dissenting position in bid evaluation

View previous topic View next topic Go down

dissenting position in bid evaluation

Post by asthor on Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:54 pm

hi!

our TWG conducted an evaluation of the bids relative to the procurement of specialized official receipts. one of the bidder was declared "failed" in the technical specifications it submitted because it indicated that the material is of "carbonless paper white" while the specification is only "carbonless paper". our TWG elevated this to the BAC members which in return issued a memorandum to TWG to clarify the technical specification with the bidder. The bidder replied and stated in its letter that the specifications are the same.

after the clarification, our TWG made another evaluation and rated the technical specification of the bidder "passed". this is where one of the member of the TWG issued a dissenting opinion, stating that what our TWG did was a violation RA 9184 particularly section 26 and the second evaluation done by the TWG was against Article IX of RA 9184.

Sir/Madam, may i have your advise/comments on this isssue if there are really violations or what the TWG did was in accordance with RA 9184.

Thank you in advance.

PS
the bidder mentioned above have the Lowest Calculated Bids and is currently the one furnishing us with the official receipts.


asthor
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 9
Company/Agency : DOJ
Occupation/Designation : ACCOUNTANT
Registration date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: dissenting position in bid evaluation

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:34 pm

asthor wrote:hi!

our TWG conducted an evaluation of the bids relative to the procurement of specialized official receipts. one of the bidder was declared "failed" in the technical specifications it submitted because it indicated that the material is of "carbonless paper white" while the specification is only "carbonless paper". our TWG elevated this to the BAC members which in return issued a memorandum to TWG to clarify the technical specification with the bidder. The bidder replied and stated in its letter that the specifications are the same.

after the clarification, our TWG made another evaluation and rated the technical specification of the bidder "passed". this is where one of the member of the TWG issued a dissenting opinion, stating that what our TWG did was a violation RA 9184 particularly section 26 and the second evaluation done by the TWG was against Article IX of RA 9184.

Sir/Madam, may i have your advise/comments on this isssue if there are really violations or what the TWG did was in accordance with RA 9184.

Thank you in advance.

PS
the bidder mentioned above have the Lowest Calculated Bids and is currently the one furnishing us with the official receipts.


Let me try, asthor.

You mentioned that the TWG member who issued the dissenting opinion cited Sec. 26 and Article IX of RA 9184 as being violated by the majority of the TWG members.

If you or the TWG member is really referring to Section 26 of RA 9184, it refers to the "Modification and Withdrawal of Bids." There is nothing in the facts you mentioned that there was either a modification or withdrawal of bids. How could that particular Section be violated when there was no such a thing.

What about Article IX of RA 9184? That article refers to bid evaluation. From the facts you presented, the TWG allegedly made the evaluation of bids particularly compliance of bidders with the technical specifications prescribed in the bidding documents.

It is a common misconception that, for the procurement of goods and infra, bid evaluation includes evaluation of the technical proposal, particularly on the technical specifications. Section 32, Article IX of RA 9184 provides in part: "For the procurement of Goods and Infrastructure Projects, the BAC shall evaluate the financial component of the bids."
It is clear, under that particular section, that what is evaluated is the financial proposal or the bid price for the purpose of determining the "Lowest Calculated Bid" or LCB. It is not the technical specifications that is supposed to be evaluated. It is only after determining the LCB that the BAC should proceed with the post-qualification of the LCB. Post-qualification under Article X of the law is done for the purpose of determining whether the LCB is responsive to the requirements to be declared the LCRB. One of those requirements to be determined if complied with is the technical specifications. In determining responsiveness with the technical specifications, there is nothing violated if the TWG assisting the BAC in the post-qualification, if in the process of verification and validation, asks the LCB if his offer (carbonless white paper) is responsive to the requirement (carbonless paper). Having been convinced that it is, then there is nothing wrong with what the TWG, or its majority, has done. This despite that it has previously determined that the technical specs of the bidder is not responsive. I dont see anything wrong after the TWG reconsidered its previous decision. As a matter of fact, a bidder is also given the opportunity to file a request for reconsideration. It doesn't mean that reconsideration cannot be done without any request from the affected bidder.

