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.)

1
Provisions
Section 37 on Notice of Execution of
Award
Section 23 on Eligibility Requirements
Section 52 on Shopping as an alternative
mode of procurement
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.
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.
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.
Recommendations
• This requirement should be repealed or
revoked.
7 dots
• 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
2
 Lack of training for BAC personnel • There must be a mandatory training
(members and support staff). 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)

3
 Annex 1
List of Participants

NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE EMAIL

1 Atty. Regina Salve R. Lapuz BCDA rrlapuz@bcda.gov.ph
2 Jeannine Escolano BCDA 816-6666 loc 133 jaescolano@bcda.gov.ph
3 B.M.E. Alaras BCDA 866-6666 bealaras@bcda.gov.ph
4 Wilfredo S. Borja CAAP 879-9259 wilborja_aeb@yahoo.com
5 Cecilia E. Funtinilla CCP 832-3667 eyang14@yahoo.com
6 Eva Mari Salvado CCP 832-3624
7 Felicisima S. Rondolo CDC (045) 599-9000 loc 611 FelyRondolo@clark.com.ph
8 Rolet. T. De Dios CDC (045) 599-9000 loc 821 roletdedios@clark.com.ph
9 Pepito M. Galang CDC 0915-9062177
10 Sec. Rolando Andaya DBM
11 Dolores Santiago DBP 815-1831
12 Mario Pagaragan DBP 893-4912
13 Ryan A. Martinez FTI 838-4597 atty.ryanmartinez@yahoo.com.ph
14 Nori Plazo FTI 0918-9115469 plazo@mail.landbank.com
15 Myrna Villarica FTI
16 Ricardo S. Arlanza LBP 405-7678
17 Robert Uy MIAA robert_b_uy@yahoo.com
18 Leonor C. Cleofas MWSS 920-5413 bcleofas@gmail.com
19 Benjamin F. Rabuco III NDC 840-4838
20 Mariflor Pelayo-Reyes NDC 840-4838 mflpelayo@yahoo.com
21 Saturnino Mejia NDC 840-4838 shm9@hotmail.com
22 Noel G. Hernandez NEA 926-1302 noelgh1232002@yahoo.com
23 Leila B. Bonifacio NEA 929-2203 bonifaciola@nea.gov.ph
24 Efren J. Sabong NFA 0917-8595098
25 Saturnino R. Rola Jr. NFA 927-9787
26 Ruben Reside NFA 977-9787 rubenreside@yahoo.com
27 Victor C. Balba NHA 929-5850 vicbalba@yahoo.com
28 Mary Joy De Guzman - Baybay NHA 922-3321 joylaw@ymail.com
29 Mark Natalio M. Sumisim NHMFC mark.sumimsim@nhmfc.gov.ph
30 Rosabella C. Jose NHMFC 893-0491 rosabellajose@yahoo.com
31 Rodolfo N. Erbon NHMFC 892-5522
32 Genever Dionio NIA 926-2566 reveneg23@yahoo.com
33 Reynaldo C. Valerio NIA 929-6070 to 78 loc 184
34 Alexander A. Reuyan NIA 0917-5011344 drenyan@gmail.com
35 Delfin L. Buenafe II NPC 926-1837 dlbuenafe@napocor.gov.ph
36 Edmund P. Anguluan NPC 921-2737 epanguluan@napocor.gov.ph
37 Melburgo S. Chiu NPC 922-8730 mschiu@napocor.gov.ph
38 Maria Lourdes Jose PAGCOR 521-2200 marialourdes.jose@pagcor.ph
39 Lizette F. Mortel PAGCOR 521-8552 lizette.mortel@pagcor.ph
40 Marissa Orpilla PCSO 740-0494 mforpilla_esg@yahoo.com.ph
41 Christine J. Galanida PCSO 0919-4611094
42 Maripaz A. Magsalin PCSO 740-0325
43 M. Valera PHIC 0928-5061202

4
44 Octavino Q. Esguerra PHIC 687-1939 svp_actuary@philhealth.gov.ph
45 Alfredo R. Monzod, Jr. Phil.Rec. Auth. 817-4711 armjr031252@yahoo.com.ph
46 Freddie T. Remo Philexim 0917-3270334 ftremo@philexim.gov.ph
47 Alex B. Cañaveral PhilHealth 0917-5033558
48 Sophia T. Borja PhilRICE 456-0441 stborja@philrice.gov.ph
49 Hazel Jane M. Orge PhilRICE 0921-3385589
50 Evangeline B. Sibayan PhilRICE 0920-9473690
51 Auria C. Cosio PhilRICE 544-4560 loc 113 accosio@philrice.gov.ph
52 Hyessa S. Suegay PhilRICE (088) 5670315 hye_sue@yahoo.com
53 Victoria Magcase PITC 892-1190 v.magcase@pitc.gov.ph
54 Atty. Steve Roldan PITC 0921-3079122
55 Mario Leygo PITC 892-1560
56 Christabelle P. Ebriega PITC 892-3740 cpebriega@pitc.gov.ph
57 Carmelita Belen Domondon PITC 878-9801 maydommon@pitc.gov.ph
58 Atty. Alejandro Rodriguez, Jr. PITC-Pharma 0917-8505353 arrodrigiez@deszr.com
59 Bernadette B. Jugan PNOC 812-6189 bbjugan@pnoc.com.ph
60 Monette Matibag PNOC 812-5988 rdmatibag@pnoc.com.ph
61 Lino Calaor PNOC 812-6209 lggcalaor@pnoc.com.ph
62 Glenda G. Martinez PNOC 840-1465 ggmartinez@pnoc.com.ph
63 Atty. Fe L. Guirnalda PNOC EC 0920-9028701 mlguirnalda@pnoc-ec.com
64 Clarissa T. Mirano PNOC EC 0917-8419509 ctmirano@pnoc-ec.com
65 C. M. Magsombol PNOC EC 840-2044 cmagsombol@pnoc-ec.com.ph
66 David Simon PPA 301-9064 drs@ppa.com
67 Arnel F. Reyes PPA 527-4436 arnelreyes1@yahoo.com
68 Floro C. Urcia PRA 817-4711
69 Karen Villamil PRA 817-4711 kay_villamil@yahoo.com
70 Cristina Millan SBMA 0917-8878918
71 Robert S. Martinez SBMA (047) 252-4130 docmartinez@yahoo.com
72 Marcelino Sangui SBMA (047) 252-4874
73 Eugenia Sinnung TIDCORP 893-4758 eosinnung@philexim.gov.ph

