Latest topics
» No Objection Letter
Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:21 pm by zeph03

» CATERING SERVICES FOR CONGRESSIONAL MEET AT SAGBAYAN, BOHOL
Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:14 pm by btorres4

» PURCHASE OF FERTILIZERS FOR LIVESTOCK, CORN, HVCDP, INLAND FISHERY, AND ORGANIC PROGRAM
Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:35 pm by btorres4

» Newspaper Publication
Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:10 pm by btorres4

» RENTAL OF LIGHTS AND SOUND SYSTEM
Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:46 pm by btorres4

» Newspaper Publication
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:50 pm by btorres4

» PURCHASE OF OTHER SUPPLIES FOR SB OFFICE
Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:51 pm by btorres4

» PURCHASE OF RICE FOR FOOD SUPPLIES OF PEACE & ORDER CAMPAIGN
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:19 pm by btorres4

» Expired Tax Clearance during payment
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:11 pm by vallemaco6224

» PURCHASE OF MEDICINE FOR MHO
Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:53 pm by btorres4


ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

View previous topic View next topic Go down

ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by kate0430 on Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:52 pm

Can a cooperative be eligible to participate in the bidding for the delivery of goods which are not included in their Articles of Cooperation approved by the CDA? For example, a cooperative with objectives and purpose to engage in (a) all types of construction business, and (b) supply and delivery of construction supplies participates in the bidding for the supply and delivery of office supplies. Can the BAC allow the Cooperative to continue to bid or should the BAC disqualify the Coop on the basis of its registration/limitations in its Charter? thank you.
avatar
kate0430
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 2
Company/Agency : Commission on Audit
Occupation/Designation : Team Leader
Registration date : 2011-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by riddler on Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:13 pm

kate0430 wrote:Can a cooperative be eligible to participate in the bidding for the delivery of goods which are not included in their Articles of Cooperation approved by the CDA? For example, a cooperative with objectives and purpose to engage in (a) all types of construction business, and (b) supply and delivery of construction supplies participates in the bidding for the supply and delivery of office supplies. Can the BAC allow the Cooperative to continue to bid or should the BAC disqualify the Coop on the basis of its registration/limitations in its Charter? thank you.

Very Happy hi kate.. the Eligibility Documents to be submitted by prospective bidders/suppliers requires a SEC registration for Coops, Corporations, partnershis, etc. which the BAC-TWG shall examine during the time of the opening of Bid or Bid Evaluation/Post qualification if their Articles of Incorporation/Cooperation allows them to participate in the Bidding for Office Supplies in consonance with their submitted AI's.. In your abovementioned query,the BAC can surely declare these COOP's as eneligible on the ground that their AI's only/specifically allows them for the supply and delivery of construction materials or construction of infra projects. Very Happy Further, the BAC can also examine the nature of their application for Business/Mayor permit relative to their bid for office supplies. Very Happy
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by engrjhez® on Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:21 pm

kate0430 wrote:Can a cooperative be eligible to participate in the bidding for the delivery of goods which are not included in their Articles of Cooperation approved by the CDA? For example, a cooperative with objectives and purpose to engage in (a) all types of construction business, and (b) supply and delivery of construction supplies participates in the bidding for the supply and delivery of office supplies.
YES.

kate0430 wrote:Can the BAC allow the Cooperative to continue to bid or should the BAC disqualify the Coop on the basis of its registration/limitations in its Charter? thank you.

NO basis as far as RA 9184 is concerned. The process of evaluating the eligibility (including technical) criteria does not reside on the limitations of the cooperatives charter but rather on Section 23.5 of the IRR, particularly:

23.5.1.3. The prospective bidder must have completed, within the period specified in the Invitation to Bid, a single contract that is similar to the contract to be bid, and whose value, adjusted to current prices using the National Statistics Office (NSO) consumer price indices, must be at least fifty percent (50%) of the ABC. However, in the case of Expendable Supplies, said single contract must be at least twenty five percent (25%) of the ABC. x x x


If the cooperative can show in the "Statement of Completed Projects Similar in Nature" that they have completed a single contract (government or private) satisfying the required minimum amount, they may be considered to be eligible. (of course still subject later on to validation in the post qual)Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2481
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by riddler on Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:11 am

color=green][justify]
kate0430 wrote:Can a cooperative be eligible to participate in the bidding for the delivery of goods which are not included in their Articles of Cooperation approved by the CDA? For example, a cooperative with objectives and purpose to engage in (a) all types of construction business, and (b) supply and delivery of construction supplies participates in the bidding for the supply and delivery of office supplies.
engrjhez® wrote:YES.


