4. Section 33 – bid evaluation and short-listed bidders. BAC. hence. are prohibited from making or accepting any verbal communication…. Section 10 on competitive bidding promotes full transparency. 1. Sec. Rule 3 – procurement by electronic means and PHILGEPS promotes transparency. 9. 16 on Professionalization of BAC. 32. promotes accountability and transparency. 2. CONSULTING Facilitator: Ms. including its staff and personnel.2 – advertising and posting of the invitation to bid / requests for expressions of interest promotes transparency. Sec 22 on Pre-bid Conference promotes transparency. Dennis Nacario. Sec. Sec. 2.1 on eligibility documents as part of technical proposal promotes streamline process. Rule XVII on Protest Mechanism – This provision amply protects BAC members from the harassment suits by bidders. Tina Pavia. 10 on Competitive Bidding. Section 23 – simplification of required documents for the eligibility check allows small businesses to participate and foster competitiveness. Section 21. 19 on Access to Information promotes transparency and competitiveness.5. 7. it provides a system of accountability and more transparency. TWG Members and Procurement Units promotes accountability. 5.
6. Observers. as well as its Secretariat and TWG. 13 on Observers promotes transparency. Sec. Rule 5. 6. ICT Facilitator: Mr. 20 on Pre-Procurement Conference promotes accountability and transparency.. Section 13 on Observers – This provision allows observers to actively participate to streamline the process of procurement. Sec. 5. 8.3 “no contact rule” Members of the BAC. bidders) meet.e. 21 on Advertising & Contents promotes transparency. Sec. 8. 6. Section 8. Sec. 3. 4. Consultant
. 7. This provision emphasizes on quality and not just the price which in effect reduce cost to the government because we are getting the right quality. Sec.. 3.
The determination by the BAC of the winning bidder should be enough. The provision should be amended or deleted since it also contravenes the rationale behind public bidding. Unlike in procurement of infrastructure which requires technical qualifications. GPPB-TSO PROVISION 1) Section 45 on provincial bidders. The BAC regular members for RECOMMENDED ACTION • Amend. 2 dots
Amend or delete. 2 dots
4) Section 11. The provision should be deleted because it unduly permits a “bata-bata” system or favoritism by the BAC or the procuring entity in favor of a particular bidder on prospective bidder.
3) Section 49 on limited source bidding. The GLAG Law which is the basis for the above provision is already trite and outdated.
. all it takes for the provincial bidder to do in procurement of goods is to match the price. KARL DAMIAN. The rationale for the law is to “strike better terms and prices” and giving preference to provincial bidders defeats this purpose.1 (5) on provisional members. This should be amended or deleted since the inclusion of the representative of the end-user can only lead to corruption. 2 dots
Delete. 4 dots • REASON Said provision should be amended or altogether deleted since it defeats the purpose of public bidding.Annex 4 Participants’ Responses to Question 2: Provisions that should be revised or not included in the draft IRR and why 1) CATEGORY: GOODS FACILITATOR: MR.
2) Section 43 on procurement of domestic and foreign goods.
office supplies shall not
. CEZAR BELANGEL.1.
2) Section 52 B.6. This should be amended or deleted because the BAC may deliberately “fail” the bidding to allow for negotiated procurement. The experience requirement will disqualify otherwise very qualified prospective bidders from bidding. last paragraph – “However. This should be amended to require submission of price quotations. 1 dot • This should be deleted or amended.purposes of decision-making should already suffice. 5) Section 23. • Amend to consider relevant experience in lieu of prescribed period.1 6 dots • REASON This provision will not • shorten the time for procurement process.
6) Section 37 on notice of execution of award. 1 dot
It is proposed that the documents • that are required to be submitted prior to the issuance of the notice of award be submitted during post-qualification. an additional 30 days is added in the existing bidding period.
7) Section 52 (a)
8) Section 53 (a)
9) Section 41. The inclusion of the last paragraph of Section 52-B will give away the • RECOMMENDED ACTION The group recommends that the 30-day period within which a bidder should comply with other documents be scrapped and that the old provision be retained. In this section.1 (c )
2) CATEGORY: GOODS FACILITATOR: MR.2 on eligibility criteria. Should be amended to include “insufficiency” of funds and “nullification” of the bidding process. Revise last sentence. CODE-NGO PROVISION 1) Section 37. Amend.
Review provision. janitorial.
4) Request for Reconsideration Provision – prolongs the process. security and related or analogous services.
Allowing modification or withdrawal may encourage collusion among bidders. It is thus recommended for GPPB to review Section 38 and look for other means or possibility of shortening the lead time so as to facilitate the procurement period.
