Submission of LOI

by charlie brown on Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:36 pm

At the risk of confounding all of us, or confusing those who already have a clearer understanding of the LOI i would like to post the following observations:

1. if the intention of the GPPB was to eliminate the LOI because a clearer manifistation of intent is the submission of the docs in a bidding, and if such intent was not entirely realized as it has to consider the existing electronic registry of the dpwh i believe we need to look closely at what is the previous and current role of the LOI.

1.a The role of the LOI before was to signify a bidder's intent to join a particular bidding for infra and thus submits its eligibility docs together wiith the written LOI. since DPWH maintained a central electronic registry before, the Implementing Units (engineering districts and regional offices) forwards this LOI and the submitted elig docs to manila for cross checking with the database then a list of eligible bidders is generated based on the result. This list is forwarded to the IUs which will become the basis for those who will be allowed to purchase the bid docs.

1.b The current context of the LOI is different in several ways: 1) the intent would be to inform the PE that the bidder intends to use his current file in the PEs registry and include only those docs that are required to update to fit the Class A docs to the particular bidding at hand. an example is the submission of a CLC in case the existing NFCC on file. 2) in the PBD, if the PE maintains an electronic registry, the LOI submitted may substitute for the class A docs themselves (BDS 12.1) In this regard i think an issue can be raised as to whether the provision in the PBD for infra does not contradict with section 23.4.3 considering that in the latter the LOI and/or application for eligibility is submitted BEFORE the deadline stated in the bid docs.

1.c It is clear then that the purpose for the retention of the LOI as stated above at least for those maintaining electronic registries is not served here since the context of the LOI in the revised IRR is different from before.

2) If there was indeed a need to retain the LOI for the purpose of facilitating eligibility checking using an electronic registry, then the same concept could as well apply for manual registries. the only difference between the two is that in electronic registries, the cross checking is done by comparing the documents submitted together with the LOI with the information contained in the database. In the manual registry, the cross checking is done with hard copies of the docs on file as against those hard copies submitted together with the LOI. It could even be proposed that if there is already an electronic or manual database, the mere submission of the LOI plus necessary update docs ( as mentioned above) would suffice since it would only be a matter of checking the database or the folders in the filling cabinet to see if such documents are indeed present. this is perhaps the reason why the BDS 12.1 for infra was so worded. and again, the same can be said for manual registries

by engrjhez® on Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:04 pm

With due respect, baka pwedeng maki-singit sa 'nosebleed' discussion. Ang katanungan po ni charlie brown ay ganito (sana tama ako):

"may pagkakaiba ba ang manual sa electronic registry at kailangang magsubmit ng LOI sa huli?"

Sana ok lang mag-Taglish kasi feel ko 'nosebleed' na rin ibang readers, ehehe (jok lang). Ganito po yun. Sa manual registry, madali malaman kung merong bidder na may intention sumali. Magsa-submit lang sila ng Class "A" documents during the scheduled registration period. Sa electronic registry, hindi ppwede mai-record ang submission kung walang intention sa sasalihan. Ito ay dahil computer at hindi tao ang nagme-maintain ng registry (although tao ang nag-ooperate). May mga part ng program na mangangailangan ng reference number (na minsa'y mandatory field) ng procurement na sasalihan. Hindi ito magagawa kung basta na lang natin isubmit ang papel. Isa pa, sa electronic system, pwedeng magpasa ng dokumento (maging ang update) electronically. Again, magagawa lang ito kung may LOI na pinanghahawakan ang encoder sa pagbabago (alterations) ng registry files ng sasali . Hindi kasi pwedeng basta na lang magpalit o mag-update ang encoder ng isang electronic registry ng wala syang pinanghahawakan para baguhin yun. Sa side ng bidder, ang receive copy ng LOI ay magsisilbing katunayan na nag-update na sya sa electronic registry (audit trail). Baka pagdating kasi ng bidding, at records ni bidder ay hindi updated - wala syang habol. Doon pumapasok ang integrity at accountability. Sa manual registry, hindi na mahalaga kung saan sasali ang bidder (although mas maganda pa rin ang meron syang cover letter). Wala kasi itong sinusunod na protocol sa pag-store ng files and record. Sa manual kasi, pwdeng simpleng record lang sa logbook, talo-talo na. Or kung merong computer, spreadsheet lang, pwede na - kasi paglilista lang naman ang gagawin. Saka, i-issue-han ng BAC ng certification kung ok records ng bidder. Sa electronic registry, pwede nang hindi mag-issue ng certification kasi ma-che-check naman status nya sa registry. (lalo bang gumulo? haha!)

