Post-disqualification under GPPB Resolution 01-2008

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Post-disqualification under GPPB Resolution 01-2008

Post by meijunji on Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:57 am

Hi.

My friend and I are both BAC members, and my friend wanted to ask if a bidder can be post-disqualified under Section 3.3 of the said Resolution?

1. Complies with minimum wage;
2. Regularly remits mandated premiums, SSS, Philhealth, Pag-ibig; or
3. Finally adjudged by the court or any competent agency

There is no final conviction or cases pending before the agency, but according to my friend there are contracts that are below minimum wage or per verification in SSS, Philhealth, Pag-big, there are some violations in these factors.

But then again, there is no case pending or filed or conviction by any person or by any agency against the bidder--but their TWG said they are guilty of said violation.

In this case, are the BAC members, including my friend, guilty of abuse of discretion? Is there any basis for them, because my opinion is, since there is no case pending, there is no violation. Further, their action is a violation of the intent of the GPPB resolution.

We need your help. Thank you.

meijunji
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 21
Company/Agency : Pag-ibig
Occupation/Designation : Manager
Registration date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Post-disqualification under GPPB Circular 01-2008

Post by engrjhez® on Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:20 am

meijunji wrote:Hi.

My friend and I are both BAC members, and my friend wanted to ask if a bidder can be post-disqualified under Section 3.3 of the said Resolution?

1. Complies with minimum wage;
2. Regularly remits mandated premiums, SSS, Philhealth, Pag-ibig; or
3. Finally adjudged by the court or any competent agency

There is no final conviction or cases pending before the agency, but according to my friend there are contracts that are below minimum wage or per verification in SSS, Philhealth, Pag-big, there are some violations in these factors.

But then again, there is no case pending or filed or conviction by any person or by any agency against the bidder--but their TWG said they are guilty of said violation.

In this case, are the BAC members, including my friend, guilty of abuse of discretion? Is there any basis for them, because my opinion is, since there is no case pending, there is no violation. Further, their action is a violation of the intent of the GPPB resolution.

We need your help. Thank you.

First, it must be clarified that your question is pertaining to GPPB Circular 01-2008, and NOT Resolution 01-2008.

In the same Par.3.3, it says
Non-compliance with any of the above shall be aground to declare the bidder as "post-disqualified".
So it must be clear that non-discretionary criteria must be applied. You need not wait for a case, or a complaint or any of circumstances where you will use discretion. The moment the bid proposal contained violation in any one of the three post-qual criteria, it stands and PDQ must be enforced. Hence, you cannot be held liable for "abuse of discretion" if you do use one.

One thing more, you should have a prima facie evidence and not just heresays. TWG report should be convincing and should be based on facts - not on interpretations or speculations. As BAC member, you should know that it is your prime responsibility to decide. 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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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