Definition of two envelope bidding system?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Definition of two envelope bidding system?

Post by cgga91 on Sun May 13, 2012 4:42 pm

how do ra 9184 and its revised irr define the two envelope system?
in a bidding at doh regional office no. 8, a protect was filled that basically questioned the interpretation of the two envelope system and it was also centered on a tabbing of the original bid proposals and the two copies required.
here what happened, we submitted a the original bid proposal that was tabbed, numbered and arranged but submitted the 1st and 2nd copies of the bid proposal minus the tabbing. we submitted a bid for two projects. in the opening of the bid, one of the bid proposal was declared as complying and then its bid subsequently read, but the other bid it was declared non-complying because it lacked the tabbing that as they say was required. eventually we filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground of the interpretation of the two envelope system and was denied. in their denial they included the declaration of the first bid as also non-complying due to the tabbing requirement. we then proceed with the next phase in the protest mechanism, i.e. the filind of a formal protest to the HOPE with the required non-refundable fee of 1% of the ABC and was also denied. currently we have filed our complaint with the RTC as also directed in procurement law.
the beef of all this and it will make a good case study is the interpretation of the two envelope system, the provision that the originals will always prevail and the strict compliance of provisions stated in the BDS that are contrary to the procurement law.
let us take the first point and the third point in as much these two are so related, the BDS, minutes of the pre-bid conference have specifically stated that the original of the technical and financial component of the bid be placed in an envelope and labeled or marked as first envelope and that the two copies of both the technical and financial componet be placed should be placed in another and marked or labeled as second envelope. and then these first and second should then be placed in a mother envelope. correct me if i am wrong but in the provisions of ra 9184 and its revised irr, what is referred to as the first envelope is the technical and eligibility component of the bid and that the second envelope is referred to as the financial component of the bid and that this are so clear.
furthermore, is it not also clear in ra 9184 and its revised irr that the original should always prevail.
i should have not filed any compliant had their instructions been that the original and its copies should be placed in one envelope and then marked or labeled as first envelope technical component and then second envelope financial component, because these set-up or senario would still be the two envelope system. but not in this case, their first envelope as the entire bid proposal and that their second envelope are just the copies of the bid proposal. the sad thing about this is that in the opening of the bids they open first the first envelope per their marking and sealing instruction and only open the technical component and the they proceeded in opening the second envelope to get a copy of the bid to be placed in the project as they read and check the documents. it is so strange that is totally contrary to the law.
now, would i not be in a better position in as much as i have tabbed my original and that the same would fall under the provision that the original will always prevail. had i not tabbed my original bid proposal i would have gone through all the protest mechanism.
they have countered that if simple instruction i could not follow how much more when it come to implementation of the said project wher instruction would be complicated. perhaps they should looked first look in the mirror, it is they who did not follow such simple instructions of the law and it irr, and this only goes to show how sometimes bac tends to lean on the notion that they still have a big leeway in the procurement process, they should look hard, it is precisely why the procurement system was standardized to eliminate if not reduce the old practice of the bac having a big leeway.
my aim in pushing through with what is provided to me as a bidder in the protest mechanism of ra 9184 and its revised irr is to test if it do work and also to change the mentallity of the bac of doh region 8, also and most important of all because i have submitted in both project the lowest bid which is 25% below the ABC.
hoping for a good interaction on this subject.

cgga91
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 14
Company/Agency : CGGA BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES
Occupation/Designation : Civil Engineer/Proprietor
Registration date : 2008-12-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Definition of two envelope bidding system?

Post by cgga91 on Sun May 13, 2012 4:46 pm

btw, the 25% below ABC translate to almost 2M in savings to the government that could be lost due to trivial matter and quite possible on a requirement the is not even in the law and was possibly made for the convenience of the bac.

cgga91
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 14
Company/Agency : CGGA BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES
Occupation/Designation : Civil Engineer/Proprietor
Registration date : 2008-12-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Definition of two envelope bidding system?