Modification/withdrawal of bids after submission should not be allowed. 4 dots •
flexibility of the procuring entity in using the shopping method for the procurement of items of small value. Suppliers may opt to use the maximum allowed time in complying with other documents/ requirements. specifically NGO Contract. 3 dots 5) Sec.Period of Action on Procurement Activities – 120 days procurement process period.” 6 dots 3) Section 38 . 26 Modification and Withdrawal of submitted bids before the deadline. 1 dot 7) Sec. 53. Does not promote streamlined process.j Negotiated Procurement.
. 2 dots 6) Sec. hauling.3 Executive agreements should also have definite qualifications / limits / safeguards.
Delete.include services such as repair and maintenance of equipment and furniture as well as trucking.
Procurement process is quite too long.
Moreover. GPPB-TSO PROVISION 1) Section 52 which state that shopping is a method of procurement of goods. the deletion of certain documents on eligibility during the initial stage may even lengthen the process should the winning bidder fails to submit the same requirements at post-qualification. BRYAN BIGALBAL. • Retain old provision. for infra costing services (like repair or 250k maintenance work) must be included. Finally. 3 dots 4) Section 42. This provision must be reviewed and revised because it does not promote public monitoring.
Amend. 7 dots • RECOMMENDED ACTION The provision on shopping must • Clarify the mode not be limited to the procurement of procurement of goods only.1 dot 8) Price Adjustment – all • bid prices shall be considered as fixed • prices. 3 dots
3) Section 18 on reference to brand names.
3) CATEGORY: INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATOR: MR. It is hard to determine specifications of materials due to lack or absence of testing laboratories.
2) Sections 23 and 24 on eligibility requirements.2 on contract implementation and termination. Create conflict with other gov’t policies. Price adjustment should be qualified relative to existing policies on PADPAO rates for procurement of security services. For instance.
Review and possibly revise. The extensive list of eligibility requirements does not promote streamlined procurement process. there must be a provision that will govern transactions or procurement activities in the amount of P50k to P250k.
This provision limits competition. This limits competition. Reduce 70% to 50%. It appears that Section 37.2 subparagraph 3 which requires prospective bidders to have “xxx successful experience xxx in the last five years xxx.1 No. in cases where budget flexibility is allowed. Why limit CLC from universal or commercial banks only? 11) Section 8 Procurement by Electronic Means.
8) Section 61 on contract prices.3 on contract signing. • • Reduce 5yrs experience to 3. The APP updating should be done judiciously at the preprocurement-entity level.
Does not promote transparency.
4) CATEGORY: INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATOR: MS. NERRISA ESGUERRA.e.
This provision does not promote • streamlined procurement.
Manual procurement. This provision does not address peculiarities of contracts where foreign denominated components are subject to variations in exchange rate fluctuations.3 TFC-NFCC.3 on documents needed.2.1 is “in conflict” with Section 37.
Make this open to all banks. 2 dots 6) Section 23. i. etc.2 dots 5) Section 37.6. because not everybody has access on information relating to procurement process.6.1 • The documents forming part of the contract are too voluminous.
10) Section 23.
9) Section 7 on procurement planning.” 7) Section 37. • •
This should be reviewed further.. CONSULTANT
The bidder • has to submit remaining documentary requirements within 30 calendar days.4.2 . 3 dots 3) Section 23. i.
6) Section 12. the guarantee should refer only to the specific project.
Delete. levies and duties.
Retention money of the contractor should only be released after the one year defects liability period.2 – Bids submitted by bidders are required to include the cost of taxes. 5 dots 2) Section 45 – Provincial bidders have the right to match the lowest calculated bid.
RECOMMENDED ACTION • Restore old provision.2 – Bid documents require strict for the bank guarantee.1 – The BAC may recommend the use of
The BAC is left to justify the need for alternative methods of
..Bidders are required to submit tax clearance as part of the eligibility requirements during post-evaluation.PROVISION 1) Section 37. 3 dots 4) Section 32. Delete. Warranty security should be posted during the one (1) year Defects Liability Period. fiscal levies and duties.1 . This provision gives undue advantage to provincial bidders.6.
The strict wording required under the bid documents may disqualify otherwise qualified bidders.
There is difficulty in computing the correct amount of taxes to be paid. 2 dots •
REASON The additional 30 calendar days could cause tremendous delay in the bidding process especially if bidder fails to comply with this requirement or is found ineligible after post-evaluation.
Tax clearances issued by the BIR has a different validity period. 2 dots 5) Section 62.e.
The requirement of warranty security adds to project cost. Consultant PROVISION 1) Section 42 – Contract • REASON The provision is not clear how RECOMMENDED ACTION • Expand the
. The procuring entity should give opportunities to other employees of the GOCC. TINA PAVIA.The head of procuring entity may extend the term of BAC members. The amount of P50k (or even P250k) is too low.2 – Taxes shall be itemized in the bids.2. 1 dot 7) Section 52 – Shopping as • an alternative mode of procurement is allowed in cases of procurement in the amount of P50k and below. the completed project is already covered by property insurance.alternative methods of procurement.
