UPDATES AND

LATEST
ISSUANCES
2015 – 2016
SEPARATE BIDS AND AWARDS
COMMITTEES (BACS)

Whether the HOPE can establish separate BACs in the procurement of

Goods, Consulting Services, and Infrastructure Projects.

The HOPE has the prerogative and authority to establish separate BACs upon
determination that creation of separate BACs according to the nature of
procurement, or geographical location, is necessary to expedite its procurement
process. Similarly, the HOPE, in creating separate BACs, shall designate at least
five (5) but not more than seven (7) members for each BAC subject to the
qualification requirements for such members provided in the IRR of RA 9184.

NPM No. 001-2016

 TAX CLEARANCE

Whether a Tax Clearance, which was valid at the time of bid opening, should
be renewed by the bidder if it has expired prior to the award of the contract.
.
EO 398 requires that a bidder should not have any tax liability with the
Government from the time of submission of its bid up to the time of contract
award. Accordingly, bidders are required to secure and submit a valid Tax
Clearance issued by the BIR as proof of compliance with the requirements of EO
398. In the event that the submitted Tax Clearance expires prior to award of
contract, the bidder is obligated to renew and update its Tax Clearance.

NPM No.002-2016
 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS (JVs)

Whether the non-disclosure by a JV partner of an ongoing government contract would affect compliance
with the technical requirements of the bidding by the JV itself, notwithstanding the fact that the other
partner was found to have already submitted/complied with such requirement.
.
Statement of Ongoing Contracts and Compliance with Section 23.1(a)(iv) of the Revised IRR of RA 9184
.
The statement of all ongoing government and private contracts is a technical eligibility requirement, the
compliance by one joint venture partner shall render the joint venture fully and completely compliant with
the technical requirement based on the concept of collective compliance. However, if both JV partners
submitted their respective technical eligibility documents, that includes the Statement of all ongoing contracts,
the BAC shall consider all Statements for eligibility checking and post-qualification purposes; and

The Statement of all ongoing government and private contracts shall include all ongoing contracts, including
contracts awarded but not yet started, if any, whether similar or not similar in nature and complexity to the
contract to be bid, within the relevant period as provided in the Bidding Documents. The submission by both
JV partners of their respective Statements of all ongoing contracts as technical eligibility documents shall form
part of the bid and shall be considered during eligibility checking and post-qualification.
NPM No. 003-2016
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS (JVs)

Non-Disclosure of an On-going Contract

If the procuring entity uncovers any misrepresentation made in the eligibility requirements,
statements or documents, or any change in the situation of the prospective bidder, which will
affect the capability of the prospective bidder to undertake the project, it shall consider the
prospective bidder ineligible and shall disqualify it from obtaining an award of contract,
notwithstanding an earlier determination of eligibility.

Failure to include all ongoing contracts in the Statements submitted by the JV partners may be
a ground for disqualification on the basis of misrepresentation or change in the bidder's
capability. In both instances, the determination of the existence of the circumstances lies with
the BAC and the procuring entity.
 

NPM No. 003-2016

 
 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS (JVs)
Non-Policy Opinions

Whether the non-submission of the: 1) List of its Materials Engineer(s) to be assigned to the contract to be
bid, with their complete qualification and experience data; and 2) The certification of availability of
equipment from the equipment lessor/vendor for the duration of the project, which are both required to be
submitted as part of the technical requirements in the first envelope, is a ground for disqualification.

. Non-Policy Opinions
Under the IRR of RA 9184, a bidder must comply with the minimum specifications, such as the identification of
the Materials Engineer for the project. As for the Certification of Availability of equipment from the equipment
lessor/vendor for the duration of the project, which supports the list of contractor's equipment units, it is a
specific technical document under Section 25.2(b)(iii)(3) of the IRR of RA 9184, which cannot be dispensed with.
Accordingly, both requirements are part of the technical bid and non-submission of which is a ground for
disqualification of the bidder.

NPM NO. 004-2016

 OMNIBUS SWORN STATEMENT
Non-Policy Opinions

Whether it is proper for the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) to accept the bidder's proposal
notwithstanding the latter's failure to provide Item No. 9 of the Omnibus Sworn Statement as it
was not stated in the bidding documents.

Instruction to Bidders (ITB) Clause 12.1(b)(iii) requires that the first envelope shall contain, among
others, a sworn statement in accordance with Section 25.2(a)(iv) of the IRR of RA 9184 and using the
form prescribed in Section VIII. (Bidding Forms) of the Philippine Bidding Documents. x x x. And
under ITB Clause 19.2, Forms mentioned in ITB Clause 19.1 must be completed without any
alterations to their format, and no substitute Form shall be accepted.