Post by engrjhez® on Mon May 14, 2012 8:25 am

cgga91 wrote:how do ra 9184 and its revised irr define the two envelope system?
in a bidding at doh regional office no. 8, a protect was filled that basically questioned the interpretation of the two envelope system and it was also centered on a tabbing of the original bid proposals and the two copies required.
here what happened, we submitted a the original bid proposal that was tabbed, numbered and arranged but submitted the 1st and 2nd copies of the bid proposal minus the tabbing. we submitted a bid for two projects. in the opening of the bid, one of the bid proposal was declared as complying and then its bid subsequently read, but the other bid it was declared non-complying because it lacked the tabbing that as they say was required. eventually we filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground of the interpretation of the two envelope system and was denied. in their denial they included the declaration of the first bid as also non-complying due to the tabbing requirement. we then proceed with the next phase in the protest mechanism, i.e. the filind of a formal protest to the HOPE with the required non-refundable fee of 1% of the ABC and was also denied. currently we have filed our complaint with the RTC as also directed in procurement law.
the beef of all this and it will make a good case study is the interpretation of the two envelope system, the provision that the originals will always prevail and the strict compliance of provisions stated in the BDS that are contrary to the procurement law.
let us take the first point and the third point in as much these two are so related, the BDS, minutes of the pre-bid conference have specifically stated that the original of the technical and financial component of the bid be placed in an envelope and labeled or marked as first envelope and that the two copies of both the technical and financial componet be placed should be placed in another and marked or labeled as second envelope. and then these first and second should then be placed in a mother envelope. correct me if i am wrong but in the provisions of ra 9184 and its revised irr, what is referred to as the first envelope is the technical and eligibility component of the bid and that the second envelope is referred to as the financial component of the bid and that this are so clear.
furthermore, is it not also clear in ra 9184 and its revised irr that the original should always prevail.
i should have not filed any compliant had their instructions been that the original and its copies should be placed in one envelope and then marked or labeled as first envelope technical component and then second envelope financial component, because these set-up or senario would still be the two envelope system. but not in this case, their first envelope as the entire bid proposal and that their second envelope are just the copies of the bid proposal. the sad thing about this is that in the opening of the bids they open first the first envelope per their marking and sealing instruction and only open the technical component and the they proceeded in opening the second envelope to get a copy of the bid to be placed in the project as they read and check the documents. it is so strange that is totally contrary to the law.
now, would i not be in a better position in as much as i have tabbed my original and that the same would fall under the provision that the original will always prevail. had i not tabbed my original bid proposal i would have gone through all the protest mechanism.
they have countered that if simple instruction i could not follow how much more when it come to implementation of the said project wher instruction would be complicated. perhaps they should looked first look in the mirror, it is they who did not follow such simple instructions of the law and it irr, and this only goes to show how sometimes bac tends to lean on the notion that they still have a big leeway in the procurement process, they should look hard, it is precisely why the procurement system was standardized to eliminate if not reduce the old practice of the bac having a big leeway.
my aim in pushing through with what is provided to me as a bidder in the protest mechanism of ra 9184 and its revised irr is to test if it do work and also to change the mentallity of the bac of doh region 8, also and most important of all because i have submitted in both project the lowest bid which is 25% below the ABC.
hoping for a good interaction on this subject.

I am saddened by the fact that some (or even more) suppliers are more knowledgeable of RA 9184 than their respective procuring entities. Or if this is not true, then maybe the BAC is purposely deviating from the rules knowing they have the supreme knowledge of RA 9184 and its IRR over their suppliers and contractors. How disappointing. Sad

The definition of 2-envelope system is clear in the IRR and in the bidding documents. The 1st envelope must contain the eligibility and technical components. The 2nd envelope should contain the financial component. Should there be copies as required in the BDS, they should also contain the same characteristics of 1st and 2nd envelope respectively. The original and copies must be enclosed in 1 envelope or packaging during bid submission to avoid misplacement of any copies thereof. Tabbing is nowhere found in the Instruction to Bidders (ITB). Moreso, we are not allowed to alter the contents of the ITB. Hence, it cannot be taken as a violation or non-compliance with the rules and instructions.

We hope to hear more from the development of your case. Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2477
Age : 38
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: Definition of two envelope bidding system?