Very Happy i may be misquoted engrjhez, but the purpose of requiring the SEC and Mayor's permit as part of Eligibility requirement is for the BAC-TWG to examine the eligibility of those submitted documents relative to the purpose for which these SEC/AI's and Mayors/Business Permit has been applied for by the prospective Bidders.. surely the COOP cannot enter into bidding if they are only allowed by there business permit and SEC/AI's for the construction and supply of infra project. meaning to say, these COOP by the nature of there AI's should not participate in the bidding for the supply and delivery of office supply.
Very Happy



avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by engrjhez® on Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:37 am

riddler wrote:
Very Happy i may be misquoted engrjhez, but the purpose of requiring the SEC and Mayor's permit as part of Eligibility requirement is for the BAC-TWG to examine the eligibility of those submitted documents relative to the purpose for which these SEC/AI's and Mayors/Business Permit has been applied for by the prospective Bidders.. surely the COOP cannot enter into bidding if they are only allowed by there business permit and SEC/AI's for the construction and supply of infra project. meaning to say, these COOP by the nature of there AI's should not participate in the bidding for the supply and delivery of office supply.
Very Happy
For the purposes of discussion, may we know what particular part of evaluation or provision under the IRR (GPRA) specifically prohibits the participating the procurement on the basis of the underlined? Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2481
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by riddler on Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:49 pm

engrjhez® wrote:
riddler wrote:
Very Happy i may be misquoted engrjhez, but the purpose of requiring the SEC and Mayor's permit as part of Eligibility requirement is for the BAC-TWG to examine the eligibility of those submitted documents relative to the purpose for which these SEC/AI's and Mayors/Business Permit has been applied for by the prospective Bidders.. surely the COOP cannot enter into bidding if they are only allowed by there business permit and SEC/AI's for the construction and supply of infra project. meaning to say, these COOP by the nature of there AI's should not participate in the bidding for the supply and delivery of office supply.
Very Happy
For the purposes of discussion, may we know what particular part of evaluation or provision under the IRR (GPRA) specifically prohibits the participating the procurement on the basis of the underlined? Smile

the BAC may use Sec 34.3 (a) of the amended IRR engrjhez... the business permit or AI's has to be verified, validated, and ascertained by the BAC-TWG before the Award.... e.g.) supposed a certain bidder submitted a Business Permit solely for supply and distribution of Medical Supplies, surely it cannot enter into a Bid for the construction or office supplies, di ba? Very Happy
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by kate0430 on Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:42 am

Thanks. I understand the point of riddler. The essence of Sec. 23 for the submission of permits/licenses is not only to determine the presence of permits licenses/registration but also to ascertain the scope of business the supplier allowed by law to operate. If Sec. 23 is only for the submission of permits/licenses/accreditation, then it is going to be a free-for-all activity as long as there is a permit/license/registration presented. No offense meant, but I think if Sec. 23.1 be interpreted literally, a transport cooperative may bid for the supply and delivery of medical supplies provided it had complied with the requirement in Sec. 23.5.1.3. Engrjhez is also correct but I think to interpret Sec. 23.1 in his point of view opens doors to errors. It is better that the IRR, particularly Sec. 23.1 be made specific as to eligibility requirements as they did for infra whereby there is Sec. 23.5.2.3.
avatar
kate0430
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 2
Company/Agency : Commission on Audit
Occupation/Designation : Team Leader
Registration date : 2011-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by engrjhez® on Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:42 pm

kate0430 wrote:Thanks. I understand the point of riddler. The essence of Sec. 23 for the submission of permits/licenses is not only to determine the presence of permits licenses/registration but also to ascertain the scope of business the supplier allowed by law to operate. If Sec. 23 is only for the submission of permits/licenses/accreditation, then it is going to be a free-for-all activity as long as there is a permit/license/registration presented. No offense meant, but I think if Sec. 23.1 be interpreted literally, a transport cooperative may bid for the supply and delivery of medical supplies provided it had complied with the requirement in Sec. 23.5.1.3. Engrjhez is also correct but I think to interpret Sec. 23.1 in his point of view opens doors to errors. It is better that the IRR, particularly Sec. 23.1 be made specific as to eligibility requirements as they did for infra whereby there is Sec. 23.5.2.3.