Failure of the bidder to comply with the prescribed Omnibus Sworn Statement is a cause for the
bidder's disqualification, unless the mistake was committed due to the procuring entity's failure to
provide the correct and updated form of the Omnibus Sworn Statement in its bidding documents.

NPM NO. 005-2016

 PERFORMANCE SECURITY
n-Policy Opinions
Whether it is allowed to post a performance security in the form of a Security Bond issued by an
accredited insurance company by the Insurance Commission of the Philippines.

n-Policy Opinions
PEs now have the right to indicate in the Bidding Documents at least two (2)
acceptable forms of performance security from which the bidder may opt to use. Thus,
if the PE indicated in the bidding documents that only cash or cashier's/manager's
check, bank draft/guarantee or irrevocable letter of credit are the acceptable forms of
performance security that its winning bidder may choose from, then the latter may
not post any other form of performance security, i.e. the Surety Bond, albeit it is one of
the forms provided under the rules.

NPM No. 006-2016

ACCEPTABILITY OF EXPIRED PCAB LICENSE

Whether government agencies may -Policy

accept
Opinions
recently expired PCAB license
attached with an Official Receipt for renewal, as one of the Class "A"
eligibility documents.

GPPB Resolution No. 02-2015 applies only to Mayor's Permit, as one of the
Class "A" legal eligibility documents, which allows the submission of the
bidder's recently expired Mayor's Permit and the Official Receipt as proof that
the bidder has applied for renewal of the permit within the prescribed period x x
x.

The PCAB license is not within the coverage of GPPB Resolution No. 02-2015.
Moreover, we would like to reiterate that a valid PCAB license, required as an
eligibility requirement for the procurement of infrastructure projects under
Section 23.1(a)(iv) of the revised IRR of RA 9184, should be valid at the time of
the deadline for the submission and opening of bids.

NPM No. 103 - 2015

 DETAILED ENGINEERING FOR INFRA
PROJECTS
.
Whether the detailed engineering design requirements for the renovation of the Procuring Entity's
(PE) building should be prepared by the Contractor or by the PE.

Based on Section 17.6 of the revised IRR of RA 9184, as a general rule, detailed engineering
investigations, surveys and designs are performed and conducted by the Procuring Entity or its duly
authorized representative. Thus, the Procuring Entity is mandated to complete the detailed engineering
investigations, surveys and designs prior to the conduct of the bidding.

The same provision provides for the exception to this rule, that is, when the project involves a "design
and build" scheme where bidders are expected to provide the design of the infrastructure project and
construct the same. In this situation, the responsibility of developing the detailed engineering
requirements, including the construction are transferred to and lodged with one bidder or contractor.

NPM 063-2015

 
 PERFORMANCE SECURITY
n-Policy Opinions
Whether it is allowed to post a performance security in the form of a Security Bond issued by an
accredited insurance company by the Insurance Commission of the Philippines.

n-Policy Opinions
PEs now have the right to indicate in the Bidding Documents at least two (2)
acceptable forms of performance security from which the bidder may opt to use. Thus,
if the PE indicated in the bidding documents that only cash or cashier's/manager's
check, bank draft/guarantee or irrevocable letter of credit are the acceptable forms of
performance security that its winning bidder may choose from, then the latter may
not post any other form of performance security, i.e. the Surety Bond, albeit it is one of
the forms provided under the rules.

NPM No. 006-2016

 BID ENVELOPES
Non-Policy Op

Whether failure to use format, i.e., the bid envelope's title and markings were not in
capital letters as provided for in Instruction to Bidders (ITB) Clauses 20.1, 20.2 and 20.4
of the PBD for the procurement of Goods, is a ground for disqualification

Writing, typing or printing the markings on the Bid Envelopes in small letters format,
instead of "ALL CAPS" or "CAPITAL LETTERS", should not serve as basis to disqualify a
bidder since this does not violate the sanctity and integrity of the submitted bids.
Otherwise, a literal interpretation of the requirement constricts rather than fulfills its
purpose and in the process, runs counter to the principles of competition, efficiency and
fairness in government contracting.

NPM 008-2016
 PCAB LICENSE FOR
Non-Policy Opinions
JVs
Opinion relative to the requirement of a PCAB license for Joint Venture (JV)
bidders and the stage at which it has to be submitted per the requirements
embodied in RA No. 9184 and its IRR.
Non-Policy Opinions

The submission of the individual PCAB licenses of each joint venture partner
participating in a civil works procurement is not necessary if the bidder is
participating as a Joint Venture. As mentioned, the submission of the Special PCAB
license for JV bidders is required pursuant to Section 38 of RA 4566 and Section 3.5 of
its associated IRR as part of the technical eligibility documents to be submitted,
together with the bid proposal, on or before the deadline for submission and receipt
of bids.