Post by riddler on Mon May 14, 2012 11:11 am

engrjhez® wrote:

I am saddened by the fact that some (or even more) suppliers are more knowledgeable of RA 9184 than their respective procuring entities. Or if this is not true, then maybe the BAC is purposely deviating from the rules knowing they have the supreme knowledge of RA 9184 and its IRR over their suppliers and contractors. How disappointing. Sad

The definition of 2-envelope system is clear in the IRR and in the bidding documents. The 1st envelope must contain the eligibility and technical components. The 2nd envelope should contain the financial component. Should there be copies as required in the BDS, they should also contain the same characteristics of 1st and 2nd envelope respectively. The original and copies must be enclosed in 1 envelope or packaging during bid submission to avoid misplacement of any copies thereof. Tabbing is nowhere found in the Instruction to Bidders (ITB). Moreso, we are not allowed to alter the contents of the ITB. Hence, it cannot be taken as a violation or non-compliance with the rules and instructions.

We hope to hear more from the development of your case. Smile[/color][/justify]

Smile What if during the Bid Conference the BAC clearly discussed to the Contractor'/Suppliers to tab the pages of their bid documents and the latter agreed to, would the non-tabbing of the Bidder/s results to non-compliance of their bid? 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: Definition of two envelope bidding system?

Post by engrjhez® on Mon May 14, 2012 11:51 am

riddler wrote:
engrjhez® wrote:

I am saddened by the fact that some (or even more) suppliers are more knowledgeable of RA 9184 than their respective procuring entities. Or if this is not true, then maybe the BAC is purposely deviating from the rules knowing they have the supreme knowledge of RA 9184 and its IRR over their suppliers and contractors. How disappointing. Sad

The definition of 2-envelope system is clear in the IRR and in the bidding documents. The 1st envelope must contain the eligibility and technical components. The 2nd envelope should contain the financial component. Should there be copies as required in the BDS, they should also contain the same characteristics of 1st and 2nd envelope respectively. The original and copies must be enclosed in 1 envelope or packaging during bid submission to avoid misplacement of any copies thereof. Tabbing is nowhere found in the Instruction to Bidders (ITB). Moreso, we are not allowed to alter the contents of the ITB. Hence, it cannot be taken as a violation or non-compliance with the rules and instructions.

We hope to hear more from the development of your case. Smile

Smile What if during the Bid Conference the BAC clearly discussed to the Contractor'/Suppliers to tab the pages of their bid documents and the latter agreed to, would the non-tabbing of the Bidder/s results to non-compliance of their bid? Very Happy Very Happy

Any communication or additional instructions from the pre-bid must be issued thru a Bid Bulletin at least 7 days prior to deadline for submission and receipt of bids. Since not all may have attended the pre-bid, it is imperative that Bid Bulletin be posted in the PhilGEPS, in the website of procuring entity and at conspicuous places so that the bulletin becomes an integral part of the procurement process and later, the contract. Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2477
Age : 38
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: Definition of two envelope bidding system?

Post by alpha1 on Mon May 14, 2012 12:04 pm

Good day cgga91!

I think there was some mix up in the instructions in the sealing of envelop. Albeit it is always referred to as the 1st and 2nd envelop, the markings of the envelop should follow the Instruction to Bidders - Clause 20.1 - 20.5

20. SEALING & MARKING OF BIDS:

20.1 Bidders shall enclose their original eligibility and technical documents described in ITB Clause 12 in one sealed envelop marked "ORIGINAL - TECHNICAL COMPONENT", and the original of their financial component in another sealed envelop marked "ORIGINAL - FINANCIAL COMPONENT", sealing them in an outer envelop marked "ORIGINAL BID"

20.2 Each copy of the first and second envelops shall be similarly sealed duly marking the inner envelops as "COPY NO. __ - TECHNICAL COMPONENT" and COPY NO. __ - FINANCIAL COMPONENT" and the outer envelop as "COPY NO. __ ", respectively. These envelops containing the original and the copies shall then be enclosed in one single envelop. (underscoring mine).

I agree with engrjhez that the contents of the Instruction to Bidders shall not be altered, hence the procuring entity by requiring the bidders to tabbed their envelops might be contrary to the Philippine Bidding Documents (PBD) that was issued by the GPPB. In same manner that the bidders, by adhering to the instruction of the procuring entity did not also comply to the ITB as required and thus might be also considered non-compliance.

