BID SECURITY

View previous topic View next topic Go down

BID SECURITY

Post by Mike on Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:45 pm

GUD DAY

In our last bidding in infra the Bid Security requirement was questioned. In the Bidding Data Sheet of procuring entity the bid security for Bank Guarantee was 1.5 percent to the ABC. This requirement was not raised nor questioned during the pre-bid conference. During the bidding other contractors followed the instruction in the BDS which is 1.5 percent but the other contractor protested that it should be 2.0 percent to the ABC as per revised IRR of RA 9184. My questioned is which will prevail the Bidding Data Sheet which was issue to the contractors or the requirement in the revised IRR of RA 9184.
On that day the BAC declares postpontment due to conflict of entry in the bidding data sheet and the revised IRR of RA 9184.

avatar
Mike
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 19
Company/Agency : None
Occupation/Designation : Private Practicioner
Registration date : 2010-09-15

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:37 pm

Mike wrote:GUD DAY

In our last bidding in infra the Bid Security requirement was questioned. In the Bidding Data Sheet of procuring entity the bid security for Bank Guarantee was 1.5 percent to the ABC. This requirement was not raised nor questioned during the pre-bid conference. During the bidding other contractors followed the instruction in the BDS which is 1.5 percent but the other contractor protested that it should be 2.0 percent to the ABC as per revised IRR of RA 9184. My questioned is which will prevail the Bidding Data Sheet which was issue to the contractors or the requirement in the revised IRR of RA 9184.
On that day the BAC declares postpontment due to conflict of entry in the bidding data sheet and the revised IRR of RA 9184.


The IRR of R.A. 9184 should prevail, however, since the contractors relied on the BDS which was part of the bidding documents issued by the BAC, the BAC should have declared a failure of bidding and conduct a rebid instead.
avatar
RDV @ GP3i
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 1611
Company/Agency : DBM-Reg'l Office IV-B
Occupation/Designation : Regional Director/ Procurement Trainer
Registration date : 2008-09-04

http://gppphil.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by jcolas on Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:40 pm

Mike,it is the look out of the Procuring Entity, most especially the members of the BAC. I can not find an excuse to absolve the members of the BAC from the very glaring error that they committed. Kung sana nasa Japan tayo, I will ask them to commit hara-kiri, He he he. Sir RDV, these are potential candidates to seminars on RA 9184.

The glaring error should have been pointed out by the bidders during the Pre-Bidding Conference but they were also, maybe dreaming at that time. The result is lost time, lost man hours and the delay of public service, or delay in the delivery of required needs. Sayang!!!
avatar
jcolas
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 517
Company/Agency : DepED RO 2
Occupation/Designation : Administrative Officer V
Registration date : 2009-07-02

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by sunriser431 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:47 pm

RDV @ GP3i wrote:
Mike wrote:GUD DAY

In our last bidding in infra the Bid Security requirement was questioned. In the Bidding Data Sheet of procuring entity the bid security for Bank Guarantee was 1.5 percent to the ABC. This requirement was not raised nor questioned during the pre-bid conference. During the bidding other contractors followed the instruction in the BDS which is 1.5 percent but the other contractor protested that it should be 2.0 percent to the ABC as per revised IRR of RA 9184. My questioned is which will prevail the Bidding Data Sheet which was issue to the contractors or the requirement in the revised IRR of RA 9184.
On that day the BAC declares postpontment due to conflict of entry in the bidding data sheet and the revised IRR of RA 9184.


The IRR of R.A. 9184 should prevail, however, since the contractors relied on the BDS which was part of the bidding documents issued by the BAC, the BAC should have declared a failure of bidding and conduct a rebid instead.
Sir RDV, for clarification. section 35 (Revised IRR) only limits to four(4) situations which the BAC can declare failure of bid. However in section 41 (Reservation clause) list instances which the HOPE can invoke the same and declare it a failure. In my opinion, maybe its the HOPE (not the BAC) have to declare the bidding a failure and using section 41(b) which partly reads "If the BAC is found to have failed in following the prescribed bidding procedures; or xxxx. please advice. bounce


Last edited by sunriser431 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
sunriser431
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 1518
Company/Agency : Goccs Jolo Sulu All the way Downsouth
Occupation/Designation : IAS
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by jcolas on Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:02 pm


the BAC should have declared a failure of bidding and conduct a rebid instead.