NPM NO. 009-2016

 TAX CLEARANCE
(SUBCONTRACTOR)
on-Policy Opinions

Whether the BAC can allow the submission by the bidder of a substitute
document in lieu of a Tax Clearance Certificate of its subcontractor.

A bidder's subcontractor who presented a Sworn Affidavit, in lieu of a tax clearance

during the submission of bids, shall be ineligible under ITB Clause 8.2, and the
subcontracting by the principal bidder of such portion shall be disallowed.
Consequently, the principal bidder may still be declared eligible, but the portion it
intends to subcontract shall be disallowed for failure to comply with the submission
of the required Tax Clearance. As a result, the principal bidder would have to bid
for that component proposed to be subcontracted.

NPM NO. 010-2016

 DESIGNATION OF BAC
CHAIRMAN
Non-Policy Opinions
Whether a highest ranking permanent employee, who is not an approving
authority, may be designated as the BAC Chairman
Non-Policy Opinions
The highest ranking permanent employee may be designated as BAC Chairman,
provided that such employee possesses all of the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided under existing laws, rules and regulations. In particular,
the highest ranking permanent employee must be at least a third ranking permanent
official of the procuring entity. Additionally, such employee must be a person of
unquestionable integrity and procurement proficiency and in no case shall be the
HOPE, an approving authority, or a Chief Accountant or personnel of the
Accounting Unit, except as an end-user representative when the Accounting Unit is
the requesting or procuring end-user.

NPM 011-2016
 AWARD OF CONTRACT(DELAY)

Whether a Tax Clearance, which was valid at the time of bid opening, should
be renewed by the bidder if it has expired prior to the award of the contract.
.

EO 398 requires that a bidder should not have any tax liability with the
Government from the time of submission of its bid up to the time of contract
award. Accordingly, bidders are required to secure and submit a valid Tax
Clearance issued by the BIR as proof of compliance with the requirements of EO
398. In the event that the submitted Tax Clearance expires prior to award of
contract, the bidder is obligated to renew and update its Tax Clearance.

NPM No.002-2016
 AWARD OF CONTRACT(DELAY)
HOPE Approval

The power of the HOPE to approve or disapprove the recommendations made by the BAC
in the entire procurement process is a discretionary act as distinguished from a purely
ministerial act . The decision to award a contract rests within the sole discretion of the
HOPE. Within a period not exceeding seven (7) calendar days from the date of receipt of the
recommendation of the BAC relative to the award of contract, the HOPE is given the
discretion to approve or disapprove such recommendation.

Failure to Award Contract within the Mandatory Period

The Supreme Court in the case of Jacomille v. Abaya, ruled that failure to comply with the
mandatory periods set forth in Section 37 is an irregularity which renders the procurement
process null and void. Thus:

NPM 012-2016
AWARD OF CONTRACT(DELAY)
The Court does not agree with the OSG that the 3-month period is merely directory. The
said provision contains the word "shall" which is mandatory in character. Such period
was placed in a separate provision under Section 38, rather than compressed with Section
37, to emphasize its importance. There is nothing in the law which states that the 3-month
period can be disregarded. Non-compliance with the period will certainly affect the
validity of the bidding process. In fact, Section 38.1 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9184 reaffirms
the obligatory 3-month period:

The procurement process from the opening of bids up to the award of contract shall not
exceed three (3) months, or a shorter period to be determined by the procuring entity
concerned. All members of the BAC shall be on a "jury duty" type of assignment until the
Notice of Award is issued by the Head of the Procuring Entity in order to complete the
entire procurement process at the earliest possible time. (Emphasis supplied)

NPM 012-2016
MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS
Whether a government agency may resort to multi-year contracts specifically for
the procurement of office uniforms.
Whether there are other forms of general support services that may be procured
under multi-year coverage.
There is nothing in RA 9184 and its IRR that limits procuring entities from entering into MYCs for
their procurement activities only to those involving security and janitorial services. However, in
the implementation of Multi-Year Projects (MYPs) covered by MYCs, where the total cost is not
available for the first year, procuring entities shall request the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) for the issuance of a Multi-Year Obligational Authority (MYOA) following
DBM Circular-Letter (CL) No. 2015-7.

A careful reading of the GAA and DBM CL No. 2015-7 issued by DBM shows that procuring
entities may enter into Multi-Year Projects that is evidenced by Multi-Year Contracts for any of
their procurement activities, subject to compliance with the requirement of a MYOA issued by the
DBM and any other applicable requisites provided by law or DBM's issuances.

NPM 013-2016
 PERIOD TO RESOLVE PROTEST

Whether the Head of the Procuring Entity (HOPE) may decide beyond the seven
(7) calendar day period in accordance with Section 56 of the revised Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184.