74 Joey Alegre AF 911-9792 afonline@info.com.ph

75 Norman Jiao Consultant 911-9792 afonline@info.com.ph
76 Cathy Gonzales Consultant 0918-9007374
77 Tina V. Pavia Consultant 0917-8206817 tina_pavia@yahoo.com
78 Nerrisa Esguerra Consultant
79 Cezar Belangel CODE-NGO 0927-5984708 cbelangel@codengo.org
80 Tess Garcia CIDA-E3 637-4427
81 Ver Peña CIDA-E3
82 Cecille Vales World Bank cvales@worldbank.org
83 GCC Al Agra OGCC
84 Adzra A. Arbison OGCC 0917-8810855 Adz_Arbison@yahoo.com
85 Ferdinand Redulla OGCC 0918-9067378 fbredulla@yahoo.com
86 Jun Santos OGCC 436-4456 junjunsantos@yahoo.com
87 Owen M. Vidad OGCC 436-3793 ojmv07@yahoo.cm
88 Aniceto Calubaquib OGCC 436-3793 jayccal@yahoo.com
89 John Salom OGCC 0917-8961298 jsalom@yahoo.com
90 Ruby alvarez GPPB

5
91 Emiluisa Peñano GPPB 0920-9004840 emiluisapenano@yahoo.com
92 Dimpna O. Lejos GPPB 900-6741 dlejos@yahoo.com
93 Dennis Nacario GPPB 900-6741 dlsnacario@gmail.com
94 Karl Paulo C. Damian GPPB 900-6741 karlpaulo@yahoo.com
95 Warren Paul Nicdao GPPB 900-6741

6
 Annex 2
List of Activities Actually Conducted at the Consultation

Time Activity Person(s) Responsible

Morning
9:15 Opening Prayer
Singing of the National Anthem
9:25 Welcome Remarks GCC Atty. Al Agra, OGCC

Sec. Rolando Andaya, DBM

9:35 Program Overview and Introduction Mr. Oman Jiao, Consultant

of Participants & Facilitator
9:43 Overview of the Draft IRR Executive Director Ruby
Alvarez, GPPB-TSO
10:14 Open Forum

Afternoon
12:00 Lunch Break

1:00 Break Out Session

3:30 Plenary Session & Group Reports
1. Goods Group Mr. Karl Damian
2. Goods Group Mr. Cezar Belangel
3. Infra Group Mr. Bryan Bigalbal
4. Infra Group Ms. Nerrisa Esguerra
5. Consulting Group Ms. Tina Pavia
6. ICT Group Mr. Dennis Nacario

4:26 Open Forum

4:47 Closing Remarks Ms. Cecile Valles, World
Bank

7
 Annex 3
Participants’ Responses to Question 1:
Provisions that best promote the GPRA Principles

Category & Facilitator Provisions

1. GOODS 1. Section 13 which promotes “enhanced transparency” and

particularly 13.4 thereof, a more participative involvement
Facilitator: through the engagement of observers. Moreover, the
Mr. Karl Damian, GPPB- provision provides accountability and “preparedness” from
TSO the members of the BAC who are encouraged to know,
understand and be more prepared in the performance of
their duties.
2. Section 2 “encompasses the declaration of the state” on the
rationale behind the creation of the GPRA.
3. Rule XXIII which lays down the provisions on
administrative sanctions attaches accountability on
prospective bidders.
4. Section 19 on access to information encourages and
promotes transparency “in all stages of the preparation of
the bidding documents.”
5. 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.
6. Section 29 and the pertinent provisions on eligibility
requirements and post-evaluation all promote transparency
and competitiveness in the procurement process.

2. GOODS 1. Section 23 - Eligibility requirements for the procurement

of goods and infrastructure projects.
Facilitator: 2. The presence of observers as a means of promoting
Mr. Cezar Belangel, transparency.
CODE-NGO 3. Section 32 – Bid evaluation for the procurement of goods
and infrastructure.
4. Posting of performance/security bonds ensures
accountability.
5. The requirement of publication, posting of invitation to bid
and results of bidding or alternative mode of procurement
in newspapers, PHILGEPS website promotes transparency
and competitive bidding.
6. The process of post qualification is a means of promoting
accountability.
7. The power of the BAC to require submissions of other
necessary documents prior to the issuance of the notice of

8
 award.
8. The inclusion of a provision of the technical description
requirement is one way where the bidding process is
streamlined.

3. INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Section 23.1 requires the submission of eligibility

requirements in the technical proposal envelope. This
Facilitator: promotes streamlined procurement process.
Mr. Bryan Bigalbal, 2. Section 4.3 provides that all foreign-funded procurement
GPPB-TSO activities be done through competitive bidding. This
provision promotes transparency, competitiveness and a
system of accountability.
3. Section 6 which requires the use of standardized forms
promote streamlines procurement process.
4. Section 13 which requires the presence of Observers
promotes transparency.
5. Section 20 on pre-procurement conference promotes
streamlined procurement process.
6. Section 23.3 which requires the utilization of BAC-
prepared forms and a set of criteria, promotes transparency,
competitiveness and streamlined procurement process.
7. Sections 25.3 B and 24.4 B on the submission of technical
proposals promote competitiveness.
8. Sections 23.6.2, sub-paragraphs 3a and 5 on the eligibility
of prospective bidders promote competitiveness.
9. Section 31 which provides for a ceiling of bid prices
promote competitiveness, accountability and public
monitoring.
10. Section 37.1 on notice and execution of awards promote
competitiveness.

4. INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Section 13, Rule IV - The BAC shall invite during the
procurement process two observers.
Facilitator: 2. Section 21.21, Rule VII - The bid documents shall be
Ms. Nerrisa Esguerra, posted at the procuring entity’s website.
Consultant 3. Section 27.1, Rule VIII – All bids shall be accompanied by
a bid security.
4. Rule III – The procurement shall be done by electronic
means.
5. Section 47, Rule VI – Disclosure of relations promotes
transparency.
6. Rule XXI – Penal clauses promote the principle of
accountability.
7. Section 22, Rule VII – Pre-bid conference may be
conducted before the opening of bid.

9
5. CONSULTING 1. Section 8, Rule 3 – procurement by electronic means and
PHILGEPS promotes transparency.
Facilitator: 2. Section 21.2 – advertising and posting of the invitation to
Ms. Tina Pavia, bid / requests for expressions of interest promotes
Consultant transparency.
3. Section 23 – simplification of required documents for the
eligibility check allows small businesses to participate and
foster competitiveness.
4. Section 33 – bid evaluation and short-listed bidders. 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.
5. Section 10 on competitive bidding promotes full
transparency.
6. Rule 5, Section 13 on Observers – This provision allows
observers to actively participate to streamline the process
of procurement.
7. Section 29 on Bid Opening – This is an avenue where all
parties involved (i.e., BAC, Observers, bidders) meet,
hence, it provides a system of accountability and more
transparency.
8. Rule XVII on Protest Mechanism – This provision amply
protects BAC members from the harassment suits by
bidders.

6. ICT 1. Sec. 20 on Pre-Procurement Conference promotes

accountability and transparency.
Facilitator: 2. Sec. 16 on Professionalization of BAC, TWG Members
Mr. Dennis Nacario, and Procurement Units promotes accountability.
GPPB-TSO 3. Sec. 32.3 “no contact rule” Members of the BAC,
including its staff and personnel, as well as its Secretariat
and TWG, are prohibited from making or accepting any
verbal communication….. promotes accountability and
transparency.
4. Sec. 10 on Competitive Bidding.
5. Sec. 23.1 on eligibility documents as part of technical
proposal promotes streamline process.
6. Sec 22 on Pre-bid Conference promotes transparency.
7. Sec. 19 on Access to Information promotes transparency
and competitiveness.
8. Sec. 21 on Advertising & Contents promotes transparency.
9. Sec. 13 on Observers promotes transparency.

10

Participants’ Responses to Question 2:
Provisions that should be revised or not included in the draft IRR and why
1) CATEGORY: GOODS
FACILITATOR: MR. KARL DAMIAN, GPPB-TSO
PROVISION
1) Section 45 on provincial
bidders.
4 dots
2) Section 43 on
procurement of domestic
and foreign goods.
2 dots
3) Section 49 on limited
source bidding.
2 dots
4) Section 11.2.1 (5) on
provisional members.
2 dots
Annex 4
REASON RECOMMENDED
ACTION
• Said provision should be • Amend.
amended or altogether deleted
since it defeats the purpose of
public bidding. The
determination by the BAC of the
winning bidder should be
enough. The rationale for the law
is to “strike better terms and
prices” and giving preference to
provincial bidders defeats this
purpose. Unlike in procurement
of infrastructure which requires
technical qualifications, all it
takes for the provincial bidder to
do in procurement of goods is to
match the price.
• The provision should be • Amend.
amended or deleted since it also
contravenes the rationale behind
public bidding. The GLAG Law
which is the basis for the above
provision is already trite and
outdated.
• The provision should be deleted • Delete.
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.
• This should be amended or • Amend or
deleted since the inclusion of the delete.
representative of the end-user
can only lead to corruption. The
BAC regular members for
11

5) Section 23.6.1.2 on
eligibility criteria.
1 dot
6) Section 37 on notice of
execution of award.
1 dot
7) Section 52 (a)
8) Section 53 (a)
9) Section 41.1 (c )
2) CATEGORY: GOODS
FACILITATOR: MR. CEZAR BELANGEL, CODE-NGO
PROVISION
1) Section 37.1 • This provision will not
6 dots
2) Section 52 B, last • The inclusion of the last
paragraph – “However,
office supplies shall not
purposes of decision-making
should already suffice.
• This should be deleted or • Amend to
amended. The experience consider
requirement will disqualify relevant
otherwise very qualified experience in
prospective bidders from lieu of
bidding. prescribed
period.
• It is proposed that the documents • Amend.
that are required to be submitted
prior to the issuance of the notice
of award be submitted during
post-qualification.
• This should be amended to
require submission of price
quotations.
• This should be amended or
deleted because the BAC may
deliberately “fail” the bidding to
allow for negotiated
procurement.
• Should be amended to include
“insufficiency” of funds and
“nullification” of the bidding
process.
REASON RECOMMENDED
ACTION
• The group recommends
shorten the time for that the 30-day period
procurement process. In this within which a bidder
section, an additional 30 should comply with
days is added in the existing other documents be
bidding period. scrapped and that the old
provision be retained.
• Revise last sentence.
paragraph of Section 52-B
will give away the
12
include services such as flexibility of the procuring
repair and maintenance entity in using the shopping
of equipment and method for the procurement
furniture as well as of items of small value.
trucking, hauling,
janitorial, security and
related or analogous
services.”
6 dots

3) Section 38 - Period of • Procurement process is • Review provision.

Action on Procurement
Activities – 120 days
procurement process
period.
4 dots
quite too long. Suppliers
may opt to use the
maximum allowed time in
complying with other
documents/ requirements. 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.

4) Request for • Does not promote

Reconsideration streamlined process.
Provision – prolongs the
process.
3 dots

5) Sec. 26 Modification • Allowing modification or • Modification/withdrawal

and Withdrawal of withdrawal may encourage of bids after submission
submitted bids before collusion among bidders. should not be allowed.
the deadline.
2 dots

6) Sec. 53.j Negotiated • Delete.