Bidders use pre-bid conference as a venue to promote their own products. 1 dot 12) Section 22 – Pre-bid conference may be conducted before the opening of bids. • Limit term extension.
There s difficulty in computing correct amount of payable taxes. 11) Section 40. •
procurement to the head of procuring entity. 1 dot 10) Section 32. • Increase shopping amount to P500k.4. 1 dot 8) Section 62 . At any rate. The forfeiture of bid security could cause the bidders to file an ombudsman case against the members of the BAC.
5) CATEGORY: CONSULTING FACILITATOR: MS. • Delete.4 .The contractor is required to provide warranty security.1 – The bid security shall be forfeited if bidder is unable or refuses to submit eligibility documents.
9) Section 11.
the BAC still has to act on subsequent MRs because RA 6713 requires public officers to respond to letters/correspondences within 15 days from receipt. so the consultant is either shortlisted or negotiated. provided that sufficient justifications are presented for the
. The provision does not provide for a ceiling as to how many motions for reconsideration (MR) can be filed by ineligible consultants. 1 dot •
Retain former provision. • BAC simply relies on the justification of the proponent. latter. •
provision to ensure compliance of deliverables and provide penalty to those who approved it. Even if subsequent MRs are mere rehash of the first MR. 5 dots
3) Section 24. Another postqualification will have to be conducted. 7 dots
BAC can check the compliance by the consultant of the contract prior to payment. •
(suggested revision in wording) (ii) Primarily….f (ii) – negotiated procurement on hiring of consultants.1 on Notice • and Execution of Award.13 4 dots
To exempt BAC from the pertinent provision of RA6713 “15days to reply xxx”.5 – Shortlisting of prospective bidders.
Trust & confidence are reasons for hiring. BAC has no means to monitor compliance.
2) Section 24.implementation and termination. Would likely result to undue delay in case (CRB / HRRB fail) to comply.1.
4) Section 37. Proposed amendment would allow certain documentary requirements to be submitted as condition precedent to NOA. hence. payment can be made even without delivering the services in accordance with the contract. The criteria for short-listing are suggested by the proponent. 2 dots 5) Section 53. Reply only to the first MR letter.
.e Joint Ventures (among Filipino & foreign consultants). 6) Section 53 on Negotiated • Procurement. 24. The entire evaluation process …. Especially if the consultancy is not the agency’s expertise.
Hard to implement.
Some consultancy projects are developmental in nature & require study for good quality. to address price fluctuation. Procuring entity should have flexibility to vary ABC.
6) CATEGORY: ICT FACILITATOR: MR. DENNIS NACARIO. 8) 17.
10) Rule VIII Sec. 7) Sec. 21 calendar days.1. Relax the restrictions for foreign consultants in cases where the project involves technical expertise. • • Negotiated procurement tend to favor the proponent – it will maximize the ABC ABC results to failed bidding in case of price fluctuations.3 paragraph 3 .a Approved Budget for the Contract.
9) Section 33.hiring of the consultant and the fee is reasonable. 17 Form and Contents of Bidding Documents.1 on notice and execution of award.Evaluation process…. say up to +10%.3. Shall be completed in not more than 30 calendar days after receipt of proposals. • REASON This may prolong the bidding process if the document will be RECOMMENDED ACTION • Amend from 30 days to 7 days.. Bidders maximize price ceiling. • • ABC to be kept internal to procuring entity. GPPB-TSO PROVISION 1) Section 37.
2 c & d on Eligibility check: “class B” document 1dot
Does not promote competition. 30-day period is too long considering that the whole bidding process takes time already. Simultaneous postqualification be conducted for special projects. shuts out foreign suppliers of ICT goods and services
.23. 4 dots
4) Sec. Post-qualification may differ if done one after the other. Might cause further delays in project implementation. • Must be submitted during postqualification.3.1 dot •
secured after notice of execution of award. 3 dots 3) Post-qualification limitation to LCB/HRB.
2) Late submission of eligibility documents.
3) Indemnification of BAC members. It is recommended that this requirement be deleted. Or a new set of employees other than those temporarily removed from their regular functions to perform BAC duties should be hired whose functions are solely and exclusively for and on account of BAC. no such law exists relative to the procurement of goods and services. It is recommended that this prohibition against the issuance of TROs and injunctions be extended to the procurement of goods and services. • RECOMMENDATIONS While there is a law that prohibits regular courts from issuing TRO/injunction against infrastructure projects of the government. 5 dots BAC membership should be regularized.