The HOPE has the obligation to decide and resolve the protest submitted before it
within the reglementary period prescribed by law and the rules. However, despite its
mandatory nature, failure to observe the seven (7) calendar day period under Section 56
does not bar or relieve the HOPE from acting on and resolving the protest at hand; this
is pursuant to Section 57 of the IRR which prohibits the award of contract should there
remain unresolved protests on the procurement activity at hand.

NPM-014-2016
 APPROVED BUDGET FOR
THE CONTRACT
The rules to be observed in cases where the procurement transactions do not
involve an ABC, one of the information required to be posted at the PhilGEPS
website alongside the Invitation to Bid (IB).

Regardless of the method of procurement, no procurement project can commence and

be undertaken unless it has a corresponding ABC as reflected in the approved APP.
Consequently, considering that advertisement and posting of the IB signals the start of
the bidding process and ABC is one of the mandatory information to be included in
the IB, the procurement opportunity cannot be posted in the PhilGEPS website
without first determining the corresponding ABC to be bid.

NPM 015-2016
 BLACKLISTING
Non-Policy Opinions
Extent of the application of a blacklisting order to an agent in accordance with RA No. 9184, its
IRR and the Guidelines for Blacklisting.
Article 1897 reinforces the familiar doctrine that an agent, who acts as such, is not personally liable
to the party with whom he contracts.

There is no personal liability for agents. The reason for the law is that the agent who acts as agent
does not represent himself but the principal.

Accordingly, applying the same principle of law, a bidder who was blacklisted as a "principal" in a
previous procurement activity, may still represent a current bidder as an "agent" in government
procurement opportunities, such as in the case of competitive bidding, since such blacklisted
bidder is merely representing the current bidder as an "agent". In the same manner, if the
"principal" bidder is blacklisted by a procuring entity, its "agent" or representative is not
blacklisted, unless the "agent" expressly binds himself through the Contract of Agency, or when he
exceeds his authority as agent.

NPM 016-2016
 NGO PARTICIPATION
Whether it is correct to use NGO Participation as a modality of Negotiated
Procurement under Section 53.11 of the revised IRR RA No. 9184 for the
procurement of supply and installation of three (3) phase primary line (a5
construction assembly) and installation of three (3) units 15 KVA distribution
transformer.

The determination of the appropriate method of procurement rests within the sole
authority and accountability of the Head of the Procuring Entity (HOPE), as the
approving authority, and the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), as the
recommendatory body. We adhere to the position that no other agency, office or
official may interfere with these functions of the HOPE and the BAC, and dictate
the method of procurement to be used for a particular project.

NPM 018-2016
 NGO PARTICIPATION
The question of whether NGO Participation, as a modality of Negotiated Procurement, can be
resorted to depends on whether the appropriation law or ordinance earmarking an amount for the
procurement of supply and installation of 3 phase primary line (a5 construction assembly) and
installation of 3 units 15 KVA distribution transformer specifically requires that it be contracted out to
NGOs. If so, the procuring entity may resort to such method of procurement, following the provisions
of Sections 48 and 53.11 of the IRR of RA 9184, as well as the Guidelines on Non-Governmental
Organization Participation in Public Procurement. Otherwise, competitive bidding, as the default mode
of procurement, or other applicable method of procurement shall be resorted to.

It also bears stressing that the GPPB issued Resolution No. 19-2006, dated 6 December 2006,
prescribing the Guidelines on Procurement of Water, Electricity, Telecommunications and Internet Service
Providers. Under Section 3.1 thereof, considering that water and electricity service providers are
granted exclusive franchises to operate within a specific territory, procurement of water and
electricity services shall be done through Direct Contracting under Section 50(c) of the IRR of RA
9184. For guidance, you may refer to the provisions of the said Guidelines to determine its applicability to your
procurement project.

NPM 018-2016
 DEMONSTRATION PRIOR TO
BIDDING
Non-Policy Opinions
Whether the demonstration of the item prior to bidding will amount to a
"prequalification" requirement abandoned with the enactment of Republic Act (RA) No.
9184.

If the required demonstration of the item to be bid, will be a criterion for eligibility or
qualification of bidders, such that the subsequent bidding process will be limited to those who
participated in the demonstration activity, then the required demonstration will amount to
"pre-qualification," which is proscribed under RA No. 9184 and its revised IRR. However, if the
information and result of the demonstration will only be used by the procuring entity in
coming up with its technical specifications, and equal opportunity shall be extended to all
prospective bidders who are capable of complying with the procuring entity's requirements,
then the demonstration will not fall within the ambit of "prequalification" activity proscribed by
RA 9184.

NPM 019-2016
 DEMONSTRATION PRIOR TO
BIDDING
Whether this prior demonstration will result in "pre-determination" of the bid results as
the demonstration would be the basis for post-qualification.