In short, kailangan ng LOI sa electronic registry para maging "passes" sa mga pagbabagong gagawin sa status ng bidder sa nasabing registry. Ganon ko po sya naintindihan. Very Happy

by amang'65 on Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:12 am

if you dont mind, may i signify my intention?

can we not just simple treat the LOI as parang transmital letter na lang? wherein a bidder/supplier/manufactorer/contractor (o whatever) - signify his/her intention for whatever purpose it should serve whether for purposes of registration or for purposes of compliance in a bidding activity? whether manual o electronic pa yan? whether for goods/infra o consultancy pa yan? parang for formality's sake a bidder simply writes a letter signifying his/her intention kung ano man yung purpose nya (gaya ng na sabi ko - for registration or in compliance to a certain bidding activity) - talo ba ang gobyerno kung ang isang bidder ay nagbigay ng isang sulat na ngasasabing ito ang purpose ko sa sulat na ito? may violation ba? may kaso ba? Very Happy

by engrjhez® on Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:04 pm

amang1965 wrote:if you dont mind, may i signify my intention?

can we not just simple treat the LOI as parang transmital letter na lang? wherein a bidder/supplier/manufactorer/contractor (o whatever) - signify his/her intention for whatever purpose it should serve whether for purposes of registration or for purposes of compliance in a bidding activity? whether manual o electronic pa yan? whether for goods/infra o consultancy pa yan? parang for formality's sake a bidder simply writes a letter signifying his/her intention kung ano man yung purpose nya (gaya ng na sabi ko - for registration or in compliance to a certain bidding activity) - talo ba ang gobyerno kung ang isang bidder ay nagbigay ng isang sulat na ngasasabing ito ang purpose ko sa sulat na ito? may violation ba? may kaso ba?

In shorter (kasi short na yung una ko), me problema ba sa pag-submit ng LOI? Kung required man ito sa electronic registry at not required sa manual registry. Tama ba amang? Very Happy

by amang'65 on Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:12 pm

engrjhez® wrote:
amang1965 wrote:if you dont mind, may i signify my intention?

can we not just simple treat the LOI as parang transmital letter na lang? wherein a bidder/supplier/manufactorer/contractor (o whatever) - signify his/her intention for whatever purpose it should serve whether for purposes of registration or for purposes of compliance in a bidding activity? whether manual o electronic pa yan? whether for goods/infra o consultancy pa yan? parang for formality's sake a bidder simply writes a letter signifying his/her intention kung ano man yung purpose nya (gaya ng na sabi ko - for registration or in compliance to a certain bidding activity) - talo ba ang gobyerno kung ang isang bidder ay nagbigay ng isang sulat na ngasasabing ito ang purpose ko sa sulat na ito? may violation ba? may kaso ba?

In shorter (kasi short na yung una ko), me problema ba sa pag-submit ng LOI? Kung required man ito sa electronic registry at not required sa manual registry. Tama ba amang?

tama ka engr.

by charlie brown on Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:47 pm

engrjhez® wrote:
With due respect, baka pwedeng maki-singit sa 'nosebleed' discussion. Ang katanungan po ni charlie brown ay ganito (sana tama ako):

"may pagkakaiba ba ang manual sa electronic registry at kailangang magsubmit ng LOI sa huli?"