What could be the violation if an entity engaged in business outside their scope? Is there any law directly violated? From what I can see, the violation could be not paying the necessary business permit for that category.

I don't see any error in following Sec.23.5.1.3 because it is categorically stated by GPRA as one of the requirement. In fact, if the supplier is really not allowed to deliver goods and services outside their business registration or AI, then they could not have completed a transaction/contract similar in nature. Hence, they could not have satisfied both.

Now, if Sec.23.5.1.3 is satisfied, but not necessarily the line of business under 23.1 (i and/or ii) as you have pointed out (or it can be the other way around), what would be the proper BAC action?

Let us make some more nerves working, hehe Smile


avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2481
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:44 pm

engrjhez® wrote:
kate0430 wrote:Thanks. I understand the point of riddler. The essence of Sec. 23 for the submission of permits/licenses is not only to determine the presence of permits licenses/registration but also to ascertain the scope of business the supplier allowed by law to operate. If Sec. 23 is only for the submission of permits/licenses/accreditation, then it is going to be a free-for-all activity as long as there is a permit/license/registration presented. No offense meant, but I think if Sec. 23.1 be interpreted literally, a transport cooperative may bid for the supply and delivery of medical supplies provided it had complied with the requirement in Sec. 23.5.1.3. Engrjhez is also correct but I think to interpret Sec. 23.1 in his point of view opens doors to errors. It is better that the IRR, particularly Sec. 23.1 be made specific as to eligibility requirements as they did for infra whereby there is Sec. 23.5.2.3.

What could be the violation if an entity engaged in business outside their scope? Is there any law directly violated? From what I can see, the violation could be not paying the necessary business permit for that category.

I don't see any error in following Sec.23.5.1.3 because it is categorically stated by GPRA as one of the requirement. In fact, if the supplier is really not allowed to deliver goods and services outside their business registration or AI, then they could not have completed a transaction/contract similar in nature. Hence, they could not have satisfied both.

Now, if Sec.23.5.1.3 is satisfied, but not necessarily the line of business under 23.1 (i and/or ii) as you have pointed out (or it can be the other way around), what would be the proper BAC action?

Let us make some more nerves working, hehe Smile



Going back to the original question of kate, to wit: "Can a cooperative be eligible to participate in the bidding for the delivery of goods which are not included in their Articles of Cooperation approved by the CDA?", the answer would be simply YES, the cooperative will be eligible to participate.

Under Sec 23 of the IRR, which provides for the eligibility criteria, only an eligibility check is required. That means, the application of the "pass-fail" criteria or just the presence or absence of the required documents. In the case of procurement of Goods, there are only five (5) documents required to be submitted. The process does not involve scrutinizing whether the cooperative is duly authorized under its articles of cooperation to undertake a particular project or business or not. That should be undertaken during the post-qualification stage (Sec. 34). In other words, even if a bidder is declared eligible, said bidder may not be qualified to undertake a project after all. A bidder has to be both eligible and qualified, but determination of both is not done at the same time. Remember that RA 9184 has already done away with with pre-qualification and instead requires only post-qualification, which is done only after an LCB/HRB has already been determined.
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by engrjhez® on Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:03 pm

RDV @ GP3i wrote:
engrjhez® wrote:
kate0430 wrote:Thanks. I understand the point of riddler. The essence of Sec. 23 for the submission of permits/licenses is not only to determine the presence of permits licenses/registration but also to ascertain the scope of business the supplier allowed by law to operate. If Sec. 23 is only for the submission of permits/licenses/accreditation, then it is going to be a free-for-all activity as long as there is a permit/license/registration presented. No offense meant, but I think if Sec. 23.1 be interpreted literally, a transport cooperative may bid for the supply and delivery of medical supplies provided it had complied with the requirement in Sec. 23.5.1.3. Engrjhez is also correct but I think to interpret Sec. 23.1 in his point of view opens doors to errors. It is better that the IRR, particularly Sec. 23.1 be made specific as to eligibility requirements as they did for infra whereby there is Sec. 23.5.2.3.