The demonstration conducted prior to bidding will not result in the pre-determination of
the bid results if such was conducted only for the purpose of aiding the procuring entity
in crafting its technical specifications and parameters, which may even be regarded as
part and parcel of its market research approach. Such prior demonstration cannot be the
basis for post-qualification results since the post-qualification process, which includes
verification, validation and ascertainment, including the testing, of the goods/product for
compliance with the technical requirements under Section 34 of RA 9184 and its IRR, is
mandatorily conducted for each and every project submitted for competitive bidding. The
objective of which is to determine whether the bidder complies with and is responsive to
all the legal, technical and financial requirements and conditions specified in the bidding
documents.

NPM 019-2016
 CONSIGNMENT
PROJECTS
Non-Policy Op
Whether consignment projects can be considered as similar to the contract to
be bid for purposes of complying with the requirements
Non-Policy Op for Single Largest
Complete Contract (SLCC).

Consignment in its common meaning is an arrangement whereby the goods are sent by one to another to be
sold and disposed by the latter for and on account of the former.

The question of whether consignment projects can be considered as the SLCC required by the provisions of
the IRR of RA 9184 necessitates the comparison of a Consignment Project and a Procurement Contract.
Consignment arrangement or project cannot be considered as procurement because of the difference in the
essential features of the two contracts. The former does not involve acquisition of goods and disbursement of
public funds, which are vital features of a procurement contract.

In this regard, while we recognize the authority and discretion of procuring entities to clarify in the Bidding
Documents the definition of what it considers to be a similar project by virtue of Section 23.5.1.3 par.3 of the
IRR of RA 9184, it is our considered view that a consignment project cannot be considered as similar to the
contract to be bid for purposes of complying with the requirements for SLCC because it lacks the elements of
acquisition of goods and disbursement of public funds that essentially characterize a procurement contract.
 ORIGIN OF GOODS
Clarification on the existing procurement rules pertaining to the origin of goods relative to the
authority secured by the CEZA from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to
purchase bulldozer which specifies that the country of origin should be from the G7 Countries
only.

Procuring entities are precluded from requiring specific country of origin as part of the
technical specification for the project. Rather, the specifications shall be based on the
performance requirements and recognized industry standards and not on the basis of
country of origin.

NPM 021-2016
 DIRECT CONTRACTING
Non-Policy Opinions
Guidance relative to CAAP's procurement of Flight Yield Service (FYS),
through Direct Contracting, that is available only from Sita Bureau Services
(SBS).

RA 9184 and its associated IRR adopt Competitive Bidding as the primary method of
procurement, and any alternative method may be employed only under highly
exceptional circumstances to address economy and efficiency. Consequently, Direct
Contracting may be allowed when the procurement involves goods of proprietary
nature, which can be obtained only from the proprietary source, that is, when patents,
trade secrets, and copyrights prohibit others from manufacturing the same item; but the
procuring entity must first justify the necessity for Direct Contracting, and must be able
to prove that there is no suitable substitute in the market that can be obtained at more
advantageous terms to the government using specifications based on relevant
characteristics and/or performance requirements.

NPM 022-2016
 PHILGEPS POSTING
Whether or not to authorize payment of claims notwithstanding the lack of posting in the PhilGEPS
n-Policy Opinions
website?
The determination of the legality or validity of the actions and decisions of the BAC, including contracts
emanating therefrom, is not within the express mandate of the GPPB. However, we find it important to discuss
the relevant provisions of the procurement law, rules and regulations pertinent to a valid procurement activity.

It bears stressing that all procuring entities are mandated to fully use the PhilGEPS in the conduct of
procurement procedures.

Thus, if the posting in the PhilGEPS website is not observed, it renders the proceeding to which it relates illegal
and void, or the violation of which makes the decision therein rendered invalid because Article 5 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines provides that acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall
be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity. RA 9184, having been enacted for the advancement
of public welfare and to enhance transparency, undoubtedly contains mandatory provisions, such as the
aforementioned provision.

NPM 024-2016
 NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION
Whether in the requirement of publication of the Invitation to Bid (IB) in a newspaper of
general nationwide circulation, the term "nationwide" pertains to major newspaper such as
Philippine Star or the Philippine Daily Inquirer or it will suffice that the newspaper has
regional counterparts like Sunstar Iloilo.

In the case of Fortune Motors (Phils.) Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank And Trust Co., et al. , the Supreme Court
held that to be considered a newspaper of general circulation (without reference to the place of
circulation), it is enough that the newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and
general information; that it has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers; that it is published
at regular intervals; and that the newspaper need not have the largest circulation so long as it is of
general circulation.