Sana ok lang mag-Taglish kasi feel ko 'nosebleed' na rin ibang readers, ehehe (jok lang). Ganito po yun. Sa manual registry, madali malaman kung merong bidder na may intention sumali. Magsa-submit lang sila ng Class "A" documents during the scheduled registration period. Sa electronic registry, hindi ppwede mai-record ang submission kung walang intention sa sasalihan. Ito ay dahil computer at hindi tao ang nagme-maintain ng registry (although tao ang nag-ooperate). May mga part ng program na mangangailangan ng reference number (na minsa'y mandatory field) ng procurement na sasalihan. Hindi ito magagawa kung basta na lang natin isubmit ang papel. Isa pa, sa electronic system, pwedeng magpasa ng dokumento (maging ang update) electronically. Again, magagawa lang ito kung may LOI na pinanghahawakan ang encoder sa pagbabago (alterations) ng registry files ng sasali . Hindi kasi pwedeng basta na lang magpalit o mag-update ang encoder ng isang electronic registry ng wala syang pinanghahawakan para baguhin yun. Sa side ng bidder, ang receive copy ng LOI ay magsisilbing katunayan na nag-update na sya sa electronic registry (audit trail). Baka pagdating kasi ng bidding, at records ni bidder ay hindi updated - wala syang habol. Doon pumapasok ang integrity at accountability. Sa manual registry, hindi na mahalaga kung saan sasali ang bidder (although mas maganda pa rin ang meron syang cover letter). Wala kasi itong sinusunod na protocol sa pag-store ng files and record. Sa manual kasi, pwdeng simpleng record lang sa logbook, talo-talo na. Or kung merong computer, spreadsheet lang, pwede na - kasi paglilista lang naman ang gagawin. Saka, i-issue-han ng BAC ng certification kung ok records ng bidder. Sa electronic registry, pwede nang hindi mag-issue ng certification kasi ma-che-check naman status nya sa registry. (lalo bang gumulo? haha!)

In short, kailangan ng LOI sa electronic registry para maging "passes" sa mga pagbabagong gagawin sa status ng bidder sa nasabing registry. Ganon ko po sya naintindihan.

magandang tanghali engr jhez. maganda ang mga insight mo. halata na marami kang alam tungkol sa electronic registry. hayaan mong ikwento ko rin ang konti kong nalalaman partikular na sa electronic registry ng dpwh ayon na rin sa aking pananaliksik (whew, hirap Embarassed

) hanggang doon lang talaga kaya kong tagalog. Dagdagan ko mixture ng ingles ha?

From what i know of the previous LOI, constructors who are maintaining eligibility docs with the dpwh registry from time to time sends updates without necessarily showing intent to join a particular bidding as yet. there is a cover letter of course but the LOI as contemplated in the old IRR is submitted to signify intent to join a particular bidding. Sabi pa ng nakausap ko, the submission of the updates is made directly to dpwh central office. what is sumitted to the region or district is the LOI and the attached documents for a particular bidding. Ipinapadala din ito sa CO for cross checking with the database. kaya nga daw minsan meron nakalagay na part of the track record as submitted together with the LOI pero di makita sa database kasi nakalimutan magpadala ng bidder ng update sa dpwh CO.

In the previous procedure, the DPWH does not give the certification of eligibility until after the submission of the LOI and the elig docs. for every bidding daw, the bidders submits the track record and in certain instances the financial eligibility docs (CLC if the nfcc ON FILE IS NOT ADEQUATE). this is because every bidding is unique daw that bidders wod need to submit additional documents kahit current na file nila. That was before.

I have no actual exposure to an established manual registry except our own which i cannot define really as a manual registry as yet. However, by the looks of it, the process of encoding the data in an electronic registry based on submitted elig docs is tantamount to the filing of the hardcopies in a folder for each bidder and placed ina filing cabinet. In electronic updating, the encoder does not need the LOI but the docs for updating as is the practice at dpwh. Say nagpadala ang isang constructor ng copies of completed comtracts to update his track record. this will be encoded in the database after verification i suppose. per se, di kailangan ang LOI dito and lalong walang intention na ganoon in the previous IRR. Now in a manual registry ganon din. somebody will file the updates in the filing cabinet and leaves a record of the transaction just like in an electronic registry.