Procurement,
specifically NGO
Contract.
1 dot

7) Sec. 4.3 Executive

agreements should also
have definite
qualifications / limits /
safeguards.

13
1 dot
8) Price Adjustment – all •
bid prices shall be
considered as fixed • Price adjustment should be
prices.
3) CATEGORY: INFRASTRUCTURE
FACILITATOR: MR. BRYAN BIGALBAL, GPPB-TSO
PROVISION
1) Section 52 which state
that shopping is a method
of procurement of goods.
7 dots
2) Sections 23 and 24 on
eligibility requirements.
3 dots
3) Section 18 on reference
to brand names.
3 dots
4) Section 42.2 on contract
implementation and
termination.
Create conflict with other
gov’t policies.
qualified relative to existing
policies on PADPAO rates
for procurement of security
services.
REASON RECOMMENDED
ACTION
• The provision on shopping must • Clarify the mode
not be limited to the procurement of procurement
of goods only. For instance, for infra costing
services (like repair or 250k
maintenance work) must be
included. Finally, there must be a
provision that will govern
transactions or procurement
activities in the amount of P50k
to P250k.
• The extensive list of eligibility • Retain old
requirements does not promote provision.
streamlined procurement
process. Moreover, 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.
• It is hard to determine • Amend.
specifications of materials due to
lack or absence of testing
laboratories.
• This provision must be reviewed • Review and
and revised because it does not possibly revise.
promote public monitoring.
14
2 dots

5) Section 37.2.3 on • The documents forming part of

documents needed. the contract are too voluminous.
2 dots

6) Section 23.6.2 sub- • This provision limits • Reduce 5yrs

paragraph 3 which requires competition. experience to 3.
prospective bidders to have • Reduce 70% to
“xxx successful experience 50%.
xxx in the last five years
xxx.”

7) Section 37.1 • This provision does not promote • This should be

streamlined procurement. reviewed
• It appears that Section 37.1 is “in further.
conflict” with Section 37.3 on
contract signing.

8) Section 61 on contract • This provision does not address • Revise.

prices. peculiarities of contracts where
foreign denominated
components are subject to
variations in exchange rate
fluctuations.

9) Section 7 on • The APP updating should be

procurement planning. done judiciously at the pre-
procurement-entity level, i.e., in
cases where budget flexibility is
allowed.

10) Section 23.6.1 No.3 • This limits competition. • Make this open
TFC-NFCC. Why limit to all banks.
CLC from universal or
commercial banks only?

11) Section 8 Procurement • Does not promote transparency, • Manual

by Electronic Means. etc. because not everybody has procurement.
access on information relating to
procurement process.

4) CATEGORY: INFRASTRUCTURE
FACILITATOR: MS. NERRISA ESGUERRA, CONSULTANT

15
 PROVISION
1) Section 37.1 - The bidder •
has to submit remaining
documentary requirements
within 30 calendar days.
5 dots
REASON RECOMMENDED
ACTION
The additional 30 calendar days • Restore old
could cause tremendous delay in provision.
the bidding process especially if
bidder fails to comply with this
requirement or is found
ineligible after post-evaluation.

2) Section 45 – Provincial • This provision gives undue • Delete.

bidders have the right to advantage to provincial bidders.
match the lowest calculated
bid.
3 dots

3) Section 23.6.2 - Bidders • Tax clearances issued by the BIR

are required to submit tax has a different validity period.
clearance as part of the
eligibility requirements
during post-evaluation.
3 dots

4) Section 32.4.2 – Bids • There is difficulty in computing • Include taxes,

submitted by bidders are the correct amount of taxes to be levies and
required to include the cost paid. duties.
of taxes, fiscal levies and
duties.
2 dots

5) Section 62.2 – Bid • The strict wording required • Retention

documents require strict for under the bid documents may money of the
the bank guarantee, i.e., the disqualify otherwise qualified contractor
guarantee should refer only bidders. should only be
to the specific project. released after
2 dots the one year
defects liability
period.
• Warranty
security should
be posted during
the one (1) year
Defects Liability
Period.

6) Section 12.1 – The BAC • The BAC is left to justify the • Delete.
may recommend the use of need for alternative methods of

16
alternative methods of
procurement.
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.
1 dot
8) Section 62 - The
contractor is required to
provide warranty security.
9) Section 11.2.4 - The
head of procuring entity
may extend the term of
BAC members.
1 dot
10) Section 32.4.2 – Taxes
shall be itemized in the
bids.
11) Section 40.1 – The bid
security shall be forfeited if
bidder is unable or refuses
to submit eligibility
documents.
1 dot
12) Section 22 – Pre-bid
conference may be
conducted before the
opening of bids.
5) CATEGORY: CONSULTING
FACILITATOR: MS. TINA PAVIA, Consultant
PROVISION
1) Section 42 – Contract
procurement to the head of
procuring entity.
The amount of P50k (or even • Increase
P250k) is too low. shopping
amount to
P500k.
• The requirement of warranty
security adds to project cost. At
any rate, the completed project is
already covered by property
insurance.
• The procuring entity should give • Limit term
opportunities to other employees extension.
of the GOCC.
• There s difficulty in computing
correct amount of payable taxes.
• The forfeiture of bid security • Delete.
could cause the bidders to file an
ombudsman case against the
members of the BAC.
• Bidders use pre-bid conference
as a venue to promote their own
products.
REASON RECOMMENDED
ACTION
• The provision is not clear how • Expand the
17
implementation and BAC can check the compliance provision to
termination. by the consultant of the contract ensure
7 dots prior to payment, hence, compliance of
payment can be made even deliverables and
without delivering the services in provide penalty
accordance with the contract. to those who
BAC has no means to monitor approved it.
compliance.