On the other hand, the IRR of RA 9184 requires that the advertisement of the ITB/REI be made in a
newspaper of general nationwide circulation, not just a newspaper of general circulation.
Accordingly, the newspaper where the ITB/REI will be advertised must be of "nationwide"
circulation, in addition to the above definition given by the Supreme Court. The term "nationwide"
requires that the newspaper must be of national distribution as opposed to a newspaper of local or
regional circulation.
 BIR RECEIPT INSTEAD OF TAX
CLEARANCE
Non-Policy Opinions
Whether it is valid to issue a Notice of Award considering that the bidder only presented
BIR Receipt instead of Tax Clearance during the eligibility check.

EO 398 specifically requires the submission of Tax Clearance issued by the BIR which
should be in the form defined in RR 3-2005 . Hence, the submission of other documents, in
your case the submission of the BIR Official Receipt in lieu of the Tax Clearance
requirement, cannot be considered in compliance with Sections 23.1(a)(iii) and 24.1(a)(iii)
of the IRR of RA 9184. As we have previously opined, since the Tax Clearance is now
included as part of the Class "A" legal eligibility documents, its non-submission is a
ground for ineligibility, and the eventual disqualification of the bidder. Thus, the winning
bidder who presented the photocopy of the Official Receipt from the BIR during the
submission of bids, as well as the original Official Receipt during the Post-Qualification
may be disqualified for failure to submit the original Tax Clearance as defined under EO
398.

NPM 026-2016
 BUSINESS PERMIT ADDRESS
Address indicated in the bidder's mayor's/business permit is different from the address
in all bid documents submitted by the bidder

The BAC shall verify, validate and ascertain whether the address indicated in the
mayor's/business permit is indeed the principal place of business of the bidder in
compliance with the eligibility requirements under Section 23(1)(a)(ii) of the revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9184. If so, the
discrepancy between the business address on the mayor's/business permit and the
address appearing in the bid documents is of no moment for purposes of eligibility,
for there could be a situation where a bidder is also holding another office
somewhere else, or in a different locality apart from that official place of business
appearing in the Mayor's Permit. However, if upon verification, no such principal
place of business exists, this occasion is tantamount to non-compliance with the
eligibility requirement due to the bidder's non-submission of a Class "A" document .

NPM 178-2015
PROCUREMENT OF COMMON-USE SUPPLIES

Exemption from Administrative Order (AO) No. 17 , Series of 2011, relative to the
procurement of inks/toners from the PS-DBM

In case of non-availability of stocks from the PS-DBM, MARINA may secure a Certificate of
Non-Availability of Stocks being issued by the PS-DBM, so that it may proceed in the
procurement of the common-use supplies and equipment from outside sources. This
mechanism is sanctioned by GPPB Resolution No. 24-2014 dated 31 October 2014.

NPM 176-2015
 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE

Whether the BAC could legally require its bidders to submit a Certificate of Acceptance
of their offered goods aside from the submission of statement of completed similar
projects.

[T]he BAC is mandated to require all bidders to submit the end-user's acceptance, which
can be in the form of a Certification, or official receipt(s) relative to the Single Largest
Completed Contract in accordance with Section 23.1(a)(iv) of the IRR of RA 9184 and Clause
12.1(a)(iii) ITB of the PBDs for Goods.

NPM 175-2015

 
 TAX CLEARANCE, FAILURE OF
BIDDING UNDER SECTION 41

. Failure of Bidding on the ground that the template document for eligibility documents
did not reflect the Tax Clearance Certificate requirement

Tax Clearance is now included as part of the Class "A" legal eligibility document and non-
submission of which is a ground for ineligibility, and the eventual disqualification of the bid,
bidders shall refer to the bidding documents, particularly the ITB, for information on the
preparation of their bids, which may include erroneous provisions caused during its
preparation, specifically the list of eligibility documents, following the principle that all
bidders must bid in equal footing. Consequently, the HOPE may declare a failure of bidding
or not award the contract in accordance with Section 41 of RA No. 9184 and its revised IRR
when the BAC failed to follow the prescribed procurement procedures, which include the
preparation of an accurate list of minimum eligibility requirements mandated under Section
24.1 of the IRR of RA 9184.

NPM 174- 2015

 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Whether the procurement of two (2) different models for the purchase of the
motorcycles under the same procurement activity is in accord with Republic Act (RA)
No. 9184 and its revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).

[A] procuring entity, guided by lawful, valid, and reasonable limitations, may acquire
goods of different models so long as it complies with the specified minimum requirements
provided in its Technical Specifications. Otherwise stated, goods that consist of various
models may be offered by the prospective bidder, and the procuring entity may procure
different models in the same procurement activity provided that the different goods
being offered meet the minimum specifications and identified limitations required in the
Technical Specifications and that the offered price for the different models are the same.