4) The 60/40 equity requirement in foreign prospective bidders. 4 dots With the help of DBM. GPPB-TSO FACTORS 1) Regular court’s issuance of TRO and Ombudsman’s cease and desist order or injunction against the BAC. along with the amendment of the Foreign Investments Act 8 RA 9184. KARL DAMIAN. 2 dots This discourages foreign corporations from participating.
5) Absence of quorum in BAC meetings. 1 dot BAC membership should be regularized.
. Or a new set of employees other than those temporarily removed from their regular functions to perform BAC duties should be hired whose
2) Membership in the BAC is an additional function or workload to regular employees.Annex 5 Participants’ Responses to Question 3: Factors that hamper/hinder the implementation of RA 9184 and recommendations to address these factors 1) CATEGORY: GOODS FACILITATOR: MR. a bigger budget should be allocated for the purpose.
• • RECOMMENDATIONS GPPB should set limit of amounts of purchases that requires BAC approval. 1 dot In case of conflict. 18 Reference to brand names is prohibited. CEZAR BELANGEL. CODE-NGO FACTORS 1) Procurement of small value items that still require BAC approval. the IRR of RA 9184 should prevail. 6 dots Government agencies/GOCCs with peculiar activities be allowed to establish their own procurement procedures to be reviewed by GPPB taking into account the provisions of RA 9184 and its IRR. • RECOMMENDATIONS The protest fee should be increased to approximately five percent (5%) in order to discourage frivolous results. 4 dots GOCCs with self-generating incomes should be exempted from RA 9184. GPPB-TSO FACTORS 1) Protest Fee. Encourage lifestyle checks and
2) Corrupt and/or incompetent BAC members.functions are solely and exclusively for and on account of BAC. BRYAN BIGALBAL.
. 7 dots There ought to be a maximum term of 2 years for each members of the BAC.
2) CATEGORY: GOODS FACILITATOR: MR. Moreover. Provide exceptions. 4) In case of conflict between the terms of international treaty or agreement with the IRR of RA 9184. 5) Sec. 2) Each GOCCs/government agency has its own peculiar activities/requirements.
3) CATEGORY: INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATOR: MR. 4 dots
3) No factor stated. ensure that members have no pending administrative cases.
investigation of “doubtful” BAC members. Increase the quantity for repeat orders to 50%. but mandatory in nature. Moreover. 8) GPPB approval is sought. In other words.g. Hence the word “may” should be changed to “shall”.
5) Section 51 on repeat orders. 6 dots The new guidelines must stress and strengthen the independence of BAC in the bidding process. The approval-inquiry phase for matters requiring immediate action (e. Stress the independence of BAC in the conduct of bidding. This provision should not be permissive. •
4) Section 15 on honoraria. Impose maximum term (of 2 years) per BAC member. 3 dots As worded. 2 dots • Additional qualification may be imposed in order to sit or be part of BAC. the provision imposes a 25% ceiling.
6) Non-discretionary or pass/fail criteria.
. BAC should be allowed to evaluate or scrutinize submitted documents. This provision should be deleted to give all capable prospective bidders who have no previous contract yet an opportunity to participate. the function of the BAC must be monitored and superseded by the GPPB. 4 dots The honorarium must be given to BAC members. 1 dot The BAC of the procuring entity should be given sufficient discretion to decide questions pertaining to forms (formal errors). but not on matters relating to the substance of bid documents.. price
• 3) Meddling of certain “personalities”.
7) Requirement for qualification of single largest contract.
5) The BAC Secretariat functions are performed by only one person. • RECOMMENDATIONS This requirement should be repealed or revoked. by the DPWH for infrastructure projects above
. CONSULTANT FACTORS 1) The law requires additional approval or • clearances from higher officials. 3dots The law should create plantilla positions for members of the BAC and the BAC Secretariat.g. • The last sentence of the second paragraph should be deleted. 4) The members of the BAC and the BAC Secretariat are burdened with too much work on top of their regular functions in the office.. e.
1) The law requires additional approval or • clearances from higher officials. 3 dots The IRR should define who is a third ranking official. 1 dot The GPPB should review if there is possibility that the number of required documents could be minimized. 7 dots
6) The law or IRR requires too many documents to be submitted to the BAC which provincial bidders find difficult to follow.. 2 dots The IRR should clearly define the composition of BAC Secretariat and fix its number of members to at least three (including the Chair of the BAC).validity) must be streamlined.g. This requirement should be repealed or revoked. 2 dots
4) CATEGORY: INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATOR: MS. by the DPWH for infrastructure projects above P5 million and the OP for projects above P20 million. 7 dots
The BAC should be able to invite more bidders by exploring other means to publicize biddings. e. 9) Section 52 on shopping. 3) The chairman of the BAC should be a third-ranking permanent official of the procuring entity. NERRISA ESGUERRA. 2) Contractors are using dummy corporations to participate in the bidding process.