2) Section 24.1.5 – Short- • BAC simply relies on the

listing of prospective justification of the proponent, so
bidders. the consultant is either short-
5 dots listed or negotiated. The criteria
for short-listing are suggested by
the proponent.

3) Section 24.13 • The provision does not provide • To exempt BAC

4 dots for a ceiling as to how many from the
motions for reconsideration pertinent
(MR) can be filed by ineligible provision of
consultants. Even if subsequent RA6713
MRs are mere rehash of the first “15days to reply
MR, the BAC still has to act on xxx”.
subsequent MRs because RA • Reply only to
6713 requires public officers to the first MR
respond to letter.
letters/correspondences within
15 days from receipt.

4) Section 37.1 on Notice • Would likely result to undue • Retain former

and Execution of Award. delay in case (CRB / HRRB fail) provision.
Proposed amendment to comply. Another post-
would allow certain qualification will have to be
documentary requirements conducted.
to be submitted as condition
precedent to NOA.
2 dots

5) Section 53.f (ii) – • Trust & confidence are reasons (suggested

negotiated procurement on for hiring. revision in
hiring of consultants. wording)
1 dot • (ii) Primarily….
latter; provided
that sufficient
justifications are
presented for the

18
 hiring of the
consultant and
the fee is
reasonable.
6) Section 53 on Negotiated • Negotiated procurement tend to
Procurement. favor the proponent – it will
maximize the ABC

7) Sec. 17 Form and • ABC results to failed bidding in • ABC to be kept

Contents of Bidding case of price fluctuations. internal to
Documents. procuring entity.
• Bidders maximize price ceiling. • Procuring entity
8) 17.1.a Approved Budget should have
for the Contract. flexibility to
vary ABC, say
up to +10%, to
address price
fluctuation.

9) Section 33.3.3 paragraph • Some consultancy projects are • The entire

3 - Evaluation process….. developmental in nature & evaluation
21 calendar days. require study for good quality. process ….
Especially if the consultancy is Shall be
not the agency’s expertise. completed in not
more than 30
calendar days
after receipt of
proposals.

10) Rule VIII Sec. 24.e • Hard to implement. • Relax the

Joint Ventures (among restrictions for
Filipino & foreign foreign
consultants). consultants in
cases where the
project involves
technical
expertise.

6) CATEGORY: ICT
FACILITATOR: MR. DENNIS NACARIO, GPPB-TSO

PROVISION REASON RECOMMENDED

ACTION
1) Section 37.1 on notice • This may prolong the bidding • Amend from 30
and execution of award. process if the document will be days to 7 days.

19
1 dot
2) Late submission of
eligibility documents.
3 dots
3) Post-qualification
limitation to LCB/HRB.
4 dots
4) Sec.23.3.2 c & d on
Eligibility check: “class B”
document
1dot
secured after notice of execution
of award.
• 30-day period is too long
considering that the whole
bidding process takes time
already.
• Might cause further delays in • Must be
project implementation. submitted
during post-
qualification.
• Post-qualification may differ if • Simultaneous
done one after the other. post-
qualification be
conducted for
special projects.
• Does not promote competition,
shuts out foreign suppliers of
ICT goods and services
20
 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. KARL DAMIAN, GPPB-TSO
FACTORS
1) Regular court’s issuance of TRO and
Ombudsman’s cease and desist order or
injunction against the BAC.
2) Membership in the BAC is an additional
function or workload to regular employees.
3) Indemnification of BAC members.
4) The 60/40 equity requirement in foreign
prospective bidders.
5) Absence of quorum in BAC meetings.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• While there is a law that prohibits
regular courts from issuing
TRO/injunction against infrastructure
projects of the government, 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.
5 dots
• 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
functions are solely and exclusively for
and on account of BAC.
4 dots
• With the help of DBM, a bigger budget
should be allocated for the purpose.
2 dots
• This discourages foreign corporations
from participating. It is recommended
that this requirement be deleted, along
with the amendment of the Foreign
Investments Act 8 RA 9184.
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
21

2) CATEGORY: GOODS
FACILITATOR: MR. CEZAR BELANGEL, CODE-NGO
FACTORS
1) Procurement of small value items that
still require BAC approval.
2) Each GOCCs/government agency has its
own peculiar activities/requirements.
3) No factor stated.
4) In case of conflict between the terms of
international treaty or agreement with the
IRR of RA 9184.
5) Sec. 18 Reference to brand names is
prohibited.
3) CATEGORY: INFRASTRUCTURE
FACILITATOR: MR. BRYAN BIGALBAL, GPPB-TSO
FACTORS
1) Protest Fee.
2) Corrupt and/or incompetent BAC
members.
functions are solely and exclusively for
and on account of BAC.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• GPPB should set limit of amounts of
purchases that requires BAC approval.
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.
4 dots
• GOCCs with self-generating incomes
should be exempted from RA 9184.
1 dot
• In case of conflict, the IRR of RA 9184
should prevail.
• Provide exceptions.
4 dots
RECOMMENDATIONS
• The protest fee should be increased to
approximately five percent (5%) in
order to discourage frivolous results.
7 dots
• There ought to be a maximum term of 2
years for each members of the BAC.
Moreover, ensure that members have
no pending administrative cases.
• Encourage lifestyle checks and
22

3) Meddling of certain “personalities”.
4) Section 15 on honoraria.
5) Section 51 on repeat orders.
6) Non-discretionary or pass/fail criteria.
7) Requirement for qualification of single
largest contract.
8) GPPB approval is sought.
investigation of “doubtful” BAC
members.
2 dots
• Additional qualification may be
imposed in order to sit or be part of
BAC.
• Impose maximum term (of 2 years) per
BAC member.
6 dots
• The new guidelines must stress and
strengthen the independence of BAC in
the bidding process. Moreover, the
function of the BAC must be monitored
and superseded by the GPPB.
• Stress the independence of BAC in the
conduct of bidding.
4 dots
• The honorarium must be given to BAC
members. This provision should not be
permissive, but mandatory in nature.
Hence the word “may” should be
changed to “shall”.
3 dots
• As worded, the provision imposes a
25% ceiling. Increase the quantity for
repeat orders to 50%.
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. In
other words, 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 approval-inquiry phase for matters
requiring immediate action (e.g., price
23