Sa ngayon you will note na iba na purpose ng LOI kahit na sabihin pang it was retained only for purposes of accomodating the system in place of the dpwh. as it is now, the LOI may substitute the class A docs if the PE is maintaining an electronic registry (BDS 12.1). what was a simple letter of intent to join a particular bidding before has now become a document by itself used in substitute of the class A docs already on file in the electronic registry.

it would appear now that insofar as the manual registry is concerned, the appropriate provision would be 23.4.2 in which a bidder shall be issued a certification by the BAC in lieu of the class A.

From my experience, the issuance of the certification is relevant when there is a rebidding with the same eligibility requirements and those already declared eligible would like to join again. this is not clearly covered in the IRR but it makes a lot of sense if only for simplicity, economy, convenience, etc. A certificate issued everytime the bidder updates his file may not always make sense as i have explained, when the NFCC requirement in a particular bidding is higher than what is already on file. Insuch cases, the prospective bidder may now find the need to update his class A docs particularly for that bidding and may thus need a letter to show or inform of such intent hence this can be called LOI. Its not automatic that the PE will understand what the intent of the bidder is particularly if the PE is doing a lot of bidding activities. Its not automatic as i see it even in an electonic registry hence, in instances when the NFCC/CLC requirement is higher than what is on file the prospective bidder has to submit the needed update (e.g. a CLC) JUST SO HE CAN BE ELIGIBLE IN A PARTICULAR BIDDING. for that an LOI is needed and in such instances it could not submitute the class A Docs as stated in the PBD for infra.

Im hoping i am making sense here. pasensya na sa nosebleed.

by charlie brown on Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:23 pm

amang1965 wrote:if you dont mind, may i signify my intention?

can we not just simple treat the LOI as parang transmital letter na lang? wherein a bidder/supplier/manufactorer/contractor (o whatever) - signify his/her intention for whatever purpose it should serve whether for purposes of registration or for purposes of compliance in a bidding activity? whether manual o electronic pa yan? whether for goods/infra o consultancy pa yan? parang for formality's sake a bidder simply writes a letter signifying his/her intention kung ano man yung purpose nya (gaya ng na sabi ko - for registration or in compliance to a certain bidding activity) - talo ba ang gobyerno kung ang isang bidder ay nagbigay ng isang sulat na ngasasabing ito ang purpose ko sa sulat na ito? may violation ba? may kaso ba?

your LOI is acknowledged sir amang1965 Smile

Yon na nga eh. As i see it the LOI has evolved from a document to trigger the process of eligibility checking for infra/consultancy to a document that could substitute the class a docs. the revision to remove the separate eligibility checking was smart and commendable given the notoriety of dpwh infra biddings (daw ha). However, if that is the case why not include those maintaining manual registries because as i see it other that the method of keeping and consolidating the data, parehas lang ang electronic and manual

by RDV @ GPPPI on Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:04 am

charlie brown wrote:
amang1965 wrote:if you dont mind, may i signify my intention?

can we not just simple treat the LOI as parang transmital letter na lang? wherein a bidder/supplier/manufactorer/contractor (o whatever) - signify his/her intention for whatever purpose it should serve whether for purposes of registration or for purposes of compliance in a bidding activity? whether manual o electronic pa yan? whether for goods/infra o consultancy pa yan? parang for formality's sake a bidder simply writes a letter signifying his/her intention kung ano man yung purpose nya (gaya ng na sabi ko - for registration or in compliance to a certain bidding activity) - talo ba ang gobyerno kung ang isang bidder ay nagbigay ng isang sulat na ngasasabing ito ang purpose ko sa sulat na ito? may violation ba? may kaso ba?

your LOI is acknowledged sir amang1965

Yon na nga eh. As i see it the LOI has evolved from a document to trigger the process of eligibility checking for infra/consultancy to a document that could substitute the class a docs. the revision to remove the separate eligibility checking was smart and commendable given the notoriety of dpwh infra biddings (daw ha). However, if that is the case why not include those maintaining manual registries because as i see it other that the method of keeping and consolidating the data, parehas lang ang electronic and manual