What could be the violation if an entity engaged in business outside their scope? Is there any law directly violated? From what I can see, the violation could be not paying the necessary business permit for that category.

I don't see any error in following Sec.23.5.1.3 because it is categorically stated by GPRA as one of the requirement. In fact, if the supplier is really not allowed to deliver goods and services outside their business registration or AI, then they could not have completed a transaction/contract similar in nature. Hence, they could not have satisfied both.

Now, if Sec.23.5.1.3 is satisfied, but not necessarily the line of business under 23.1 (i and/or ii) as you have pointed out (or it can be the other way around), what would be the proper BAC action?

Let us make some more nerves working, hehe Smile



Going back to the original question of kate, to wit: "Can a cooperative be eligible to participate in the bidding for the delivery of goods which are not included in their Articles of Cooperation approved by the CDA?", the answer would be simply YES, the cooperative will be eligible to participate.

Under Sec 23 of the IRR, which provides for the eligibility criteria, only an eligibility check is required. That means, the application of the "pass-fail" criteria or just the presence or absence of the required documents. In the case of procurement of Goods, there are only five (5) documents required to be submitted. The process does not involve scrutinizing whether the cooperative is duly authorized under its articles of cooperation to undertake a particular project or business or not. That should be undertaken during the post-qualification stage (Sec. 34). In other words, even if a bidder is declared eligible, said bidder may not be qualified to undertake a project after all. A bidder has to be both eligible and qualified, but determination of both is not done at the same time. Remember that RA 9184 has already done away with with pre-qualification and instead requires only post-qualification, which is done only after an LCB/HRB has already been determined.

Agree. That was also my simple and bold answer to the first question. But how about this:
kate0430 wrote:Can the BAC allow the Cooperative to continue to bid or should the BAC disqualify the Coop on the basis of its registration/limitations in its Charter? thank you.
Suppose we are in the post-qualification stage (Sec.34) and we now have to address this question, what would be the decision?
riddler wrote:supposed a certain bidder submitted a Business Permit solely for supply and distribution of Medical Supplies, surely it cannot enter into a Bid for the construction or office supplies, di ba?
To complicate things, a bidder whose registration (as in the immediate quote above) have completed a similar project (eg office supplies) for a public bidding for office supplies, passing the minimum amount of contract required in reference to the ABC. But going back, they were registered to transact with medical supplies. What now? Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2481
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by riddler on Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:44 pm

RDV @ GP3i wrote:
engrjhez® wrote:
kate0430 wrote:Thanks. I understand the point of riddler. The essence of Sec. 23 for the submission of permits/licenses is not only to determine the presence of permits licenses/registration but also to ascertain the scope of business the supplier allowed by law to operate. If Sec. 23 is only for the submission of permits/licenses/accreditation, then it is going to be a free-for-all activity as long as there is a permit/license/registration presented. No offense meant, but I think if Sec. 23.1 be interpreted literally, a transport cooperative may bid for the supply and delivery of medical supplies provided it had complied with the requirement in Sec. 23.5.1.3. Engrjhez is also correct but I think to interpret Sec. 23.1 in his point of view opens doors to errors. It is better that the IRR, particularly Sec. 23.1 be made specific as to eligibility requirements as they did for infra whereby there is Sec. 23.5.2.3.

What could be the violation if an entity engaged in business outside their scope? Is there any law directly violated? From what I can see, the violation could be not paying the necessary business permit for that category.

I don't see any error in following Sec.23.5.1.3 because it is categorically stated by GPRA as one of the requirement. In fact, if the supplier is really not allowed to deliver goods and services outside their business registration or AI, then they could not have completed a transaction/contract similar in nature. Hence, they could not have satisfied both.

Now, if Sec.23.5.1.3 is satisfied, but not necessarily the line of business under 23.1 (i and/or ii) as you have pointed out (or it can be the other way around), what would be the proper BAC action?

