BAC-TWG-Secretariat Liabilities

Can the Secretariat be held liable for not informing the BAC-TWG of the schedule of Biddings? I am throwing this query to really distinguished each other's liability in the performance of duties of the BAC-TWG-Secretariat. I hope the new IRR should lessen the workloads of BAC-TWG personnel.

Here was our sad story;

Last month the Secretariat posted/advertized procurement for infrastructure schedule. The Secretariat informed the BAC of the schedule for a pre-bid conference which were conducted as schedule not knowing that NO eligibility screening, NO Notice of Eligibility was issued to the Bidders. However, before the opening of the Tech and Financial proposal the BAC learned from the SEcretariat of the abovementioned "boner". Naturally, the BAC unanimously declare a "Failure" of the Bidding?
Since it is the function of the Secretariat to inform the BAC of the Schedule, are they liable for such a mess? Is it the BAC that is only liable to this?

ruel wrote:Can the Secretariat be held liable for not informing the BAC-TWG of the schedule of Biddings? I am throwing this query to really distinguished each other's liability in the performance of duties of the BAC-TWG-Secretariat. I hope the new IRR should lessen the workloads of BAC-TWG personnel.

Here was our sad story;

Last month the Secretariat posted/advertized procurement for infrastructure schedule. The Secretariat informed the BAC of the schedule for a pre-bid conference which were conducted as schedule not knowing that NO eligibility screening, NO Notice of Eligibility was issued to the Bidders. However, before the opening of the Tech and Financial proposal the BAC learned from the SEcretariat of the abovementioned "boner". Naturally, the BAC unanimously declare a "Failure" of the Bidding?
Since it is the function of the Secretariat to inform the BAC of the Schedule, are they liable for such a mess? Is it the BAC that is only liable to this?

The Procedure for Infrastructure projects (Competitive Biding)

1. Pre-Procurement
2. Advertisement/posting of IAEB
3 Letter of Intent
4. Eligibility Check for civil works
5. Issuance and availability of bidding documents
5 Pre bid conference
6. Request for clarification
7. Supplemental/Bid bulletin
8. Submission and Opening of Bids
9. Bid Evaluation
10. Post Qualification
11. Approval of Resolution/Issuance of Notice of Award
12. Contract Preparation and Signing
13. Approval of Contract by Higher Authority
14. Issuance of Notice to Proceed

For procurement of Civil Works/Infrastruture projects the bidding involves two stages, first is the Eligibility screening, those pass the first stage will be allowed to proceed to the second stage, the issuance of Bid documents. There are lapses on the preparation of the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid, during the pre-procurement conference its the BAC that determines what to include in the Eligibility criteria, The BAC Secretariat will only do the ministerial work,
which is the posting of the IAEB.
Ruel wrote
"NO Notice of Eligibility was issued to the Bidders". The reason for this, the IAEB (maybe) did not specify the requirement for the prospective bidder to submit Letter of Intent (LOI). So definitely no eligibility screening can be conducted.

sunriser wrote:The reason for this, the IAEB (maybe) did not specify the requirement for the prospective bidder to submit Letter of Intent (LOI). So definitely no eligibility screening can be conducted.

"Shouldn't we blame the Secretariat for the lapses? Not the BAC? The SEcretariat should have known schedule and requirement before.

sunriser wrote:For procurement of Civil Works/Infrastruture projects the bidding involves two stages, first is the Eligibility screening, those pass the first stage will be allowed to proceed to the second stage, the issuance of Bid documents. There are lapses on the preparation of the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid, during the pre-procurement conference its the BAC that determines what to include in the Eligibility criteria, The BAC Secretariat will only do the ministerial work,
which is the posting of the IAEB

THe BAC knows the above stages, but my point is.. why should pass the "buck on the BAC" when after all, it is the SEcretariat's mistake.

I just want to plead the case to the GPPB to really distinguished the liabilities of the BAC-TWG-Secretariat on the new IRR in order that thse bodies should function independently accordingly with attached liabilities.

Sir Ruel if may I ask how many personnel you have in the BAC Secretariat?

sunriser431 wrote:Sir Ruel if may I ask how many personnel you have in the BAC Secretariat?

maybe 10. four regulars and six job-orders.



Our LGU BAC caters to 26 Departments and almost 15 attached offices, that functions like a department with different needs in procurements everyday.