With the foregoing facts, I have some points to cite for further comments:

1. Definitely, there is no such marking as "envelop 1 & envelop 2 and that envelops to be submitted shall be marked as stated in ITB Clauses 20.1 & 20.2;
2. The last sentence of Clause 20.2 is quite vague. The instruction in Clause 20.1 states that the two (2) original envelops (Technical & Financial Components) shall be sealed in an outer envelop marked "ORIGINAL BID" and same goes thru with the copies. But here, after sealing the ORIGINAL & COPY ENVELOP, there is no instruction what would be the marking of the last single envelop to be submitted.
3. If the procuring entity, requires the bidders as stated in the BDS to submit One (1) original & say five (5) copies, what kind of envelop are you going to use to accommodate six (6) envelops as required by the last sentence of ITB Clause 20.2.

avatar
alpha1
Active Poster
Active Poster

Male Number of posts : 144
Age : 53
Company/Agency : LGU
Occupation/Designation : Department Head
Registration date : 2010-03-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Definition of two envelope bidding system?

Post by engrjhez® on Mon May 14, 2012 12:40 pm

alpha1 wrote:Good day cgga91!

I think there was some mix up in the instructions in the sealing of envelop. Albeit it is always referred to as the 1st and 2nd envelop, the markings of the envelop should follow the Instruction to Bidders - Clause 20.1 - 20.5

20. SEALING & MARKING OF BIDS:

20.1 Bidders shall enclose their original eligibility and technical documents described in ITB Clause 12 in one sealed envelop marked "ORIGINAL - TECHNICAL COMPONENT", and the original of their financial component in another sealed envelop marked "ORIGINAL - FINANCIAL COMPONENT", sealing them in an outer envelop marked "ORIGINAL BID"

20.2 Each copy of the first and second envelops shall be similarly sealed duly marking the inner envelops as "COPY NO. __ - TECHNICAL COMPONENT" and COPY NO. __ - FINANCIAL COMPONENT" and the outer envelop as "COPY NO. __ ", respectively. These envelops containing the original and the copies shall then be enclosed in one single envelop. (underscoring mine).

I agree with engrjhez that the contents of the Instruction to Bidders shall not be altered, hence the procuring entity by requiring the bidders to tabbed their envelops might be contrary to the Philippine Bidding Documents (PBD) that was issued by the GPPB. In same manner that the bidders, by adhering to the instruction of the procuring entity did not also comply to the ITB as required and thus might be also considered non-compliance.

With the foregoing facts, I have some points to cite for further comments:

1. Definitely, there is no such marking as "envelop 1 & envelop 2 and that envelops to be submitted shall be marked as stated in ITB Clauses 20.1 & 20.2;
2. The last sentence of Clause 20.2 is quite vague. The instruction in Clause 20.1 states that the two (2) original envelops (Technical & Financial Components) shall be sealed in an outer envelop marked "ORIGINAL BID" and same goes thru with the copies. But here, after sealing the ORIGINAL & COPY ENVELOP, there is no instruction what would be the marking of the last single envelop to be submitted.
3. If the procuring entity, requires the bidders as stated in the BDS to submit One (1) original & say five (5) copies, what kind of envelop are you going to use to accommodate six (6) envelops as required by the last sentence of ITB Clause 20.2.


1. Agree.

2. The idea of marking each envelope is to identify if they are (1) eligibility+technical envelope or financial envelope and (2) if they are original or simply copies. There is a permutation on the number of separate sealed envelopes then, ie 2 x (n) where n = 1 + no. of copies other than the original. So if we had instructed five (5) copies, n = 6 and the total number of sealed envelope is 2 x 6 = 12. In my understanding, the marking of the last single envelope would be the same as those in the separate envelopes except for the distinction of the above permutation, as indicated in the ITB:
All envelopes shall:
(a) contain the name of the contract to be bid in capital letters;
(b) bear the name and address of the Bidder in capital letters;
(c) be addressed to the Procuring Entity’s BAC identified in ITB Clause 10.1;
(d) bear the specific identification of this bidding process indicated in the Invitation to Bid; and
(e) bear a warning “DO NOT OPEN BEFORE…” the date and time for the opening of bids, in accordance with ITB Clause 21.
3. In this case, we should not interpret the envelope "literally" as the envelope we knew (as in brown or expanding envelopes). It can be anything that wraps up the entire set of documents. It can be somewhat like a "gift wrapper" or a "box" that contain all the individual envelopes. The purpose of this last envelope is to ensure that none of the components are misplaced during submission until its opening. Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2477
Age : 38
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: Definition of two envelope bidding system?