Let us make some more nerves working, hehe Smile



Going back to the original question of kate, to wit: "Can a cooperative be eligible to participate in the bidding for the delivery of goods which are not included in their Articles of Cooperation approved by the CDA?", the answer would be simply YES, the cooperative will be eligible to participate.

Under Sec 23 of the IRR, which provides for the eligibility criteria, only an eligibility check is required. That means, the application of the "pass-fail" criteria or just the presence or absence of the required documents. In the case of procurement of Goods, there are only five (5) documents required to be submitted. The process does not involve scrutinizing whether the cooperative is duly authorized under its articles of cooperation to undertake a particular project or business or not. That should be undertaken during the post-qualification stage (Sec. 34). In other words, even if a bidder is declared eligible, said bidder may not be qualified to undertake a project after all. A bidder has to be both eligible and qualified, but determination of both is not done at the same time. Remember that RA 9184 has already done away with with pre-qualification and instead requires only post-qualification, which is done only after an LCB/HRB has already been determined.


Very Happy hello RDV & engrjhez. i subscribe to your opinion on the “pass/fail” criteria specifically on the presence and absence of documents presented which shall be the bases for declaring the bidder as “eligible/ineligible” during the Eligibility Check.

me way consider the following scenario:

Opening of Eligibility/Technical documents under Sec. 24. The BAC declared as “passed” the documents presented on the bases of its “presence” using the non-discretionary criteria. However, at that instant, the BAC-TWG noticed that an expired Business Permit/PCAB License or the Business Permit/AI’s submitted is not in line with there scope and purpose

Q1. Would the BAC still declare the Bidder as eligible, thus the opening of its Financial Document?
(I think it would be wise for the BAC not to open the Financial Proposal)

If the BAC opts to open the Bid in Q1 and declared as LCB despite of the presence of an “expired eligibility document/s or Business permit/AI's not within there scope and purpose" only to disqualify the bid during the conduct of Post-Qualification, i think it may invite lots of question on the responsiveness of the bid of the 2nd or 3rd LCB .. and so on. Very Happy Very Happy
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:42 pm

riddler wrote:
RDV @ GP3i wrote:
engrjhez® wrote:
kate0430 wrote:Thanks. I understand the point of riddler. The essence of Sec. 23 for the submission of permits/licenses is not only to determine the presence of permits licenses/registration but also to ascertain the scope of business the supplier allowed by law to operate. If Sec. 23 is only for the submission of permits/licenses/accreditation, then it is going to be a free-for-all activity as long as there is a permit/license/registration presented. No offense meant, but I think if Sec. 23.1 be interpreted literally, a transport cooperative may bid for the supply and delivery of medical supplies provided it had complied with the requirement in Sec. 23.5.1.3. Engrjhez is also correct but I think to interpret Sec. 23.1 in his point of view opens doors to errors. It is better that the IRR, particularly Sec. 23.1 be made specific as to eligibility requirements as they did for infra whereby there is Sec. 23.5.2.3.

What could be the violation if an entity engaged in business outside their scope? Is there any law directly violated? From what I can see, the violation could be not paying the necessary business permit for that category.

I don't see any error in following Sec.23.5.1.3 because it is categorically stated by GPRA as one of the requirement. In fact, if the supplier is really not allowed to deliver goods and services outside their business registration or AI, then they could not have completed a transaction/contract similar in nature. Hence, they could not have satisfied both.

Now, if Sec.23.5.1.3 is satisfied, but not necessarily the line of business under 23.1 (i and/or ii) as you have pointed out (or it can be the other way around), what would be the proper BAC action?

Let us make some more nerves working, hehe Smile



Going back to the original question of kate, to wit: "Can a cooperative be eligible to participate in the bidding for the delivery of goods which are not included in their Articles of Cooperation approved by the CDA?", the answer would be simply YES, the cooperative will be eligible to participate.