9) Section 52 on shopping.
4) CATEGORY: INFRASTRUCTURE
FACILITATOR: MS. NERRISA ESGUERRA, CONSULTANT
FACTORS
1) 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.
2) Contractors are using dummy
corporations to participate in the bidding
process.
3) The chairman of the BAC should be a
third-ranking permanent official of the
procuring entity.
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.
5) The BAC Secretariat functions are
performed by only one person.
6) The law or IRR requires too many
documents to be submitted to the BAC
which provincial bidders find difficult to
follow.
1) The law requires additional approval or •
clearances from higher officials, e.g., by
the DPWH for infrastructure projects above
validity) must be streamlined.
• The last sentence of the second
paragraph should be deleted.
2 dots
RECOMMENDATIONS
This requirement should be repealed or
revoked.
7 dots
• The BAC should be able to invite more
bidders by exploring other means to
publicize biddings.
3 dots
• The IRR should define who is a third
ranking official.
3dots
• The law should create plantilla
positions for members of the BAC and
the BAC Secretariat.
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).
1 dot
• The GPPB should review if there is
possibility that the number of required
documents could be minimized.
This requirement should be repealed or
revoked.
7 dots
24
P5 million and the OP for projects above
P20 million.
2) Contractors are using dummy
corporations to participate in the bidding
process.
3) The chairman of the BAC should be a
third-ranking permanent official of the
procuring entity.
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.
5) The BAC Secretariat functions are
performed by only one person.
6) The law or IRR requires too many
documents to be submitted to the BAC
which provincial bidders find difficult to
follow.
5) CATEGORY: CONSULTING
FACILITATOR: MS. TINA PAVIA, Consultant
FACTORS
1) Lack of GPPB personnel to answer
queries of procuring entities.
2) Lack of training for BAC personnel
(members and support staff).
3) GPRA application to Operating Entities
(Mining, Power, Trading).
• The BAC should be able to invite more
bidders by exploring other means to
publicize biddings.
3 dots
• The IRR should define who is a third
ranking official.
3dots
• The law should create plantilla
positions for members of the BAC and
the BAC Secretariat.
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).
1 dot
• The GPPB should review if there is
possibility that the number of required
documents could be minimized.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Provide for BAC hotline and actively
utilize the internet/web for FAQs.
6 dots
• There must be a mandatory training
sponsored by the Government.
6 dots
• Review of GPRA/IRR with
consideration on peculiar situations for
business/operating activities.
25
 4 dots

4) Negative impression among suppliers • Make registration with PhilGEPS more

that dealing w/ government is full of red convenient to suppliers, more efficient
tape, costly, prone to investigations. processing of payment, and safeguards
Qualified and reasonable suppliers do not in place.
participate; the price of goods is therefore 3 dots
expensive.

5) Track record “similar” to the works to be • There should be sufficient parameters

undertaken. to guide BAC in determining what the
word “similar” means.
1 dot

6) COA suspension after award/payment of • A provision w/c pinpoints finality of

the project. Re award price vs. canvass. awards (immunity from audit).

7) Too much expectation by management • Clear description of BAC functions.

on BAC functions; Complete knowledge of
the project to be bid.

6) CATEGORY: ICT
FACILITATOR: MR. DENNIS NACARIO, GPPB-TSO

FACTORS RECOMMENDATIONS

1) Lack of public awareness of GPRA and • Massive education by government

lack of proper training for BAC, TWG and through seminars for SME suppliers.
Secretariat. 1 dot

• Provide a regular training.

2 dots

• Resolution should be disseminated as

soon as possible.

2) Lack of rules on postponement of bid • GPPB should provide guidelines on

opening. postponement.
1 dot

3) Classification of ICT: is it goods or • Come up with separate classification

services? for ICT.
3 dots

26
 • Definitive classification per stage
1 dot

4) Lack of rules re: e-procurement • Issue stand on application of scanned

inclusion of scanned signatures application. signatures on e-procurement & manual
procurement
1 dot

5) Lack of consultations prior to issuance • Include BAC in consultation.

of resolution. 2 dots

27
 Annex 6
Participants’ Comments during Open Forum 1
(Discussion of Draft IRR)

1. Participant No. 1 – On Section 1, paragraph 1.4, does the word “agreement”

include executive agreements? Sought clarification if this covers Section 4 sub-
paragraph 4.3 which appears to be an exemption.

Exec. Director Ruby Alvarez’ response: said Section 4 remains under RA 9184.
Any treaty or international/executive agreements shall continue to be observed
and remain to be outside the coverage of RA 9184. What we are appealing is that
when we talk to our development partners, they will commit to use our IRR for
national competitive bidding; to their credit, they (development partners) are
listening to us. We cannot go beyond the law and Section 4 is governed by law.

2. Participant No. 2
- 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
- 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
- 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. Alvarez’ response: Yes, we believe that we should require those documents
that we do not require during the eligibility check to be submitted during the post-
qualification and that we should not issue the NOA pending submission of those
documents. 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.

3. Participant No. 3
- concern that there are bidders who have not yet registered/filed with the
PhilGEPS
- on BAC membership: concern on the requirement for a 3rd highest permanent
ranking officer; also concern that CCP is a very small organization so almost
everyone already sits in the BAC.
- on NGO Observers: they are invited, but they are not required to attend.
Therefore, if they do not come, they (PE) cannot do anything about it
- commented that for IT projects with phases, 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?