NPM 173-2015
 
 DISCOUNT ON BID PRICE

Whether the discount offered by a bidder should be deducted from the bidder's
original bid price or the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC).

The offer of discount contemplated under the IRR of RA 9184 shall be deducted from
the total bid price and not from the ABC. The discount can be validly considered in the
computation of the total calculated bid price during the bid evaluation stage.

NPM 161-2015
SALE OF BIDDING DOCUMENTS
Whether the BAC may validly refuse to sell the Bidding Documents on the ground of
non-attendance of the prospective bidder in the pre-bid conference as stated in the
Invitation to Bid.

Section 17.3(a) of the IRR of RA 9184 clearly mandates the BAC to make available the
bidding documents from the time the Invitation to Bid (IB) is first advertised or posted until
the deadline for submission and receipt of bids. xxx [T]he BAC cannot limit the availability of
the bid documents at a date earlier than that mandated by Section 17.3 of the IRR, to do
otherwise would be to violate a mandatory provision of the rules.

Prospective bidders may purchase or secure a copy of the bidding documents even after
the conduct of the pre-bid conference, until the deadline for the submission and receipt of
bids in view of Section 17.3 of the IRR of RA 9184. The non-attendance of the prospective
bidder during the pre-bid conference should not in any way hinder her/him from purchasing
or securing the bidding documents.

NPM 159-2015
 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Whether the submission of AFS in accordance with Section 23.1(a)(iv) of the

revised IRR of RA No. 9184 is applicable to the bidder, established and
registered only in 2015 and could only secure a "stamped" AFS from the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR) in 2016

The submission of the eligibility documents enumerated in Section 23.1 of the IRR of
RA 9184 is a mandatory requirement that must be complied with by the prospective
bidders, such that failure to submit any of the documents or submission of an
otherwise incomplete or patently insufficient document, will disqualify the bidder based
on the non-discretionary "pass/fail" criterion under Section 30.1 of the IRR of RA 9184.

Considering that the AFS stamped "received" by the BIR is a Financial Eligibility
Document under Section 23.1(a)(iv) of the IRR of RA 9184, failure to submit the same
shall render the bidder ineligible to participate in a procurement activity.

NPM 158-2015
 REQUEST FOR QUOTATION
Refusal to accept quotation from suppliers, contractors or consultants who
were not given a Request for Quotation by the procuring entity

Procuring Entities, in the conduct of SVP, are required to draw up a list of at least 3
suppliers, contractors or consultants to whom the Request for Quotation will be sent,
but supplier not in the list, that were able to get hold of the information relative to the
procurement opportunity may also participate. The list of at least 3 suppliers,
contractors or consultants is not a form of accreditation as even those not in the list
and were not invited may still participate.

NPM NO. 164-2015

 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMEN5S

Whether the submission of Audited Financial Statement (AFS) in accordance with Section 23.1(a)(iv) of
the revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184 is applicable to the
bidder, considering that it was established and registered only in 2015 and could only secure a
"stamped" AFS from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in 2016

The submission of the eligibility documents enumerated in Section 23.1 of the IRR of RA 9184 is a mandatory
requirement that must be complied with by the prospective bidders, such that failure to submit any of the
documents or submission of an otherwise incomplete or patently insufficient document, will disqualify the bidder
based on the non-discretionary "pass/fail" criterion under Section 30.1 of the IRR of RA 9184.

Considering that the AFS stamped "received" by the BIR is a Financial Eligibility Document under Section
23.1(a)(iv) of the IRR of RA 9184, failure to submit the same shall render the bidder ineligible to participate in a
procurement activity.

NPM 158-2015
 PRE-BID CONFERENCE

Whether the conduct of pre-bid conference within the seven (7) calendar day posting period in the
Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) is in accordance with Republic Act
(RA) No. 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).

Under Section 21.2.2 of the IRR of RA 9184, aside from newspaper advertisement, the Invitation to Bid shall
likewise be posted continuously in the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS)
website, website of the Procuring Entity and at any conspicuous place in the premises of the Procuring Entity for
seven (7) calendar days, starting from the date of advertisement. After the seven (7)-day posting period, the pre-
bid conference, for contracts with an approved budget of One Million Pesos PhP 1,000,000.00 and above, shall
be held at least twelve (12) calendar days before the submission and receipt of bids. Thus, under the rules, the
pre-bid conference must be conducted after the seven (7) calendar day posting period. Proposal to conduct a pre-
bid conference without completing the 7 day posting period is not in accordance with the IRR of RA 9184.

NPM 157- 2015

 SMALL VALUE PROCUREMENT
Whether NAPOLCOM may award a contract if only one (1) supplier submitted a
quotation for the procurement of goods undertaken through SVP in accordance with
Section 53.9 of the revised IRR of RA No. 9184.