4) The members of the BAC and the BAC Secretariat are burdened with too much work on top of their regular functions in the office. • RECOMMENDATIONS Provide for BAC hotline and actively utilize the internet/web for FAQs. Trading). Power. 6 dots Review of GPRA/IRR with consideration on peculiar situations for business/operating activities. 3) GPRA application to Operating Entities (Mining.
5) CATEGORY: CONSULTING FACILITATOR: MS. 2) Contractors are using dummy corporations to participate in the bidding process. 2 dots The IRR should clearly define the composition of BAC Secretariat and fix its number of members to at least three (including the Chair of the BAC). 5) The BAC Secretariat functions are performed by only one person. 3 dots The IRR should define who is a third ranking official. 6 dots There must be a mandatory training sponsored by the Government. Consultant FACTORS 1) Lack of GPPB personnel to answer queries of procuring entities.P5 million and the OP for projects above P20 million. • The BAC should be able to invite more bidders by exploring other means to publicize biddings. 3) The chairman of the BAC should be a third-ranking permanent official of the procuring entity. 3dots The law should create plantilla positions for members of the BAC and the BAC Secretariat. 2) Lack of training for BAC personnel (members and support staff). TINA PAVIA.
6) The law or IRR requires too many documents to be submitted to the BAC which provincial bidders find difficult to follow.
. 1 dot The GPPB should review if there is possibility that the number of required documents could be minimized.
3) Classification of ICT: is it goods or services? •
. • Make registration with PhilGEPS more convenient to suppliers.
5) Track record “similar” to the works to be • undertaken. Re award price vs. • RECOMMENDATIONS Massive education by government through seminars for SME suppliers. Qualified and reasonable suppliers do not participate. the price of goods is therefore expensive. TWG and Secretariat. 1 dot Come up with separate classification for ICT. more efficient processing of payment. GPPB should provide guidelines on postponement. Clear description of BAC functions. 1 dot Provide a regular training. 3 dots There should be sufficient parameters to guide BAC in determining what the word “similar” means.4 dots 4) Negative impression among suppliers that dealing w/ government is full of red tape. prone to investigations. 2 dots Resolution should be disseminated as soon as possible. DENNIS NACARIO.
6) CATEGORY: ICT FACILITATOR: MR. 1 dot A provision w/c pinpoints finality of awards (immunity from audit). 3 dots
• • 2) Lack of rules on postponement of bid opening.
6) COA suspension after award/payment of the project. GPPB-TSO FACTORS 1) Lack of public awareness of GPRA and lack of proper training for BAC. costly. 7) Too much expectation by management on BAC functions. and safeguards in place. canvass. Complete knowledge of the project to be bid.
Definitive classification per stage 1 dot Issue stand on application of scanned signatures on e-procurement & manual procurement 1 dot Include BAC in consultation.• 4) Lack of rules re: e-procurement • inclusion of scanned signatures application. 2 dots
5) Lack of consultations prior to issuance of resolution.
on NGO Observers: they are invited. if they do not come. does the word “agreement” include executive agreements? Sought clarification if this covers Section 4 subparagraph 4. Participant No.Annex 6 Participants’ Comments during Open Forum 1 (Discussion of Draft IRR) 1. 3 . they will commit to use our IRR for national competitive bidding. 2. paragraph 1.concern that delays in submission or non-submission of documents which do not form part of requirements during eligibility deliberations but will be required later in the process from the winning bidder will cause delay in implementation of projects . It is a matter of determining when it is best to submit the documents and we will relay this to the Board for further discussion. 2 . they (development partners) are listening to us.3 which appears to be an exemption.commented that for IT projects with phases.suggested to have the other requirements submitted prior to awarding of the NOA so that the PE is guarded against winning bidders who later will not be able to comply with the rest of the requirements Dir. Any treaty or international/executive agreements shall continue to be observed and remain to be outside the coverage of RA 9184. Therefore. Exec. we believe that we should require those documents that we do not require during the eligibility check to be submitted during the postqualification and that we should not issue the NOA pending submission of those documents. .4.asked if the Notice of Award (NOA) can be revoked if they do not comply with the requirements or if the procuring entity finds out that they falsified the documents they submitted .concern that there are bidders who have not yet registered/filed with the PhilGEPS . What we are appealing is that when we talk to our development partners. it is practical to hire the same group who did previous phases rather than to hire a completely new group. Can they just re-hire?
. We cannot go beyond the law and Section 4 is governed by law. to their credit. Director Ruby Alvarez’ response: said Section 4 remains under RA 9184. but they are not required to attend. 1 – On Section 1.on BAC membership: concern on the requirement for a 3rd highest permanent ranking officer. Participant No. Participant No. 3. Alvarez’ response: Yes. they (PE) cannot do anything about it . also concern that CCP is a very small organization so almost everyone already sits in the BAC.
. but it is still a requirement before the NOA is issued. She added that it has been observed. . Dir. decisions can be made as long as there is quorum.Instead of limited source. Alvarez’ response: . Is this ok? . 4.Participant No. But due process will have to be given to the bidders or contractors
. she explained that this is so primarily because it is prescribed by law. We have existing policies and technical parameters to qualify the millers. but we want to know what you need and hear your suggestions.Director Alvarez said under the law. Limiting the competition to your region will make local suppliers complacent because they know they are preferred. that this inculcates a sense of ownership for the whole procurement process. Also emphasized that it is a collegial body. She added that it is very easy to get a certificate so this should not be an excuse. Clarified that PhilGEPS certification has been taken out of the eligibility requirements. as long as you invited them. The BAC Secretariat also helps a lot especially in terms of scheduling meetings. She clarified that NGOs as Observers should only be invited. etc. and this may be the rationale for putting a 3rd highest ranking person in that position. Lost on whether to go for public bidding or use limited source bidding.Another suggestion to NFA is to blacklist those who do not deliver on their commitment so they do not participate anymore in future biddings of the NFA. .On IT: the technicalities are quite tricky because of issues such as compatibility. it is limited because of the process of eligibility that they have to go through before they can participate in the bidding. You can continue with your bidding even when they do not attend.On BAC membership: said they understand the concern on the requirement for the 3rd highest ranking official chairing the BAC. In a way. The problem is that there are only 2 conditions prescribed for using limited source bidding. a better suggestion is public bidding. Concern is that the technical parameters will limit the number of qualified bidders. However. Participant No. therefore.Re: Observers. . Alvarez’ response: .Dir. we have taken out accreditation in the procurement process because it has given room to subjectivity. . therefore. that is. NFA come up with its own registry system so that you will have a ready list of millers/suppliers who are eligible. with this person having too much already in their hands and BAC duty would be additional work for them.Electronic filing is still a requirement because we are moving towards electronic bidding (through the PhilGEPS). 1 – We want to use limited source bidding in the palay milling activities. Agreed that it is a long process and appealed that everyone helps in this endeavor. 1 said they are crafting some sort of guidelines and have a requirement for bidders to have a certificate of eligibility which certifies that they meet technical parameters. and you gave them a good lead time.
Dir. will that 100%-owned subsidiary undergo the regular competitive bidding when that subsidiary has been purposely created to undertake projects which could not be done by the PE. janitorial.we should have minimum parameters for foreign companies to be able to participate because while some have the expertise more than the local suppliers. Participant No. Alvarez’ response: GPPB has not reconciled the “Cheaper Medicines Law” with RA 9184. PPI has been designated as the central procuring agency for all drugs and medicine procurements. Participant No.agree that it is difficult to deal with foreign entities if they do not have their own representative office here. it would be difficult to run after them. 5 . hauling. we will reconcile it. 6. supposing that the corporation is 100% owned by the procuring entity. bidding small amounts (e.-
Director Alvarez clarified that GPPB agrees with the concerns and there are already available systems to address them but if you believe that your system is a lot better. etc). security.participation of foreign entities. under the new Medicines Act passed by Congress. Participant No. but if it is a law. spareparts) repair and maintenance of equipment and furniture. Can you reconcile the two IRRs? Dir. putting up branches by the bank which was required by BSP.agency-to-agency: does not cover corporations created under BP 168. Alvarez’ response:
. We are prescribing that GPPB can recommend that foreign entities can bid . Alvarez’ response: . 7. 2 . for example.not specific whether foreign corporations are required to have license to do business in the Philippines or not . and related or analogous services . we should be able to protect the interest of the government and procuring entity that those suppliers can comply with the commitments they will make (after-sales service.g. Dir. as well as trucking.concern on alternative modes of shopping (Section 52).
5. 4 – a GOCC registered under BP 168 is excluded in the definition. but suggested that everything should be covered by a contract which a binding legal document. please tell us and we will see how we can incorporate it within the boundaries of the law.or allowed to have a local company to represent them in the local setting for purposes of doing business here .
Alvarez’ response: . Participant No.-
Agency-to-agency: the OGCC rendered an opinion on this and said you don’t have to bid if you are a 100% subsidiary of the procuring agency. it is still an open issue in the resolution 9. but we think that these entities take care of their reputation and ensure that this is not diminished by hiring incompetent people. Shopping threshold of P50k – what is your recommendation?