Under Sec 23 of the IRR, which provides for the eligibility criteria, only an eligibility check is required. That means, the application of the "pass-fail" criteria or just the presence or absence of the required documents. In the case of procurement of Goods, there are only five (5) documents required to be submitted. The process does not involve scrutinizing whether the cooperative is duly authorized under its articles of cooperation to undertake a particular project or business or not. That should be undertaken during the post-qualification stage (Sec. 34). In other words, even if a bidder is declared eligible, said bidder may not be qualified to undertake a project after all. A bidder has to be both eligible and qualified, but determination of both is not done at the same time. Remember that RA 9184 has already done away with with pre-qualification and instead requires only post-qualification, which is done only after an LCB/HRB has already been determined.


Very Happy hello RDV & engrjhez. i subscribe to your opinion on the “pass/fail” criteria specifically on the presence and absence of documents presented which shall be the bases for declaring the bidder as “eligible/ineligible” during the Eligibility Check.

me way consider the following scenario:

Opening of Eligibility/Technical documents under Sec. 24. The BAC declared as “passed” the documents presented on the bases of its “presence” using the non-discretionary criteria. However, at that instant, the BAC-TWG noticed that an expired Business Permit/PCAB License or the Business Permit/AI’s submitted is not in line with there scope and purpose

Q1. Would the BAC still declare the Bidder as eligible, thus the opening of its Financial Document?
(I think it would be wise for the BAC not to open the Financial Proposal)
If during the opening, the defect of the document is very patent (meaning, it is quite apparent), such as if the business permit or PCAB license, has already expired, using the pass-fail criteria, the BAC can already rate the bidder as failed. Therefore, the financial proposal will no longer have to be opened. However, if the defect is not very apparent, when it would need further verification and/or validation, using again the pass-fail criteria, the BAC (erring in the side of caution) should rate the bidder as passed and proceed with the opening of the financial proposal.

riddler wrote:If the BAC opts to open the Bid in Q1 and declared as LCB despite of the presence of an “expired eligibility document/s or Business permit/AI's not within there scope and purpose" only to disqualify the bid during the conduct of Post-Qualification, i think it may invite lots of question on the responsiveness of the bid of the 2nd or 3rd LCB .. and so on. Very Happy Very Happy

I don't think it would invite a lot of question if the post-disqualification was done validly (non-discretionary as required by RA 9184 and its IRR). But it would be best that, if we have to disqualify for the reason that a bidder was not duly authorized to engage in the business it hopes to participate in, it should be done after proper verification and validation and not only using the pass-fail criteria.

If I were the BAC, I would not say outright to the bidder that it is qualified or disqualified without going over yet to its articles of incorporation/partnership or its certificate of registration.
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by engrjhez® on Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:58 am

RDV @ GP3i wrote:
I don't think it would invite a lot of question if the post-disqualification was done validly (non-discretionary as required by RA 9184 and its IRR). But it would be best that, if we have to disqualify for the reason that a bidder was not duly authorized to engage in the business it hopes to participate in, it should be done after proper verification and validation and not only using the pass-fail criteria.

If I were the BAC, I would not say outright to the bidder that it is qualified or disqualified without going over yet to its articles of incorporation/partnership or its certificate of registration.

Agree.

Now, suppose we complicate things further (as my earlier thread) in a case of procurement of "office supplies": The registration clearly identifies the business as a pharmaceutical wholesaler/retailer (although not so clear at the face of business name, say ABCDEFG Corporation or ABCDEFG Trading). But in the statement of completed projects similar in nature, they have exhibited a delivery of office supplies (perhaps, from a private sector) with the amount above the 50% of ABC as required.

What will be the proper BAC ruling on this scenario? Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2481
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:23 am

engrjhez® wrote:
RDV @ GP3i wrote:
I don't think it would invite a lot of question if the post-disqualification was done validly (non-discretionary as required by RA 9184 and its IRR). But it would be best that, if we have to disqualify for the reason that a bidder was not duly authorized to engage in the business it hopes to participate in, it should be done after proper verification and validation and not only using the pass-fail criteria.

If I were the BAC, I would not say outright to the bidder that it is qualified or disqualified without going over yet to its articles of incorporation/partnership or its certificate of registration.

Agree.

Now, suppose we complicate things further (as my earlier thread) in a case of procurement of "office supplies": The registration clearly identifies the business as a pharmaceutical wholesaler/retailer (although not so clear at the face of business name, say ABCDEFG Corporation or ABCDEFG Trading). But in the statement of completed projects similar in nature, they have exhibited a delivery of office supplies (perhaps, from a private sector) with the amount above the 50% of ABC as required.

What will be the proper BAC ruling on this scenario? Smile

As much as possible I don't want to answer that question directly because it is a decision that the BAC will have to make. That is the reason also that I thought it would be best for the BAC not to disqualify outright the bidder during the opening because the BAC may need to verify and deliberate further before it could make the decision on whether to post-qualify the bidder or not. (Of course, if the bidder will not be the LCB, then it would not be that complicated.)

It is really complicated if the procuring entity was not too clear as to the qualifications of the bidder when it prepared the bidding documents. I don't want to be quoted also considering that the decision could be matter that would be brought before our tribunals, which eventually the courts will have to decide on. But let me state here that eligibility and qualifications are two different constructs. Eligibility or eligibility requirements are already prescribed under Sections 23 and 24 of the IRR. Procuring entities cannot provide for more stringent eligibility requirements or even be very liberal with the requirements provided by the law and the IRR. It is mandatory for the procuring entities to abide by said provisions and for the bidders to pass the simple eligibility check required.

Qualification is another thing. Here, procuring entities are allowed to set the qualification requirements, such as experience (as to completed similar projects.) Likewise, procuring entities may also require higher qualification requirements, unlike in the case of eligibility requirements.

In the case of NPC vs Pinatubo Commercial (G.R 176006), the fact of the case is that National Power Corporation (NPC) limited the qualified bidders to partnerships or corporation that directly use aluminum as raw materials in producing their finished products. Pinatubo Commercial, being a trader and not a manufacturer was therefore pre-disqualified. Since it was disqualified, it brought the matter before the courts, praying that NPC's requirement is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution and restrained free trade and competition. Pinatubo Commercial likewise argued also that it was violative of the Principle of Competitiveness advanced by RA 9184.

What did the Supreme Court say? The Supreme rationated that:

"The foregoing provision imposed the precondition that the contracting parties should be eligible and qualified. It should be emphasized that the bidding process was not a “free-for-all” where any and all interested parties, qualified or not, could take part. Section 5(e) of RA 9184 defines competitive bidding as a “method of procurement which is open to participation by any interested party and which consists of the following processes: advertisement, pre-bid conference, eligibility screening of prospective bidders, receipt and opening of bids, evaluation of bids, post-qualification, and award of contract x x x.” The law categorically mandates that prospective bidders are subject to eligibility screening, and as earlier stated, bidding rules may specify other conditions or order that the bidding process be subjected to certain reservations or qualifications. Thus, in its pre-qualification guidelines issued for the sale of scrap ACSRs, the NPC reserved the right to pre-disqualify any applicant who did not meet the requirements for pre-qualification. Clearly, the competitiveness policy of a bidding process presupposes the eligibility and qualification of a contestant; otherwise, it defeats the principle that only “responsible” and “qualified” bidders can bid and be awarded government contracts. Our free enterprise system is not based on a market of pure and unadulterated competition where the State pursues a strict hands-off policy and follows the let-the-devil-devour-the-hindmost rule."

Therefore, to avoid the complications, the procuring entity has to be clear as to the qualification requirements, no less.
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by sunriser431 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:44 pm

RDV @ GP3i wrote:
engrjhez® wrote:
RDV @ GP3i wrote:
I don't think it would invite a lot of question if the post-disqualification was done validly (non-discretionary as required by RA 9184 and its IRR). But it would be best that, if we have to disqualify for the reason that a bidder was not duly authorized to engage in the business it hopes to participate in, it should be done after proper verification and validation and not only using the pass-fail criteria.

If I were the BAC, I would not say outright to the bidder that it is qualified or disqualified without going over yet to its articles of incorporation/partnership or its certificate of registration.

Agree.

Now, suppose we complicate things further (as my earlier thread) in a case of procurement of "office supplies": The registration clearly identifies the business as a pharmaceutical wholesaler/retailer (although not so clear at the face of business name, say ABCDEFG Corporation or ABCDEFG Trading). But in the statement of completed projects similar in nature, they have exhibited a delivery of office supplies (perhaps, from a private sector) with the amount above the 50% of ABC as required.

