Question on the Guidelines on Blacklisting

Newbie here.

How do you sirs/mesdames interpret Section 5.6 of the Guidelines which states "Upon finality of the decision suspending the contractor, the Head of the Procuring Entity or appellate authority shall issue a Blacklisting Order."

If a suspension order is issued by the procuring entity, does it necessarily follow that a Blacklisting Order must also be issued afterwards?

Otherwise stated, is the procuring entity given the flexibility to issue only a suspension order, and not a blacklisting order against a supplier?

Thanks in advance.

pocoyo wrote:Newbie here.

How do you sirs/mesdames interpret Section 5.6 of the Guidelines which states "Upon finality of the decision suspending the contractor, the Head of the Procuring Entity or appellate authority shall issue a Blacklisting Order."

If a suspension order is issued by the procuring entity, does it necessarily follow that a Blacklisting Order must also be issued afterwards?

Otherwise stated, is the procuring entity given the flexibility to issue only a suspension order, and not a blacklisting order against a supplier?

Thanks in advance.

Welcome to the forum, pocoyo.

The provision that you quoted is Item 5.9, instead of Item 5.6, of the Uniform Guidelines for Blacklisting.

We really need to clarify between Suspension as an administrative penalty per se and Blacklisting, which is also an administrative penalty. In the definition of terms of the Uniform Guidelines for Blacklisting, blacklisting is differentiated against suspension with the following definitions:

"3.3 Blacklisting. An administrative penalty disqualifying a person or an entity from participating in any government procurement for a given period.

"3.4 Suspension. The administrative penalty imposed for infractions committed by a contractor during the competitive bidding stage, whereby such contractor is prohibited from further participation in the bidding process of an agency."

If the administrative penalty of suspension is imposed, in accordance with Section 69.1 of the IRR, the erring bidder is prohibited from further participating in the public bidding process being undertaken by the procuring entity concerned. It does not always follow that blacklisting order will still be imposed.

If the procuring entity decides to proceed not only with suspension but also with blacklisting under Sec. 69.4 of the IRR, the Uniform Guidelines for Blacklisting shall be followed where after due process (initiation of action, notification and hearings), the HOPE issues the decision to suspend the bidder from participating in any bidding process of the procuring entity and only after the decision to suspend the bidder has become final and executory (after 7 c.d from receipt of decision or resolution on MR/Protest) that the HOPE shall issue a Blacklisting Order.

thanks RDV for your enlightening response.

May I pose the following additional questions:

Question 1:

In the case of the administrative penalty of suspension, there is a prescribed effectivity period given under Sec. 69.1 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9184 (i.e., 1 year for the first offense; and 2 years for the 2nd offense).

Is there also a prescribed effectivity period for a Blacklisting Order?


Question 2:

In case the procuring entity will only impose the penalty of suspension under Sec 69.1 of the IRR of RA 9184, must the procedures provided under the Uniform Guidelines for Blacklisting be followed (e.g., initiation, notification, hearing, etc.)?

Thank you.

pocoyo wrote:May I pose the following additional questions:

Question 1:

In the case of the administrative penalty of suspension, there is a prescribed effectivity period given under Sec. 69.1 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9184 (i.e., 1 year for the first offense; and 2 years for the 2nd offense).

Is there also a prescribed effectivity period for a Blacklisting Order?

The period of blacklisting is also suspension for a period of one (1) year for the first offense and two (2) years for the second offense. A blacklisted person/entity will automatically be delisted in the Consolidated Blacklisting Report being maintained by the GPPB unless the procuring entity requests the GPPB to maintain the blacklist for justifiable reasons.

pocoyo wrote:Question 2:
In case the procuring entity will only impose the penalty of suspension under Sec 69.1 of the IRR of RA 9184, must the procedures provided under the Uniform Guidelines for Blacklisting be followed (e.g., initiation, notification, hearing, etc.)? Thank you.

Yes, you may adopt the procedure outlined in the Blacklisting Guidelines prior to deciding whether to impose the penalty of suspension only (not necessarily blacklisting) under Sec. 69.1. Should it be decided that a suspension will be issued, only a Suspension Order will be issued and not a Blacklisting Order.

Good morning. )

We would just like to clarify some matters regarding the period for the suspension/blacklisting of contractors.

In Section 5.4 of the Uniform Guidelines for Blacklisting, it states that the decision of the HOPE shall clearly and distinctly state the facts, evidence and the law on which it is based, as well as the date of effectivity of the penalty, if any.

For purposes of computing/determining the one (1) year or two (2) year period of suspension as penalty, is our understanding correct that the reckoning date for the period within which a contractor is suspended is the date indicated in the Notice of Decision? Or is it the date when we issue the Ssupension Order/Blacklisting Order?

Thank you very much.