8.g.yes.commented that the draft IRR could have been sent ahead to the participants so they would have had more time to go over it and prepare for the consultation . we need to think of a good revenue to generate for the government. We thought it may be better to set an ABC in terms of a percentage of the revenue. 2006 which provided. . It is to the best interest of government to have a definite objective. does not capture the peculiarities of some procurement activities. we are talking about absolute figures. among
. we need your comments/inputs to be able to discuss/argue the peculiarity of your situation and other GOCCs.Variation orders and the penalties: yes I think the GPPB has to issue the rules finally and impose sanctions. the subsidiary will have to undergo the bidding process like any other suppliers. procurement of a long term operator of the expressway. e.Eligibility requirements: Thinks it would be better to keep some requirements during the eligibility check to weed out nuisance participants. This however. heard your concerns and will bring this up to the GPPB.g. But if that subsidiary wants to service agencies other than the agency that created it. Dir.About variation orders: IRR limits this to 10%. . . while at the same time. Commented that the rule is weak: have no feet to stand on or teeth to be enforced because there is no sanction/penalty. e.Track record: we understand the differences between the juridical entity (corporation) and the warm bodies. probably expand the definition of ABC vis-à-vis income generating projects. Understand your concern. 7 – Section 53B (on emergency procurement) – with reference to GPPB Memorandum Order 213 dated May 8.Noted the comment that fees on bidding documents should be reasonable. . Maintenance of the expressway would vary from year-to-year subject to certain conditions.Track record: yes we look at juridical entity and not at people who make up the entity because our laws recognize the juridical entity. The only procurement category where we look at the person’s technical capability is for consulting services. 6 . Participant No. Raised concern about an old company but the staff may be new and lack expertise and experience.ABC: from the definition of the ABC. Can the IRR have a provision that allows looking at technical capacity of people instead? . Also commented that fees for bidding documents should be reasonable. .
my suggestion is prequalification. But we don’t want to do that going against any legal mandate that you have. 9 .it is because our development partners are using 2%. 10. Alvarez’ response: . The problem is a lot of government agencies have encountered problems just doing that. Once you have inspected and you are ready to issue your certificate of acceptance.others. Performance security applies at this time and the retention money is still there. We need to discuss this further and talk to GSIS. Then the warranty provision takes effect.On amount of 2% bid security. After the infra project. This is why the issuance of the security bond is now open to other insurance companies accredited by the PE other than GSIS.concern on application of warranties and defect liability period (DLP). she noted that these are not part of the draft IRR. we ask the bidders to submit security from GSIS
. question on how you arrived at the 2%? Dir. We will ask our development partners how they arrived at the 2%. Participant No.Warranty concern. the process wherein Procurement under Section 53B may be undertaken. If bidding entity do not deliver the documents. 1 – Section 39 on submission of performance security: every time we conduct the bidding.Agree on the 30 days concern. Participant No. . Are we going to pay the contractor the full payment after the completion or after the acceptance? . 8 .How we came up with the 2% of the ABC as bid security . In case this is left as is.15 years warranty may not be acceptable to the bidders Dir.Commented hearing about difficulties encountered in securing security bond from GSIS. Alvarez’ response: . that would mean 30 days of delay.Concern on 30 days period given to submission of documents of winning bidder. Suggested to bring these documents back in the eligibility requirements or reduce the 30 days. 11. Suggested to discuss in detail during breakout the confusion in the application of performance bond versus warranty. Asked if the BAC of the procuring entity is now given the leeway to negotiate procurement under emergency nature or will GPPB be including provisions regarding this in particular. We understand that there is an Executive Order that mandates government agencies to secure surety from GSIS. . you don’t pay in full yet because you have to inspect. . you then release the retention and performance security ends. 12. Participant No.
Alvarez’ response: Noted the confusion and urged to discuss this further doing breakout. Referred to Section 62. So we received this offer that they will procure it for us. He commented that under permanent structures which are entitled to a 15-year warranty. Under semi-permanent structures which are entitled to a 5-year warranty period.Revisit Section 62.only and there is always a complaint on this. however. 10 – Follow up on the warranty period. . applicable infra projects include. 11 . Participant No. so our bidders say that they should be allowed to secure surety from other private insurance companies and not be compelled to secure this just from GSIS. Participant No.Postponement of the opening of bids to insulate you from the pressures: this is easier said than done. will we be violating RA 9184? Dir. If we agree. the retention of 10% is quite big. you should not have a problem with that. but let’s discuss more during FGD.2 of the IRR with respect to permanent and semi-permanent structures. 13. Alvarez’ response: . Can provisions be just similar to those that apply to infra.Section 39 on performance security – can the responsibility/discretion of accrediting entities who can issue the security bond be taken out of the procuring entity to take away notions of favoritism. as an example. 12 – We received a proposal from the International Civil Aviation Organization wherein they will procure for us certain navigation equipment such as radars which do not get replaced often so it is difficult to find out the specifications to look for if we conduct the bidding ourselves. Alvarez’ response: There is a provision in the law that would allow you to outsource the procurement activity itself.