What will be the proper BAC ruling on this scenario? Smile

As much as possible I don't want to answer that question directly because it is a decision that the BAC will have to make. That is the reason also that I thought it would be best for the BAC not to disqualify outright the bidder during the opening because the BAC may need to verify and deliberate further before it could make the decision on whether to post-qualify the bidder or not. (Of course, if the bidder will not be the LCB, then it would not be that complicated.)

It is really complicated if the procuring entity was not too clear as to the qualifications of the bidder when it prepared the bidding documents. I don't want to be quoted also considering that the decision could be matter that would be brought before our tribunals, which eventually the courts will have to decide on. But let me state here that eligibility and qualifications are two different constructs. Eligibility or eligibility requirements are already prescribed under Sections 23 and 24 of the IRR. Procuring entities cannot provide for more stringent eligibility requirements or even be very liberal with the requirements provided by the law and the IRR. It is mandatory for the procuring entities to abide by said provisions and for the bidders to pass the simple eligibility check required.

Qualification is another thing. Here, procuring entities are allowed to set the qualification requirements, such as experience (as to completed similar projects.) Likewise, procuring entities may also require higher qualification requirements, unlike in the case of eligibility requirements.

In the case of NPC vs Pinatubo Commercial (G.R 176006), the fact of the case is that National Power Corporation (NPC) limited the qualified bidders to partnerships or corporation that directly use aluminum as raw materials in producing their finished products. Pinatubo Commercial, being a trader and not a manufacturer was therefore pre-disqualified. Since it was disqualified, it brought the matter before the courts, praying that NPC's requirement is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution and restrained free trade and competition. Pinatubo Commercial likewise argued also that it was violative of the Principle of Competitiveness advanced by RA 9184.

What did the Supreme Court say? The Supreme rationated that:

"The foregoing provision imposed the precondition that the contracting parties should be eligible and qualified. It should be emphasized that the bidding process was not a “free-for-all” where any and all interested parties, qualified or not, could take part. Section 5(e) of RA 9184 defines competitive bidding as a “method of procurement which is open to participation by any interested party and which consists of the following processes: advertisement, pre-bid conference, eligibility screening of prospective bidders, receipt and opening of bids, evaluation of bids, post-qualification, and award of contract x x x.” The law categorically mandates that prospective bidders are subject to eligibility screening, and as earlier stated, bidding rules may specify other conditions or order that the bidding process be subjected to certain reservations or qualifications. Thus, in its pre-qualification guidelines issued for the sale of scrap ACSRs, the NPC reserved the right to pre-disqualify any applicant who did not meet the requirements for pre-qualification. Clearly, the competitiveness policy of a bidding process presupposes the eligibility and qualification of a contestant; otherwise, it defeats the principle that only “responsible” and “qualified” bidders can bid and be awarded government contracts. Our free enterprise system is not based on a market of pure and unadulterated competition where the State pursues a strict hands-off policy and follows the let-the-devil-devour-the-hindmost rule."

Therefore, to avoid the complications, the procuring entity has to be clear as to the qualification requirements, no less.
very informative, thanks Sir RDV for sharing us the SC opinion. Peace. 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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by engrjhez® on Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:53 pm

RDV,

Thanks for that very guiding citation of a recent jurisprudence by (now) CJ Renato Corona. I just hope fellow forum members got the principle and answer behind the question presented earlier. (Coz I will really be aligned with the RTC decision should I have not read this SC ruling)


Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2481
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:11 am

engrjhez® wrote:RDV,

Thanks for that very guiding citation of a recent jurisprudence by (now) CJ Renato Corona. I just hope fellow forum members got the principle and answer behind the question presented earlier. (Coz I will really be aligned with the RTC decision should I have not read this SC ruling)


Smile

Welcome, engrjhez and sunriser!

I am providing the LINK here for the benefit of fellow forum members who have not yet read that very recent (March 2010) Supreme Court decision penned by now CJ Renato Corona.
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: ELIGIBILITY OF COOPERATIVES TO BID ON ITEMS NOT WITHIN THEIR OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

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