I think the reason for removing the requirement for submission of LOI (except if procuring entity is maintaining an electronic registry) is because some procuring entities would only give a short period of time (less than a week) from advertisement/posting for the submission of LOI. Of course, failure to submit LOI would disqualify the bidder from buying bid docs. We cannot help but suspect that a favored bidder would be able to comply with the LOI submission requirement, to the detriment of the others. The revised IRR has made it clear that the bidding documents should be available from date of posting (for goods and infra) until bid submission, but that would be possible if submission of LOI before the stated deadline becomes the basis for allowing a bidder to purchase bid docs.

There would be no problem if the bidder still wishes to submit an LOI or any intention to participate or apply for eligibility even if it is not required, but there would be a problem if it will be required by the procuring entity even though it is not necessary. In short, the evolution in the requirement for the submission of LOI is to prevent its abuse by procuring entities by putting another hurdle in the participation of other qualified and interested bidders.

by firstlady_5167 on Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:16 pm

hello GPPPI people! ang hirap talagang intindihin yung explanation regarding sa LOI. In our case we are requiring interested bidders to submit their LOI and Class "A" documents pero wala po kaming electronic registry system (papano ba gawin yon?) We only have the manual registry system. Can you pls explain it again? Baka kasi mali na ang ginagawa namin. Thank you po. . .happy weekend!!!

by firstlady_5167 on Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:25 pm

sir. . .can you show me a sample of the context of the LOI in the Revised IRR? Thank you po uli

by RDV @ GPPPI on Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:58 pm

firstlady_5167 wrote:hello GPPPI people! ang hirap talagang intindihin yung explanation regarding sa LOI. In our case we are requiring interested bidders to submit their LOI and Class "A" documents pero wala po kaming electronic registry system (papano ba gawin yon?) We only have the manual registry system. Can you pls explain it again? Baka kasi mali na ang ginagawa namin. Thank you po. . .happy weekend!!!

Good afternoon, firstlady.

Kung walang registry or manual lang ang registry, you should no longer require the submission of an LOI. The following situations should occur:

a) If there is no registry, what an interested bidder should do is buy the bidding documents and submit his bid, together with his Class A documents as part of his Technical Proposal.

b) If there is a manual registry but the prospective is not yet registered, the procedure in situation a) above should also happen.

c) If there is a manual registry and the prospective bidder is already registered, he will just secure the BAC Certificate of Registration which he submits as part of his Technical Proposal.

However, if there is an electronic registry, Sec. 23.4.3 and 24.4.3.3 provide that a prospective bidder, whether or not duly registered, shall submit a written letter of intent and/or application for eligibility and latest Class A documents to the BAC on or before the deadline specified in the bidding documents. If the prospective bidder submits his LOI after the deadline, he could no longer participate in the bidding.

Under the old IRR-A provision, that deadline is a week after the last day of posting. Under the revised IRR, the procuring entity will set the deadline in the bidding documents. There is a deadline for submission of LOI in the case of electronic registry because there are certain protocols that need to be followed by the system.

If we use the DPWH elecronic registry system as an example, their database is centralized. Part of their protocol is that the determination of whether a prospective bidder is eligible or not is done electronically. The determination, for example, of the single largest completed contract of a prospective bidder and computation of his NFCC is by electronic means; hence, there is a deadline because there is a need to update certain information into the system, such as the ABC for the project, the category of the project, etc. The amount of data to be processed and the complexity of the registry system being maintained will determine how much time the procuring entity will need; hence, setting the deadline for submission of LOI is left to the determination of the procuring entity but should be indicated in the bidding documents.