. applicable infra projects include. saying that there is usually a dilemma due to “pressures exerted”.Postponement of bid opening: it may be good if there is a set of rules guiding the BAC on postponement of bid opening. as an example.1 on warranty of goods. 15.2. He said they encounter problems with bidders who want to insist on applying the 5-year warranty instead of the 15-year warranty. Dir. . so as long as rules of the Philippines will be followed. 14. Participant No. RA 9184 allows the submission of security bond from other insurance companies accredited by the PE. . municipal ports and rock causeways. etc. He sought clarification on descriptions and qualifications of infra projects to avoid any confusions and arguments with bidders. Dir. ports and causeways. We will look and study if these will address the concerns raised by the PEs.insurance/security bond – there are certain development in the rules of the insurance commission that would make the accreditation more updated.
Who will certify that there is no suitable substitute that can be obtained from other sources? . who issues the certificate of distributorship – the Philippine company or the foreign company? .Section 36 – what if we only have one bidder? Can we just declare that one bidder the winner of the bid? Dir. With respect to the lone bidder and the word “considered”. But point is well-taken and said that maybe we could look at other forms of compensating the BAC members other than through honoraria. The tax clearance and latest income statements were actually not taken out. 14 – Noted that among the documents required from the bidder is the filing of the financial statements stamped “received” by the BIR. but we are trying to determine at what stage it is best to be required. Participant No. 18.Section 51A – repeat orders: we already conducted competitive bidding before we entered into contract with the supplier. . and yet when we place repeat orders.on BAC honorarium: under the law. this is determined by DBM considering the over-all compensation system of government.
. Much lower ABC. . she said. responsibilities on their shoulders and the risks involved.Submitted a list of questions to GPPB.Commented on the discrepancies in cost of bid documents giving as an example that sometimes the amount of bid docs for a project with an ABC of P30 million is cheaper than the bid docs for a project with a much. 17. is required not just to determine whether the bidder is paying their taxes but also to know if they have been complying with the track record and the NFCC. we still have to verify? . Alvarez’ response: The audited FS. Alvarez’ response: Acknowledged receipt of the list of questions submitted and said GPPB would be open to a meeting to address the NPC concerns. she said “considered” is there because there are conditions that must be met before getting “considered”. . Participant No. 15 . Dir. Dir. Suggested to include tax clearance and the latest income statement because the basis on whether the FS received by the BIR may be verified with these documents. 13 .Hopes that the provisions for alternative modes of procurement can be simplified further. Participant No.Section 50C – direct contracting: if the principal is abroad. Alvarez’ response: .16.Per diem of BAC members: should rethink this because of the hard times.
We welcome suggestions to further simplify the procedures on alternative modes of procurement. Who shall certify: there are no hard and fast rules.
. We leave it up to the procuring entity based on accountable and transparent decisions. and it shouldn’t be too low On repeat orders: verification is to guard the specifications of the goods procured and ensure that the re-ordered goods meet the same specs.-
On bid documents. agreed that it shouldn’t be too high to stifle competition.
Alvarez said there are ways not to entertain entities. why should they be exempt? Participant No. 5 – reference to GPPB opinion that bidders with pending cases cannot be disqualified pending a decision of the courts. Question for Consulting group – for mining/trading groups. 2. they cannot sell at a good price because the ABC was set and more or less. but procedures must be followed and not make decisions out of whim.Annex 7 Participants’ Comments during Open Forum 2 (Discussion/Clarification of Break Out Session Outputs) Dir. 4. 3. Alvarez’ comments and clarifications to some points reported by the groups after the break out session: 1.
. 17 explained that the issue is not really for ICT but for procurement of some highly specialized goods. Cezar Belangel – for income-generating corporations. Participant No. Question for Goods Group under Mr. The concern is that. including other matters related to crafting the IRR that were not yet discussed during the Consultations. Alvarez encouraged participants to email GPPB their specific recommendations on the items that were raised during the open forum or in the break out sessions. He asked why they should transact with someone they don’t like? Dir. why do they have to be exempt from RA 9184? She requested for specific recommendations to be emailed to GPPB. Ruby said that the best recommendation she heard is the 24/7 GPPB assistance and will work on that. Then they would re-sell it to the market. 16 responded: cited a case where they conducted bidding for coal. 18 added that simultaneous testing is recommended so that the testing for these highly specialized goods is done under the same environmental conditions. Ruby noted the concern. Participant No. buyers already know at what price we got the coal. Participant No. Dir. ICT group – suggestion on simultaneous post-qualification (testing and inspection) for special projects. one is by filing a case or by blacklisting.