The BAC can not invoke Section 35 as upon closer scrutiny of the case at bar, the facts of the case is not one among the four conditions where the BAC can declare a failure. Neither can it invoke Section 27.1 which states, and I quote. "...Failure to enclose the required bid security in the form and amount prescribed herein shall automatically disqualify the bid concerned",as the BAC itself erred when it required a bid security lesser than that of the prescribed amount. And so I agree with Sir Sunriser when he opined that it should be the HOPE who should declare the bidding a failure by invoking Section 41.b of the GPRA. Final Clarification, please Sir RDV.
avatar
jcolas
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 517
Company/Agency : DepED RO 2
Occupation/Designation : Administrative Officer V
Registration date : 2009-07-02

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by Mike on Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:37 pm

Some contractors maybe did not ask for clarifications in the pre bid conference for they thought they will use that in the bidding for disqualifying the other contractors whom did not follow the requirements of the revised IRR of RA 9184. Is it possible that their motives maybe applicable if the bidding was not postponed?
avatar
Mike
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 19
Company/Agency : None
Occupation/Designation : Private Practicioner
Registration date : 2010-09-15

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by sunriser431 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:44 pm

Mike wrote:Some contractors maybe did not ask for clarifications in the pre bid conference for they thought they will use that in the bidding for disqualifying the other contractors whom did not follow the requirements of the revised IRR of RA 9184. Is it possible that their motives maybe applicable if the bidding was not postponed?
I dont think its possible, In my personnal opinion, the data copy furnished to the bidders was defective from the very beginning, a corrective measures has to be made, and in section 6.5 provides for the answer to your concern. bounce
excerpts from the PBDs.
6. Bidder’s Responsibilities
6.1 xxxx
6.5. The Procuring Entity shall not assume any responsibility regarding erroneous interpretations or conclusions by the prospective or eligible bidder out of the data furnished by the procuring entity.

avatar
sunriser431
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 1518
Company/Agency : Goccs Jolo Sulu All the way Downsouth
Occupation/Designation : IAS
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by Mike on Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:02 am

Thank you for the clarifications and for enlightening our knowledge about bidding procedures. Thank You for giving time and patiently answering querries from us. More Power and may God Bless us all.
avatar
Mike
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 19
Company/Agency : None
Occupation/Designation : Private Practicioner
Registration date : 2010-09-15

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by engrjhez® on Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:31 pm

RDV @ GP3i wrote:
The IRR of R.A. 9184 should prevail, however, since the contractors relied on the BDS which was part of the bidding documents issued by the BAC, the BAC should have declared a failure of bidding and conduct a rebid instead.
I think it is the HOPE (Sec.41) and not the BAC (Sec.35) who should declare failure of bidding as jcolas correctly pointed out. Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2480
Age : 39
Company/Agency : City Government of Bacoor [Region IV-A, Province of Cavite]
Occupation/Designation : Office of the City Legal Service (OCLS) / Certified National Trainer - PhilGEPS
Registration date : 2008-10-31

http://www.bacoor.gov.ph

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:14 pm

engrjhez® wrote:
RDV @ GP3i wrote:
The IRR of R.A. 9184 should prevail, however, since the contractors relied on the BDS which was part of the bidding documents issued by the BAC, the BAC should have declared a failure of bidding and conduct a rebid instead.
I think it is the HOPE (Sec.41) and not the BAC (Sec.35) who should declare failure of bidding as jcolas correctly pointed out. Smile

By saying that the BAC shall declare a failure of bidding, I mean that the BAC will recommend to the HOPE to declare a failure of bidding (because it failed to follow the required bidding procedure) in accordance with Section 41. It would be different in a situation where the HOPE, motu proprio, could declare a failure of bidding even without the BAC's recommendation, which is the principal essence of Section 41. But I should have made it much clearer. My mistake.
avatar
RDV @ GP3i
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 1611
Company/Agency : DBM-Reg'l Office IV-B
Occupation/Designation : Regional Director/ Procurement Trainer
Registration date : 2008-09-04

http://gppphil.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by sunriser431 on Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:18 pm

RDV @ GP3i wrote: By saying that the BAC shall declare a failure of bidding, I mean that the BAC will recommend to the HOPE to declare a failure of bidding (because it failed to follow the required bidding procedure) in accordance with Section 41. It would be different in a situation where the HOPE, motu proprio, could declare a failure of bidding even without the BAC's recommendation, which is the principal essence of Section 41. But I should have made it much clearer. My mistake.
Well taken sir RDV. For responding of my similar concern posted earlier on these thread. . bounce
avatar
sunriser431
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 1518
Company/Agency : Goccs Jolo Sulu All the way Downsouth
Occupation/Designation : IAS
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: BID SECURITY

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum