Re: Class "A" Financial Documents

jcolas wrote:Good morning forum,

I am a new member and I would like topresent this issue. The ITB we prepared required that the Bid Security should be issued by a commercial bank; and during the pre-bid conference, it was impressed on the bidders that the security should come from a commercial bank. During the openning of which I was absent, the BAC rated pass a bidder which submitted a bid security issued by a rural bank and the bidder was declared the LCB. To me, this should have been a valid ground for the biiders' disqualification. The aggrieve second bidder has submited a protest. May I solicit your opinion on the issue at bar?

Welcome to the forum jcolas, but your query is out-of-topic. You are asking regarding Bid Security under the topic Class A, Financial Documents.

But, at any rate, let me try to answer your question.

If, as you mentioned, during the pre-bid conference, it was impressed by the BAC that the bid security should be issued by a commercial bank, the BAC should have issued a Supplemental/Bid Bulletin for the purpose. If it was not done or if the ITB/BDS did not also indicate that the bid security should be issued by a commercial bank, then the provision of Sec. 27.2(a) which only provides for a "reputable local bank" should apply, which does not necessarily disallows a rural bank.

Sir;
It was too late when I realized my querry was misplaced. Yes it was included in the ITB and the BDS so I did not bother to draw a Bid bullettin for this. The other bidder has submitted a protest already. What should be our recourse?

jcolas wrote:Sir;
It was too late when I realized my querry was misplaced. Yes it was included in the ITB and the BDS so I did not bother to draw a Bid bullettin for this. The other bidder has submitted a protest already. What should be our recourse?

.

If it was indicated in the BDS that the bid security (cashier's check, manager's check, bank draft/letter of credit, bank guarantee) should be issued by a commercial bank, and it was explained during the pre-bid conference, then the bidder which complained against the BAC decision not to disqualify a bidder which got its bid security from a rural bank, has a cause of action.

If it has submitted a written protest (which, I assume, is just a motion of reconsideration submitted to the BAC), the BAC should resolve it in 7 c.d. If the BAC decides to reconsider its action, then the bidder which has been considered the LCB will be disqualified. The BAC shall then consider the 2nd LCB for post-qualification.

good pm.

may i know if the BAC can limit the form of bid security to only
a) Cash, certified check, cashier’s check/manager’s check.

thank you.

engrjhez wrote:

misty wrote:good pm.

may i know if the BAC can limit the form of bid security to only
a) Cash, certified check, cashier’s check/manager’s check.

thank you.

Yes you may.

However, you cannot do that unless you customize your own procurement manual, specifying that limitation in the definition and applicability of Bid Security, and have it approved by the GPPB.

I dont think we need to customize it engrjhez, kasi the PBD has already given the PE 3 choices. It is up to the Procuring Entity to choose.

thank you for your replies.

we prefer to limit the forms of bid security to only those i mentioned because the other forms can be tampered with. besides, we are not familiar which surety companies are reputable or not reputable.

so, if it is within the authority of the BAC to impose the limitation, then we might consider doing it. we just want to avoid any misunderstandings with the bidders later on, should our BAC decide to put such limitation.

again, thank you for all your inputs.

ruel wrote:

engrjhez wrote:

misty wrote:good pm.

may i know if the BAC can limit the form of bid security to only
a) Cash, certified check, cashier’s check/manager’s check.

thank you.

Yes you may.

However, you cannot do that unless you customize your own procurement manual, specifying that limitation in the definition and applicability of Bid Security, and have it approved by the GPPB.

I dont think we need to customize it engrjhez, kasi the PBD has already given the PE 3 choices. It is up to the Procuring Entity to choose.

Tama yan, engr ruel. You just have to indicate in the BDS the form and amount fo Bid Security that you will allow to be submitted.

At any rate, kung ma-approve na bagong IRR, wala na yata ang surety bond sa acceptable form of bid security at pare-pareho na ang amount for the different forms which is 2% of the ABC.

engrjhez wrote:Kung ganoon pala, what is the rationale of government agencies in formulating and having customized procurement manuals, and have it approved by the GPPB if there are no significant effect di pala? Meron po bang pwedeng i-introduce sa customized manual na di cover ng PBDs or unclear sa IRR(A)?

I also wonder engrjhez, Bakit merong Generic manual? Bakit iba tayo sa manual ng DPWH, DepEd, LGU Marikina, etc., etc.? but i think that for LGU',s THe Local Procurement Manual is already customized for us. On the other hand, the new IRR shall be customized daw by the GPPB in their battlecry for "No A's or B's; Just One IRR", ' and maybe, all the colors shall bleed into one na'. No more different procurement manuals for every departments, but one and only One manual under the new IRR.

eto pala yung BDS format,

Clause 14.1 and 14.2 of the BDS

"Select one of the following, deleting the others:
If the Funding Source is GOP or WB:

The Bid Security shall be in the following forms and amount:
(a) Cash, certified check, cashier’s check, bank draft or irrevocable letter of credit [Insert one percent (1%) of ABC];
(b) Bank Guarantee [Insert one and a half percent (1.5%) of ABC];
(c) Surety Bond [Insert two and a half percent (2.5%) of ABC]; or
(d) Foreign Government Guarantee [Insert one hundred percent (100%) of ABC].


NOTE: The PROCURING ENTITY may choose the acceptable Bid Security from the above-mentioned forms.

x x x x x x."