What the TWG should do is prepare a post-qualification summary report and submit the same to the BAC. It is still the BAC's decision whether it finds the TWG report and the process it has undergone to be in accordance with the law and its IRR. If it finds the same acceptable, then the BAC will have no other thing to do but to recommend the award of contract to the LCRB.

The preceding opinion is only based on the facts presented.
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: dissenting position in bid evaluation

Post by asthor on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:02 am

thanks sir RDV.

is there a legal basis as to the act done by TWG to make a second evaluation/re-evaluation of the bid? considering that they already rated it as "failed" and after the clarification, in an another evaluation the same was rated "passed". is the second evaluation/re-evaluation not in violation of RA 9184? and is the clarification done by the TWG not in violation of RA 9184?

sir, there is already a BAC resolution recommending the bidder as the LCRB.

thank you po.

asthor
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 9
Company/Agency : DOJ
Occupation/Designation : ACCOUNTANT
Registration date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: dissenting position in bid evaluation

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:41 am

asthor wrote:thanks sir RDV.

is there a legal basis as to the act done by TWG to make a second evaluation/re-evaluation of the bid? considering that they already rated it as "failed" and after the clarification, in an another evaluation the same was rated "passed". is the second evaluation/re-evaluation not in violation of RA 9184? and is the clarification done by the TWG not in violation of RA 9184?

sir, there is already a BAC resolution recommending the bidder as the LCRB.

thank you po.

The TWG's function is to assist the BAC in eligibility check, bid evaluation, and post-qualification. After the TWG made the first "evaluation" and rated the bid as failed, the BAC required the TWG to clarify with the bidder the technical specification. Is the BAC's order valid? My answer is yes. That order was the basis for the TWG's action of "re-evaluating" the bid.

Although, as I mentioned and as provided by the law, the "evaluation" or "re-evaluation" is properly and correctly done during the post-qualification process, but (from the facts you presented) I think no harm was done as to disadvantage the other bidders with the TWG/BAC's actions, considering that the bidder is the LCB anyway. The process has just been accelerated because the post-qualification process (at least as far as the validation of the technical aspect of the bid) was done ahead of time, which is during the bid evaluation stage.

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: dissenting position in bid evaluation

Post by asthor on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:26 am

maraming salamat po sa tulong sir rdv. malaking tulong po ito par ma enlighten kami. more power po..

asthor
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 9
Company/Agency : DOJ
Occupation/Designation : ACCOUNTANT
Registration date : 2012-04-17

Back to top Go down

Re: dissenting position in bid evaluation

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:08 pm

asthor wrote:maraming salamat po sa tulong sir rdv. malaking tulong po ito par ma enlighten kami. more power po..

You are most welcome, asthor. I am glad I was able to enlighten you and your procuring entity. Keep on posting.
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: dissenting position in bid evaluation

Post by sunriser431 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:12 am

asthor wrote:hi!

our TWG conducted an evaluation of the bids relative to the procurement of specialized official receipts. one of the bidder was declared "failed" in the technical specifications it submitted because it indicated that the material is of "carbonless paper white" while the specification is only "carbonless paper". our TWG elevated this to the BAC members which in return issued a memorandum to TWG to clarify the technical specification with the bidder. The bidder replied and stated in its letter that the specifications are the same.

after the clarification, our TWG made another evaluation and rated the technical specification of the bidder "passed". this is where one of the member of the TWG issued a dissenting opinion, stating that what our TWG did was a violation RA 9184 particularly section 26 and the second evaluation done by the TWG was against Article IX of RA 9184.

Sir/Madam, may i have your advise/comments on this isssue if there are really violations or what the TWG did was in accordance with RA 9184.

Thank you in advance.

PS
the bidder mentioned above have the Lowest Calculated Bids and is currently the one furnishing us with the official receipts.

Hi "asthor" welcome to the forum, regarding your concern, maybe this will help. Follow the LINK . 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: dissenting position in bid evaluation

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