28
 Dir. Alvarez’ response:
- Electronic filing is still a requirement because we are moving towards
electronic bidding (through the PhilGEPS). Agreed that it is a long process
and appealed that everyone helps in this endeavor. Clarified that PhilGEPS
certification has been taken out of the eligibility requirements, but it is still a
requirement before the NOA is issued. She added that it is very easy to get a
certificate so this should not be an excuse.
- On BAC membership: said they understand the concern on the requirement
for the 3rd highest ranking official chairing the BAC, with this person having
too much already in their hands and BAC duty would be additional work for
them. However, she explained that this is so primarily because it is prescribed
by law. She added that it has been observed, and this may be the rationale for
putting a 3rd highest ranking person in that position, that this inculcates a sense
of ownership for the whole procurement process. Also emphasized that it is a
collegial body, therefore, decisions can be made as long as there is quorum.
The BAC Secretariat also helps a lot especially in terms of scheduling
meetings.
- Re: Observers. She clarified that NGOs as Observers should only be invited.
You can continue with your bidding even when they do not attend, that is, as
long as you invited them, and you gave them a good lead time.
- On IT: the technicalities are quite tricky because of issues such as
compatibility, etc. but we want to know what you need and hear your
suggestions.

4. Participant No. 1 – We want to use limited source bidding in the palay milling
activities. The problem is that there are only 2 conditions prescribed for using
limited source bidding. We have existing policies and technical parameters to
qualify the millers. Concern is that the technical parameters will limit the number
of qualified bidders. Lost on whether to go for public bidding or use limited
source bidding.

Dir. Alvarez’ response:

- Instead of limited source, a better suggestion is public bidding. NFA come up
with its own registry system so that you will have a ready list of
millers/suppliers who are eligible. Limiting the competition to your region
will make local suppliers complacent because they know they are preferred.
- Participant No. 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. In a way, therefore, it is limited because of the
process of eligibility that they have to go through before they can participate
in the bidding. Is this ok?
- Director Alvarez said under the law, we have taken out accreditation in the
procurement process because it has given room to subjectivity.
- 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. But due process will have to be given to the bidders or contractors

29
 - 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, please tell us and we will see how we can incorporate it within
the boundaries of the law.

5. Participant No. 2
- not specific whether foreign corporations are required to have license to do
business in the Philippines or not
- or allowed to have a local company to represent them in the local setting for
purposes of doing business here
- we should have minimum parameters for foreign companies to be able to
participate because while some have the expertise more than the local
suppliers, 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, etc).

Dir. Alvarez’ response:

- participation of foreign entities. We are prescribing that GPPB can
recommend that foreign entities can bid
- 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, but
suggested that everything should be covered by a contract which a binding
legal document.

6. Participant No. 4 – a GOCC registered under BP 168 is excluded in the

definition; under the new Medicines Act passed by Congress, PPI has been
designated as the central procuring agency for all drugs and medicine
procurements. Can you reconcile the two IRRs?

Dir. Alvarez’ response: GPPB has not reconciled the “Cheaper Medicines Law”
with RA 9184, but if it is a law, we will reconcile it.

7. Participant No. 5
- concern on alternative modes of shopping (Section 52); bidding small
amounts (e.g. spareparts) repair and maintenance of equipment and furniture,
as well as trucking, hauling, janitorial, security, and related or analogous
services
- agency-to-agency: does not cover corporations created under BP 168;
supposing that the corporation is 100% owned by the procuring entity, 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, for example, putting up branches by the bank which
was required by BSP.

Dir. Alvarez’ response:

30
 - 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. But if that
subsidiary wants to service agencies other than the agency that created it, the
subsidiary will have to undergo the bidding process like any other suppliers.
- Shopping threshold of P50k – what is your recommendation?

8. Participant No. 6
- 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
- ABC: from the definition of the ABC, we are talking about absolute figures.
This however, does not capture the peculiarities of some procurement
activities, e.g. procurement of a long term operator of the expressway.
Maintenance of the expressway would vary from year-to-year subject to
certain conditions, while at the same time, 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.
- Eligibility requirements: Thinks it would be better to keep some requirements
during the eligibility check to weed out nuisance participants. Also
commented that fees for bidding documents should be reasonable.
- Track record: we understand the differences between the juridical entity
(corporation) and the warm bodies. Raised concern about an old company but
the staff may be new and lack expertise and experience. Can the IRR have a
provision that allows looking at technical capacity of people instead?
- About variation orders: IRR limits this to 10%. Commented that the rule is
weak: have no feet to stand on or teeth to be enforced because there is no
sanction/penalty. It is to the best interest of government to have a definite
objective.

Dir. Alvarez’ response:

- yes, heard your concerns and will bring this up to the GPPB, we need your
comments/inputs to be able to discuss/argue the peculiarity of your situation
and other GOCCs, e.g. probably expand the definition of ABC vis-à-vis
income generating projects.
- Noted the comment that fees on bidding documents should be reasonable.
- 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. Understand your concern, but we think that these entities
take care of their reputation and ensure that this is not diminished by hiring
incompetent people.
- Variation orders and the penalties: yes I think the GPPB has to issue the rules
finally and impose sanctions; it is still an open issue in the resolution

9. Participant No. 7 – Section 53B (on emergency procurement) – with reference to

GPPB Memorandum Order 213 dated May 8, 2006 which provided, among

31
 others, the process wherein Procurement under Section 53B may be undertaken,
she noted that these are not part of the draft IRR. 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.

10. Participant No. 8

- Concern on 30 days period given to submission of documents of winning
bidder. If bidding entity do not deliver the documents, that would mean 30
days of delay. Suggested to bring these documents back in the eligibility
requirements or reduce the 30 days.
- On amount of 2% bid security, question on how you arrived at the 2%?

Dir. Alvarez’ response:

- Agree on the 30 days concern. In case this is left as is, my suggestion is pre-
qualification.
- How we came up with the 2% of the ABC as bid security - it is because our
development partners are using 2%. We will ask our development partners
how they arrived at the 2%.

