Latest topics

security bond

View previous topic View next topic Go down

security bond

Post by mika07 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:01 pm

God day!

This is a follow up the my previous query with regards to the insufficient bidders bond posted. As a back grounder, we have a 90,000.00 posted for bidding. After going thru the procurement process, said transaction was submitted to the accounting office for processing. It was returned with the notation that the bidders bond is insufficient since as per official receipt the bidders bond is 1,700.00 only instead of 1,800.00 (2% of the ABC).

The BAC provided as with a copy of the minutes of the BAC meeting and it stated "Its first envelope was opened and their technical documents were scrutinized and found complete with a bid security in the amount of P1,800.00 sufficient for the ABC which is P90,000.00."

We were also provided by a justification made by one of the members of the BAC secretariat stating that during the opening of bids, the supplier dropped their bid security in the amount amount of P1,800.00 as reflected in the minutes of the BAC meeting. To quote the next paragraph of his justification, " To justify further that upon the deposit of such bid security by the undersigned , only P1,700.00 was deposited as reflected in Official Receipt No. 4814907. The undersigned admits his negligence and will take full responsibility on the outcome of this transaction during post audit."

The BAC issued another resolution recommending payment to supplier stating that the irregularity was not with the BAC but with the BAC secretariat.

Is it still correct to say that somewhere during the procurement process there was an irregularity and there is a violation of RA 9184?

mika07
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 15
Company/Agency : Provincial Government of Antique
Occupation/Designation : Provincial Accountant
Registration date : 2011-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: security bond

Post by jcolas on Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:18 pm


For me that is a look out that the BAC has to contend.. It is evident that the Security Bond is short of what was required as evidenced by the official receipt submitted. the BAC will issue statements on the cdontrary but the documents (O.R>) will show otherwise.
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: security bond

Post by engrjhez® on Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:53 pm

mika07 wrote:God day!

This is a follow up the my previous query with regards to the insufficient bidders bond posted. As a back grounder, we have a 90,000.00 posted for bidding. After going thru the procurement process, said transaction was submitted to the accounting office for processing. It was returned with the notation that the bidders bond is insufficient since as per official receipt the bidders bond is 1,700.00 only instead of 1,800.00 (2% of the ABC).

The BAC provided as with a copy of the minutes of the BAC meeting and it stated "Its first envelope was opened and their technical documents were scrutinized and found complete with a bid security in the amount of P1,800.00 sufficient for the ABC which is P90,000.00."

We were also provided by a justification made by one of the members of the BAC secretariat stating that during the opening of bids, the supplier dropped their bid security in the amount amount of P1,800.00 as reflected in the minutes of the BAC meeting. To quote the next paragraph of his justification, " To justify further that upon the deposit of such bid security by the undersigned , only P1,700.00 was deposited as reflected in Official Receipt No. 4814907. The undersigned admits his negligence and will take full responsibility on the outcome of this transaction during post audit."

The BAC issued another resolution recommending payment to supplier stating that the irregularity was not with the BAC but with the BAC secretariat.

Is it still correct to say that somewhere during the procurement process there was an irregularity and there is a violation of RA 9184?

I am a bit confused in the story. Anyway, I do not see any reason what the BAC Secretariat has to do with the error (if any). Isn't it the BAC who has the sole authority to open the bid proposals? What do you mean of the underlined above? 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: security bond

Post by jcolas on Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:23 am

[b]"mika07 wrote"[/b
]God day!

This is a follow up the my previous query with regards to the insufficient bidders bond posted. As a back grounder, we have a 90,000.00 posted for bidding. After going thru the procurement process, said transaction was submitted to the accounting office for processing. It was returned with the notation that the bidders bond is insufficient since as per official receipt the bidders bond is 1,700.00 only instead of 1,800.00 (2% of the ABC).

The BAC provided as with a copy of the minutes of the BAC meeting and it stated "Its first envelope was opened and their technical documents were scrutinized and found complete with a bid security in the amount of P1,800.00 sufficient for the ABC which is P90,000.00."

We were also provided by a justification made by one of the members of the BAC secretariat stating that during the opening of bids, the supplier dropped their bid security in the amount amount of P1,800.00 as reflected in the minutes of the BAC meeting. To quote the next paragraph of his justification, " To justify further that upon the deposit of such bid security by the undersigned , only P1,700.00 was deposited as reflected in Official Receipt No. 4814907. The undersigned admits his negligence and will take full responsibility on the outcome of this transaction during post audit."

The BAC issued another resolution recommending payment to supplier stating that the irregularity was not with the BAC but with the BAC secretariat.

Is it still correct to say that somewhere during the procurement process there was an irregularity and there is a violation of RA 9184?.


Indeed, their is a violation of the GPRA, especifically, Section 27.2. Justification by that member of the BAC Secretariat and the minutes of the BAC meeting stating that the bid security was in the amount of 1,800.00 will have to give way to the fact that what was receipted for as Bid Security is only 1,700.00 as shown by the Offiial Receipt. Documentation is important, madam.
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: security bond

Post by mika07 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:57 am

I'm not really sure what the underlined words mean. I just quoted it from the justification of the BAC secretariat. But based on the statement it seemed that its the BAC secretariat that opens the bid proposal.

Anyway thank you very much for the infos and clarifications. I just want to make sure that I'm right in saying that indeed there is a violation of RA 9184.

mika07
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 15
Company/Agency : Provincial Government of Antique
Occupation/Designation : Provincial Accountant
Registration date : 2011-09-07

Back to top Go down

Re: security bond

Post by jcolas on Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:11 am

"Mika07 wrote"

I'm not really sure what the underlined words mean. I just quoted it from the justification of the BAC secretariat. But based on the statement it seemed that its the BAC secretariat that opens the bid proposal.

Anyway thank you very much for the infos and clarifications. I just want to make sure that I'm right in saying that indeed there is a violation of RA 9184.


Indeed, it pays to be a member of the Forum as you can get many opinions. Be discerning madam...
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: security bond

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