In the case of manual systems, there is no need for that LOI submission and for that deadline. But maybe, if maintaining a manual registry has become cumbersome due to the number of registered suppliers/contractors, the procuring entity should convert to an electronic registry and/or set a deadline for securing a certificate of registration.

by firstlady_5167 on Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:41 pm

thank you very much po for the very very clear explanation on submission of LOI. I will explain it to our BAC Members kasi nga iba ang interpretation nila sa Sec. 23.4.3 and 24.4.3.3 kaya lang i am hesitant to correct them kasi baka ako ang mali dahil BAC Sec lang ako. One thing pa po, can you give us an idea on how to do the Electronic Registry System? Thank you again. Good Day

by RDV @ GPPPI on Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:20 pm

firstlady_5167 wrote:thank you very much po for the very very clear explanation on submission of LOI. I will explain it to our BAC Members kasi nga iba ang interpretation nila sa Sec. 23.4.3 and 24.4.3.3 kaya lang i am hesitant to correct them kasi baka ako ang mali dahil BAC Sec lang ako. One thing pa po, can you give us an idea on how to do the Electronic Registry System? Thank you again. Good Day

Welcome, first lady.

On your request for advice on how to set up and electronic registry, I am sorry I am not techie guy so I cannot provide you any advice on that, except maybe to hire or procure the services of an expert to do just that.

by charlie brown on Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:56 pm

RDV @ GPPPI wrote:
charlie brown wrote:
amang1965 wrote:if you dont mind, may i signify my intention?

can we not just simple treat the LOI as parang transmital letter na lang? wherein a bidder/supplier/manufactorer/contractor (o whatever) - signify his/her intention for whatever purpose it should serve whether for purposes of registration or for purposes of compliance in a bidding activity? whether manual o electronic pa yan? whether for goods/infra o consultancy pa yan? parang for formality's sake a bidder simply writes a letter signifying his/her intention kung ano man yung purpose nya (gaya ng na sabi ko - for registration or in compliance to a certain bidding activity) - talo ba ang gobyerno kung ang isang bidder ay nagbigay ng isang sulat na ngasasabing ito ang purpose ko sa sulat na ito? may violation ba? may kaso ba?

your LOI is acknowledged sir amang1965

Yon na nga eh. As i see it the LOI has evolved from a document to trigger the process of eligibility checking for infra/consultancy to a document that could substitute the class a docs. the revision to remove the separate eligibility checking was smart and commendable given the notoriety of dpwh infra biddings (daw ha). However, if that is the case why not include those maintaining manual registries because as i see it other that the method of keeping and consolidating the data, parehas lang ang electronic and manual

I think the reason for removing the requirement for submission of LOI (except if procuring entity is maintaining an electronic registry) is because some procuring entities would only give a short period of time (less than a week) from advertisement/posting for the submission of LOI. Of course, failure to submit LOI would disqualify the bidder from buying bid docs. We cannot help but suspect that a favored bidder would be able to comply with the LOI submission requirement, to the detriment of the others. The revised IRR has made it clear that the bidding documents should be available from date of posting (for goods and infra) until bid submission, but that would be possible if submission of LOI before the stated deadline becomes the basis for allowing a bidder to purchase bid docs.

There would be no problem if the bidder still wishes to submit an LOI or any intention to participate or apply for eligibility even if it is not required, but there would be a problem if it will be required by the procuring entity even though it is not necessary. In short, the evolution in the requirement for the submission of LOI is to prevent its abuse by procuring entities by putting another hurdle in the participation of other qualified and interested bidders.

the issue that i know of (sa dpwh at least) in the old system was not a problem of not being able to submit the LOI. Rather how to ensure that a prospective bidder who submits the LOI and is declared eligible by the electronic registry will procure the bid docs. what happens kasi is that adetermined bidder will collude with all the other eligible bidders to ensure that he wins the bidding. the common strategies is for those in the loop not to buy the bid docs, buy the bid docs but not submit, submit with incomplete data or a higher bid etc. With a simultaneous submission of the elig and the tech proposal there is lesser chance for bidders to collude - at least on the elig submission stage as it would be difficult for one to keep tab of all those who intends to join. However, as i see it, gppb did not want to do away with the electronic system already in place with dpwh which was why it made an exception. However as i have said, the LOI before is no longer the same as the LOI now. per 12.1 BDS of the PBD for Infra, the LOI maybe submitted in lieu of the class A docs. the LOI now is not a separate step or another layer of activity - unlike before. Hence as it is, the purpose of the LOI would be to simplify the work, avoid repetitive tasks and to minimize the cost of a bid docs. My point is simply given this, why make a distinction between electronic and manual registries.