11. Participant No. 9

- concern on application of warranties and defect liability period (DLP). Are we
going to pay the contractor the full payment after the completion or after the
acceptance?
- 15 years warranty may not be acceptable to the bidders

Dir. Alvarez’ response:

- Warranty concern. After the infra project, you don’t pay in full yet because
you have to inspect. Performance security applies at this time and the
retention money is still there. Once you have inspected and you are ready to
issue your certificate of acceptance, you then release the retention and
performance security ends. Then the warranty provision takes effect.
Suggested to discuss in detail during breakout the confusion in the application
of performance bond versus warranty.
- Commented hearing about difficulties encountered in securing security bond
from GSIS. We understand that there is an Executive Order that mandates
government agencies to secure surety from GSIS. The problem is a lot of
government agencies have encountered problems just doing that. This is why
the issuance of the security bond is now open to other insurance companies
accredited by the PE other than GSIS. But we don’t want to do that going
against any legal mandate that you have. We need to discuss this further and
talk to GSIS.

12. Participant No. 1 – Section 39 on submission of performance security: every

time we conduct the bidding, we ask the bidders to submit security from GSIS

32
 only and there is always a complaint on this. RA 9184 allows the submission of
security bond from other insurance companies accredited by the PE, 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.

13. Participant No. 10 – Follow up on the warranty period. Referred to Section

62.2.2 of the IRR with respect to permanent and semi-permanent structures. He
commented that under permanent structures which are entitled to a 15-year
warranty, applicable infra projects include, as an example, ports and causeways.
Under semi-permanent structures which are entitled to a 5-year warranty period,
however, applicable infra projects include, as an example, municipal ports and
rock causeways. He said they encounter problems with bidders who want to insist
on applying the 5-year warranty instead of the 15-year warranty. He sought
clarification on descriptions and qualifications of infra projects to avoid any
confusions and arguments with bidders.

Dir. Alvarez’ response: Noted the confusion and urged to discuss this further
doing breakout.

14. Participant No. 11

- Postponement of bid opening: it may be good if there is a set of rules guiding
the BAC on postponement of bid opening, saying that there is usually a
dilemma due to “pressures exerted”.
- 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, etc.
- Revisit Section 62.1 on warranty of goods, the retention of 10% is quite big.
Can provisions be just similar to those that apply to infra.

Dir. Alvarez’ response:

- Postponement of the opening of bids to insulate you from the pressures: this is
easier said than done, but let’s discuss more during FGD.
- insurance/security bond – there are certain development in the rules of the
insurance commission that would make the accreditation more updated. We
will look and study if these will address the concerns raised by the PEs.

15. Participant No. 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. So we
received this offer that they will procure it for us. If we agree, will we be violating
RA 9184?

Dir. Alvarez’ response: There is a provision in the law that would allow you to
outsource the procurement activity itself, so as long as rules of the Philippines
will be followed, you should not have a problem with that.

33
16. Participant No. 13
- Submitted a list of questions to GPPB.
- Section 36 – what if we only have one bidder? Can we just declare that one
bidder the winner of the bid?

Dir. Alvarez’ response: Acknowledged receipt of the list of questions submitted

and said GPPB would be open to a meeting to address the NPC concerns. With
respect to the lone bidder and the word “considered”, she said “considered” is
there because there are conditions that must be met before getting “considered”.

17. Participant No. 14 – Noted that among the documents required from the bidder is
the filing of the financial statements stamped “received” by the BIR. 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.

Dir. Alvarez’ response: The audited FS, she said, 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. The tax clearance and latest
income statements were actually not taken out, but we are trying to determine at
what stage it is best to be required.

18. Participant No. 15

- Hopes that the provisions for alternative modes of procurement can be
simplified further.
- Section 50C – direct contracting: if the principal is abroad, who issues the
certificate of distributorship – the Philippine company or the foreign
company?
- Who will certify that there is no suitable substitute that can be obtained from
other sources?
- Section 51A – repeat orders: we already conducted competitive bidding before
we entered into contract with the supplier, and yet when we place repeat
orders, we still have to verify?
- 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. Much
lower ABC.
- Per diem of BAC members: should rethink this because of the hard times,
responsibilities on their shoulders and the risks involved.

Dir. Alvarez’ response:

- on BAC honorarium: under the law, this is determined by DBM considering
the over-all compensation system of government. But point is well-taken and
said that maybe we could look at other forms of compensating the BAC
members other than through honoraria.

34
- On bid documents, agreed that it shouldn’t be too high to stifle competition,
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.
- Who shall certify: there are no hard and fast rules. We leave it up to the
procuring entity based on accountable and transparent decisions.
- We welcome suggestions to further simplify the procedures on alternative
modes of procurement.

35
 Annex 7
Participants’ Comments during Open Forum 2
(Discussion/Clarification of Break Out Session Outputs)

Dir. Alvarez’ comments and clarifications to some points reported by the groups after the
break out session:
1. Question for Goods Group under Mr. Cezar Belangel – for income-generating
corporations, why do they have to be exempt from RA 9184? She requested for
specific recommendations to be emailed to GPPB.
2. Question for Consulting group – for mining/trading groups, why should they be
exempt? Participant No. 16 responded: cited a case where they conducted
bidding for coal. Then they would re-sell it to the market. The concern is that,
they cannot sell at a good price because the ABC was set and more or less, buyers
already know at what price we got the coal. Ruby noted the concern.
3. ICT group – suggestion on simultaneous post-qualification (testing and
inspection) for special projects. Participant No. 17 explained that the issue is not
really for ICT but for procurement of some highly specialized goods. Participant
No. 18 added that simultaneous testing is recommended so that the testing for
these highly specialized goods is done under the same environmental conditions.
4. Ruby said that the best recommendation she heard is the 24/7 GPPB assistance
and will work on that.

Dir. 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, including
other matters related to crafting the IRR that were not yet discussed during the
Consultations.

Participant No. 5 – reference to GPPB opinion that bidders with pending cases cannot
be disqualified pending a decision of the courts. He asked why they should transact with
someone they don’t like? Dir. Alvarez said there are ways not to entertain entities, one is
by filing a case or by blacklisting, but procedures must be followed and not make
decisions out of whim.

36