Our BAC affixes its signatures to almost 25 transactions for "Alternative mode of Procurements" from Shopping to Negotiated procurement everyday. It also conducts at 7 to 10 competitive Bidding every friday.

The examination alone of every documents eats a lot of time for the BAC.

ruel wrote:

sunriser wrote:The reason for this, the IAEB (maybe) did not specify the requirement for the prospective bidder to submit Letter of Intent (LOI). So definitely no eligibility screening can be conducted.

"Shouldn't we blame the Secretariat for the lapses? Not the BAC? The SEcretariat should have known schedule and requirement before.

sunriser wrote:For procurement of Civil Works/Infrastruture projects the bidding involves two stages, first is the Eligibility screening, those pass the first stage will be allowed to proceed to the second stage, the issuance of Bid documents. There are lapses on the preparation of the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid, during the pre-procurement conference its the BAC that determines what to include in the Eligibility criteria, The BAC Secretariat will only do the ministerial work,
which is the posting of the IAEB

THe BAC knows the above stages, but my point is.. why should pass the "buck on the BAC" when after all, it is the SEcretariat's mistake.

I just want to plead the case to the GPPB to really distinguished the liabilities of the BAC-TWG-Secretariat on the new IRR in order that thse bodies should function independently accordingly with attached liabilities.

Section 41. Reservation Clause

41.1. The procuring entity reserves the right to reject any and all bids, declare a failure of bidding, or not award the contract in the following situations:
a.) xxxx
b.)If the BAC is found to have failed in following the prescribed bidding procedures
c.)xxxx

The Statement of Section 41.1(a) should be amended to include the BAC Secretariat. But then again, In my opinion, its internal policy within the agency, you can reprimand the personnel concern for not following the prescribe bidding procedure. I think GPPB will no longer entertain with this kind of query. Section 14.1 already spell out the Functions and the responsibilities of the BAC Secretariat.

ruel wrote:

sunriser431 wrote:Sir Ruel if may I ask how many personnel you have in the BAC Secretariat?

maybe 10. four regulars and six job-orders.

Our LGU BAC caters to 26 Departments and almost 15 attached offices, that functions like a department with different needs in procurements everyday.

Our BAC affixes its signatures to almost 25 transactions for "Alternative mode of Procurements" from Shopping to Negotiated procurement everyday. It also conducts at 7 to 10 competitive Bidding every friday.

The examination alone of every documents eats a lot of time for the BAC.

Thanks Sir Ruel for the info. at least you are much better situation than us. For my part One Head and One Assistant thats all no more no less, but inspite of all the problems, we can still manage the situation. we'll make sure, to check, double check again, and again all the procurement proceedings, thats why we never encounter this kind of problem since assuming office way back 2003. Not to mention we dont receive any extra renumeration. But in the end, its the satisfaction we get at the end of each day. I believe every Bidding is unique in every situation, and its a challenge for us, and we take it seriously.

engrjhez wrote:

ruel wrote:Can the Secretariat be held liable for not informing the BAC-TWG of the schedule of Biddings? I am throwing this query to really distinguished each other's liability in the performance of duties of the BAC-TWG-Secretariat. I hope the new IRR should lessen the workloads of BAC-TWG personnel.

Here was our sad story;

Last month the Secretariat posted/advertized procurement for infrastructure schedule. The Secretariat informed the BAC of the schedule for a pre-bid conference which were conducted as schedule not knowing that NO eligibility screening, NO Notice of Eligibility was issued to the Bidders. However, before the opening of the Tech and Financial proposal the BAC learned from the SEcretariat of the abovementioned "boner". Naturally, the BAC unanimously declare a "Failure" of the Bidding?
Since it is the function of the Secretariat to inform the BAC of the Schedule, are they liable for such a mess? Is it the BAC that is only liable to this?

This mess may come from one root - the APP.

If the APP is not updated as it is to be implemented, then there's always a room for lapses. In the APP, the schedules from Pre-Proc to Delivery and Acceptance is clearly a part. It sometimes (or always) happen if the APP is re-aligned or modified frequently. Since the Secretariat is mandated to consolidate the updated PPMPs into updated APP, it follows that the problem in scheduling is really a BAC Secretariat problem. Now, will the BAC Secretariat be sanctioned? For me, an "internal disciplinary" action may be enough for the person(s) responsible. And since the BAC is the "real" procurement machinery, it is just like the BAC cannot pass on liability of our office works to our "house maids" entrusted to do some of our work assignments.