In SVP, it is mandatory to send the Request for Quotation to at least three (3) prospective
bidders/proponents and invite them to submit proposals; but it is not necessary to
actually receive 3 quotations on the day of the deadline for submission of quotations. It is
enough that the procuring entity receives at least one (1) bid/proposal on the day of the
deadline for submission of quotations. Thus, if the lone proposal already complies with
the technical, legal and financial requirements of the procuring entity, the contract can
be awarded to the lone offeror, without the necessity of waiting for two (2) more
quotations. After all, the rules provide that "the procuring entity shall draw up a list of at
least three (3) suppliers, contractors, or consultants of known qualifications which will be
invited to submit proposals.

NPM NO.145-201

 
 ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY DOCUMENTS

Whether the Procuring Entity (PE) may impose additional eligibility documents other than those required
under Sections 23.1, 24.1, and 25.1 of the revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic
Act (RA) No. 9184.

Pes are proscribed from requiring additional requirements. The list of minimum eligibility requirements under the
revised IRR of RA No. 9184 has been streamlined/simplified, such that only those requirements enumerated in
Sections 23.1, 24.1, and 25.1 of the IRR are necessary for purposes of determining bidders' eligibility.

-T]he PE may require additional documents not as additional eligibility documents, but as additional documents
pursuant to the Bidding Documents in relation to the financial component of the bid, Section 25.2, or Section
34.2 of the revised IRR of RA 9184.

NPM No. 142-2015

 BIDDER’S BOND
Whether a "Bidder's Bond", which is callable on demand with the specified
amount equal to five percent (5%) of the budget cost, is an acceptable form of
bid security.

A bidder may submit a bidder's bond that is a surety bond callable upon demand
issued by a surety or insurance company duly certified by the Insurance Commission
as authorized to issue such security, which shall be in the amount equal to five
percent (5%) of the ABC, if such form of bid security has been identified by the PE as
one of the forms allowed in the bidding documents.

The "Bidder's Bond" is an acceptable form of bid security provided that it is in the
prescribed form, amount, denomination, and validity in accordance with Section 27 of
the IRR of RA 9184, and that it is in the form the PE elected in its bidding documents.

NPM No. 135-2015

 CUSTODIAN OF BID DOCS
Which office should take the custody of the original documents pertaining to
successfully procured projects and other documents related to procurement
undertaken by the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC)

Section 14.1(d) of the revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic
Act (RA) No. 9184 provides that the BAC Secretariat shall take custody of
procurement documents and other records.

Per Clause 20.3 of the Instructions to Bidders and Bid Data Sheet of the Philippine
Bidding Documents, the BAC has the discretion as to how many original documents
and copies thereof should be submitted by bidders. Accordingly, if the BAC has
required only one (1) original copy of bidding documents, the BAC Secretariat shall
retain the same as its official custodian.

NPM No. 132-2015

 SUBMISSION OF COLLECTION
RECEIPT AS PROOF OF SLCC
Inquiry on the submission of Collection Receipt in lieu of Official Receipt as
part of the requirements for the statement identifying the bidder's Single
Largest Completed Contract (SLCC).

[I]n determining the technical eligibility of bidders, information on the end-user's

acceptance or Official Receipt is the required document to be included in the
statement identifying the bidder's SLCC; and the Collection Receipts, which are mere
supplementary evidence, cannot substitute the submission of the Official Receipt.

NPM NO. 125-2015

 SLCC OF SMALL A & B CATEGORIES

Whether bidders in infrastructure projects under small A and B categories may

submit an SLCC that did not meet the 50% required percentage for SLCC as
part of their bids

A prospective bidder must have previously completed a contract that is similar to, and
valued at least fifty percent (50%) of the ABC of the contract being bid out. However,
for prospective bidders registered under either Small A or Small B category that does
not have a previously completed similar contract, they are allowed to participate in
the procurement activity provided that the cost of the contract being bid out is not
more than fifty percent (50%) of its ARCC.

NPM 120-2015
[

PCAB LICENSE FOR PAKYAW LABOE

Requirement PCAB license for the engagement of Pakyaw labor in the implementation of
Infrastructure Project

The engagement of Pakyaw labor is not governed by the rules on public bidding under the IRR of RA 9184.

The eligibility documents, such as PCAB license, for competitive public bidding under Section 23.1 of the IRR
of RA 9184 are not required to be submitted in Pakyaw Contracting System. In fact, Section 4.7 of the
Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Infrastructure Projects by Administration provides that in no case
may Pakyaw groups be regular or licensed contractors or organized by and/or under the management of a
regular or licensed contractor.

NPM 112-2015
[

THANK YOU