by charlie brown on Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:28 pm

RDV @ GPPPI wrote:
firstlady_5167 wrote:hello GPPPI people! ang hirap talagang intindihin yung explanation regarding sa LOI. In our case we are requiring interested bidders to submit their LOI and Class "A" documents pero wala po kaming electronic registry system (papano ba gawin yon?) We only have the manual registry system. Can you pls explain it again? Baka kasi mali na ang ginagawa namin. Thank you po. . .happy weekend!!!

Good afternoon, firstlady.

Kung walang registry or manual lang ang registry, you should no longer require the submission of an LOI. The following situations should occur:

a) If there is no registry, what an interested bidder should do is buy the bidding documents and submit his bid, together with his Class A documents as part of his Technical Proposal.

b) If there is a manual registry but the prospective is not yet registered, the procedure in situation a) above should also happen.

c) If there is a manual registry and the prospective bidder is already registered, he will just secure the BAC Certificate of Registration which he submits as part of his Technical Proposal.

However, if there is an electronic registry, Sec. 23.4.3 and 24.4.3.3 provide that a prospective bidder, whether or not duly registered, shall submit a written letter of intent and/or application for eligibility and latest Class A documents to the BAC on or before the deadline specified in the bidding documents. If the prospective bidder submits his LOI after the deadline, he could no longer participate in the bidding.

Under the old IRR-A provision, that deadline is a week after the last day of posting. Under the revised IRR, the procuring entity will set the deadline in the bidding documents. There is a deadline for submission of LOI in the case of electronic registry because there are certain protocols that need to be followed by the system.

If we use the DPWH elecronic registry system as an example, their database is centralized. Part of their protocol is that the determination of whether a prospective bidder is eligible or not is done electronically. The determination, for example, of the single largest completed contract of a prospective bidder and computation of his NFCC is by electronic means; hence, there is a deadline because there is a need to update certain information into the system, such as the ABC for the project, the category of the project, etc. The amount of data to be processed and the complexity of the registry system being maintained will determine how much time the procuring entity will need; hence, setting the deadline for submission of LOI is left to the determination of the procuring entity but should be indicated in the bidding documents.

If i may put in some observations in regard to the dpwh process of updating the registry. From what i know, the updating of the registry does not require the submission of the LOI, both in the previous system and in the current one. Registered constructors will send in their updates mostly for track record purposes (new projects completed) and the periodic updating of licenses and permits. In the previous system, once there is a bid upportunity these bidders submits their LOI and other necessary docs such as a CLC if the NFCC on file is not adequate for the particular bidding. The deadline for the submission of the LOI is just that. the actual processing/evaluation of elegibility has no deadline and the dpwh IMPLEMENTING UNITs will have to wait until the list of eligible bidders arrive before they can proceed to the next step which is the selling of the bid docs to the eligible bidders.

In the new system, if the prospective bidder already have updated eligibility docs with the PE maintaining an electronic registry, the LOI will substitute the submission of another set of eligibility docs (na dapat naman) And the bidder does not need to submit this LOI on or before the deadline kasi di ito kasama sa deadline if we read closely 12.1 BDS of Infra. What is to be submitted on or before the deadline is the application for eligibility and not the LOI.

In the case of manual systems, there is no need for that LOI submission and for that deadline. But maybe, if maintaining a manual registry has become cumbersome due to the number of registered suppliers/contractors, the procuring entity should convert to an electronic registry and/or set a deadline for securing a certificate of registration.

This is where im confused. given the reasons above why apply different rules? If anything dito sa manual mas kailangan in earlier submission of the application for eligibility simply because the process of cross checking and/or evaluating takes a longer time.

Submission of LOI

Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

make it more clear

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI

Re: Submission of LOI