In the end, the BAC may recommend retention or termination of the Secretariat/TWG services depending on their performance, just like the HOPE can practice the same for BAC members.

We should not point the muzzle of the gun and fire indiscriminately to the BAC Secretariat, but instead take a look at the root cause of the problem. for similar topic refer to this link
http://gppb.topicsolutions.net/forum-s-mitt-f7/survey-on-the-bac-secretariat-and-its-staff-t215.htm

sunriser431 wrote:

ruel wrote:

sunriser431 wrote:Sir Ruel if may I ask how many personnel you have in the BAC Secretariat?

maybe 10. four regulars and six job-orders.

Our LGU BAC caters to 26 Departments and almost 15 attached offices, that functions like a department with different needs in procurements everyday.

Our BAC affixes its signatures to almost 25 transactions for "Alternative mode of Procurements" from Shopping to Negotiated procurement everyday. It also conducts at least 7 to 10 competitive Bidding every friday.

The examination alone of every documents eats a lot of time for the BAC.

Thanks Sir Ruel for the info. at least you are much better situation than us. For my part One Head and One Assistant thats all no more no less, but inspite of all the problems, we can still manage the situation. we'll make sure, to check, double check again, and again all the procurement proceedings, thats why we never encounter this kind of problem since assuming office way back 2003. Not to mention we dont receive any extra renumeration. But in the end, its the satisfaction we get at the end of each day. I believe every Bidding is unique in every situation, and its a challenge for us, and we take it seriously.

Sunriser, I believed the BAC of GOCC's, SUC's,and other NG's are much better than LGUS's. aS i HAVE mentioned in my previous posts, procurements of GOCC's, SUC's, and other National Agencies are focused only on the needs of there own particular Departments kaya madali para sa kanila. while LGU's BAC caters to almost 31 different DEPARMENTS (Can you belived that? ) from PNP procurements, Bureau of Fire Protection, Assistance to procurements for Local Water Districts, Health, Dep-Eds, Slaughterhouse, etc, etc, (because they are funded from our LGU's Local Budget).

and the worst part... most of this Departments does not know how to prepare their PPMP! And the Secretariat complained 0f consolidating the APP's (Buti sana kung Office supplies lang)ha ha ha Kaya kung pwde lang mag resign sa BAC, all of its members will do (to hell with the Honorarium) (pun intended).

yung point ko kanina, pag dating sa liabilities dapat meron distinction sa BAC-TWG-SEcreatriat, Ibig kung sabihin, pag nasa territory nung TWG and the Secretariat ang lapses dapat sagot nila yun! Pag sa BAC ang lapses sagot din nila.Can the new IRR do that?

ruel wrote:Can the Secretariat be held liable for not informing the BAC-TWG of the schedule of Biddings? I am throwing this query to really distinguished each other's liability in the performance of duties of the BAC-TWG-Secretariat. I hope the new IRR should lessen the workloads of BAC-TWG personnel.

Here was our sad story;

Last month the Secretariat posted/advertized procurement for infrastructure schedule. The Secretariat informed the BAC of the schedule for a pre-bid conference which were conducted as schedule not knowing that NO eligibility screening, NO Notice of Eligibility was issued to the Bidders. However, before the opening of the Tech and Financial proposal the BAC learned from the SEcretariat of the abovementioned "boner". Naturally, the BAC unanimously declare a "Failure" of the Bidding?
Since it is the function of the Secretariat to inform the BAC of the Schedule, are they liable for such a mess? Is it the BAC that is only liable to this?

I think it is, generally, the BAC's fault. Consider the following:

1. When the IAEB was prepared, the deadline for submission of LOI and eligibility documents/conduct of eligibility check, should have been indicated also. Those are part of BAC's responsibilities, which it has apparently failed to indicate in the IAEB, so that the BAC Secretariat should have been properly guided.

2. When the BAC conducted the pre-bid conference, it did not even verify that those who attended are the eligible bidders? The responsibility of conducting eligibility check is with the BAC, why is it that it did not even wonder why they are already conducting a pre-bid conference without first conducting eligibility check?

