WHAT HAPPENS IF THE MEMBER OF THE BAC PARTICULARLY THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

VIOLATED THE NO CONTRACT RULE UNDER SECTION 32.1 OF THE 2016 REVISED IRR OF R.A 9184.

One of the Government National Agencies under the State University and Colleges (SUC) conducted public
bidding for their electronic enrollment management system. There were four (4) prospective bidders who
purchased bid documents. But only three (3) participated during the preliminary examination of bids to
which one of the bidders was disqualified due to late submission of their bids on time. The Two (2)
remaining bidders passed the technical and financial requirements.

During the preliminary examination of bids, Bidder A declared the Lowest Calculated Bid (LCB) as read,
and during the bid evaluation conducted by the TWG (newly designated), he called the BAC Secretariat
Office and asked for the contact number of Bidder A to which the person he talked to was also a new
member of the secretariat office. Without any hesitation, on the part of the BAC Sec personnel, she
obliged the request of the TWG without consulting her immediate supervisor in the person of the Head
of BAC Sec.

The Head of the BAC Sec then was on official business for four (4) days and on the last day of his trip he
was surprised to read in the official email address of the office that Bidder A submitted another technical
document about the said project. He immediately called his office and asked why bidder A submitted
another technical document and in fact, the opening of bids was already conducted. When the member
of the BAC Secretariat explained to him what transpired, he told her that they violated the NO CONTACT
RULE.

The Head of the BAC secretariat immediately called the BAC Chairman and explained to him what
happened, the BAC Chairman ordered the secretariat office to schedule an emergency meeting on the
next working day to resolve the issue.

During the meeting, the BAC warned both the TWG and the BAC Sec member that a sanction may be
meted on them for violating section 32.1. The majority decision of the BAC was to post-disqualified Bidder
A due to their failure to submit the technical requirement needed under the technical specifications even
though the TWG requested them to submit the document during the bid evaluation. The BAC ordered the
secretariat to prepare the letter of post-disqualification to Bidder A.

The secretariat transmitted the letter on the next working day and it was received by bidder A on the
same day, after three (3) days Bidder A filed a motion for reconsideration and it was not the bidder itself
who filed the motion but thru their company lawyer. The Law firm questioned the BAC on why they
disqualified their client (Bidder A) to which they mentioned Section 30.1 of the 2016 Revised IRR of R.A
9184 to which it was clearly stated “The BAC shall open the first bid envelopes in public to determine each
bidder’s compliance with the documents required to be submitted for eligibility and the technical
requirements, as prescribed in this IRR check the submitted documents of each bidder against a checklist
of required documents to ascertain if they are all present, using a non-discretionary “pass/fail” criterion,
as stated in the Instructions to Bidders. If a bidder submits the required document, it shall be rated
“passed” for that particular requirement. In this regard, bids that fail to include any requirement or are
incomplete or patently insufficient shall be considered as “failed.” Otherwise, the BAC shall rate the said
first bid envelope as “passed.” The BAC should disqualify their client during the preliminary examination
of bids as it lacked one of the requirements in the technical specification being required by the Procuring
Entity.

But instead, during the bid evaluation, the TWG member assigned to this project asked for the submission
of the document that was lacking under the technical specifications during the opening of bids and they
complained that the BAC still disqualified their client even though they just followed the request of the
TWG.

According to the BAC, the motion filed by bidder A through their lawyer are all true and correct.

What will be the next step or decision of the BAC?

a.) Can the BAC declare a failure of bidding under section 35 of RA 9184?
b.) Can the HoPE use Section 41 of the revised IRR of RA 9184?
c.) Are both the TWG and BAC Secretariat personnel entitled to sanctions?