The BAC Secretariat should also be held liable, not only for forgetting to remind the BAC of the schedules of meetings, but for selling the bid documents to bidders who were not previously declared eligible by the BAC to participate in the bidding process.

RDV wrote:I think it is, generally, the BAC's fault. Consider the following:

1. When the IAEB was prepared, the deadline for submission of LOI and eligibility documents/conduct of eligibility check, should have been indicated also. Those are part of BAC's responsibilities, which it has apparently failed to indicate in the IAEB, so that the BAC Secretariat should have been properly guided.

It was actually indicated in the IAEB. But, the BAC-Secretariat did not sent notice to the BAC of the Schedule for Eligibilty check. Although It is the BAC's responsibilty, but the sECRetariat should be held liable too kung merong problema.

if possible, i suggest that the new IRR shall distinguished or spell out the responsibility of the TWG and the Secretariat along with its liabilities, not just zeroing on the BAC's BACK.

RDV wrote:
2. When the BAC conducted the pre-bid conference, it did not even verify that those who attended are the eligible bidders? The responsibility of conducting eligibility check is with the BAC, why is it that it did not even wonder why they are already conducting a pre-bid conference without first conducting eligibility check?

The BAC did really forgot to verify sa dami ng Bidding Schedules namin RDV , because we already assumed that there already was a Notice of Eleigibility, and the fact that NONE OF THE BIDDERS ATTENDED the pre- bid meeting (kumpyansa talaga) since the Contractors are already doing business in the LGU's for the past 20 years.

RDV wrote:
The BAC Secretariat should also be held liable, not only for forgetting to remind the BAC of the schedules of meetings, but for selling the bid documents to bidders who were not previously declared eligible by the BAC to participate in the bidding process

yun nga ang point ko RDV, the SEcretariat should have required first the a NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY from the Bidders before selling the Bid Documents. The lapses could have been avoided.

ruel wrote:

RDV wrote:I think it is, generally, the BAC's fault. Consider the following:

1. When the IAEB was prepared, the deadline for submission of LOI and eligibility documents/conduct of eligibility check, should have been indicated also. Those are part of BAC's responsibilities, which it has apparently failed to indicate in the IAEB, so that the BAC Secretariat should have been properly guided.

It was actually indicated in the IAEB. But, the BAC-Secretariat did not sent notice to the BAC of the Schedule for Eligibilty check. Although It is the BAC's responsibilty, but the sECRetariat should be held liable too kung merong problema.

if possible, i suggest that the new IRR shall distinguished or spell out the responsibility of the TWG and the Secretariat along with its liabilities, not just zeroing on the BAC's BACK.

RDV wrote:
2. When the BAC conducted the pre-bid conference, it did not even verify that those who attended are the eligible bidders? The responsibility of conducting eligibility check is with the BAC, why is it that it did not even wonder why they are already conducting a pre-bid conference without first conducting eligibility check?

The BAC did really forgot to verify sa dami ng Bidding Schedules namin RDV , because we already assumed that there already was a Notice of Eleigibility, and the fact that NONE OF THE BIDDERS ATTENDED the pre- bid meeting (kumpyansa talaga) since the Contractors are already doing business in the LGU's for the past 20 years.

RDV wrote:
The BAC Secretariat should also be held liable, not only for forgetting to remind the BAC of the schedules of meetings, but for selling the bid documents to bidders who were not previously declared eligible by the BAC to participate in the bidding process

yun nga ang point ko RDV, the SEcretariat should have required first the [b]a NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY from the Bidders before selling the Bid Documents. The lapses could have been avoided.[/b]

For Purpose of Discussion
Actually the Bid documents can be sold to any interested bidder, even those who did not pass the eligibility requirements, but during the schedule opening of bids, they are not allowed to participate the bidding proper.

sunriser wrote:For Purpose of Discussion
Actually the Bid documents can be sold to any interested bidder, even those who did not pass the eligibility requirements, but during the schedule opening of bids, they are not allowed to participate the bidding proper.

for the Procurement of Infrastructures you need to pass the Eligibility Check First before the prospective bidders are allowed to purchase Bid documents. The Bidders need to show proof of its Eligibility (Notice of Eligibility from the BAC) before it'll be allowed to purchase the Bid Docs.
Unlike in the procurement of goods which the Eligibilty Documents and Bid documents are package as one that are readily availble for purchase to prospective bidders.