Post by riddler on Mon May 14, 2012 2:23 pm

engrjhez® wrote:
riddler wrote:
engrjhez® wrote:

I am saddened by the fact that some (or even more) suppliers are more knowledgeable of RA 9184 than their respective procuring entities. Or if this is not true, then maybe the BAC is purposely deviating from the rules knowing they have the supreme knowledge of RA 9184 and its IRR over their suppliers and contractors. How disappointing. Sad

The definition of 2-envelope system is clear in the IRR and in the bidding documents. The 1st envelope must contain the eligibility and technical components. The 2nd envelope should contain the financial component. Should there be copies as required in the BDS, they should also contain the same characteristics of 1st and 2nd envelope respectively. The original and copies must be enclosed in 1 envelope or packaging during bid submission to avoid misplacement of any copies thereof. Tabbing is nowhere found in the Instruction to Bidders (ITB). Moreso, we are not allowed to alter the contents of the ITB. Hence, it cannot be taken as a violation or non-compliance with the rules and instructions.

We hope to hear more from the development of your case. Smile

Smile What if during the Bid Conference the BAC clearly discussed to the Contractor'/Suppliers to tab the pages of their bid documents and the latter agreed to, would the non-tabbing of the Bidder/s results to non-compliance of their bid? Very Happy Very Happy

Any communication or additional instructions from the pre-bid must be issued thru a Bid Bulletin at least 7 days prior to deadline for submission and receipt of bids. Since not all may have attended the pre-bid, it is imperative that Bid Bulletin be posted in the PhilGEPS, in the website of procuring entity and at conspicuous places so that the bulletin becomes an integral part of the procurement process and later, the contract. Smile

Very Happy if the PE posted the instructions on the PhilGeps, posted it in conspicous place, and received by the Bidder/s as discussed during the Pre Bid Conference, would the non-tabbing of documents of the Bidder/s results to non-compliance of their bid? Very Happy Very Happy thanks
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: Definition of two envelope bidding system?

Post by sam_mcbutuan on Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:31 am

The purpose of this last envelope is to ensure that none of the components are misplaced during submission until its opening. Smile [/color][/justify]
[/quote]

I beg to disagree. The main point is "sealing and MARKING" there are markings. why use the word misplacement? there's the bidders name and address, original or copy. am i right? correct me if im wrong. thanks Smile

sam_mcbutuan
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 3
Company/Agency : EMCOR BUTUAN
Occupation/Designation : --------
Registration date : 2015-08-28

Back to top Go down

Adding instructions thru Bid bulletin is good but complicating the law using the Bid bulletin is NOT good

Post by sam_mcbutuan on Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:02 am

[/quote]
Any communication or additional instructions from the pre-bid must be issued thru a Bid Bulletin at least 7 days prior to deadline for submission and receipt of bids. Since not all may have attended the pre-bid, it is imperative that Bid Bulletin be posted in the PhilGEPS, in the website of procuring entity and at conspicuous places so that the bulletin becomes an integral part of the procurement process and later, the contract.  Smile[/quote]

---Adding instructions thru Bid bulletin is good but complicating the policy and procedures using the Bid bulletin is NOT good i think. There are only 3 envelopes. 1st marked as eligibility and technical components and 2nd is financial components and 3rd is the mother envelope marked as ORIGINAL BID. Another, envelope and folder is different i guess. folder is a file folder designed to contain documents. It is generally formed by folding a large sheet of stiff card in half while An envelope is a common packaging item, usually made of thin flat material. It is designed to contain a flat object, such as a letter or card. we can consider folder as an envelope if the folder has no specific definition. And if there are additional instructions it should not contradict to the procurement policy or in the IRR of RA 9184.  I think we should wait for the revision of the policy and procedures to be amended before making some COMPLICATED INSTRUCTIONS. The policy is envelope now you make it folder as your ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS?. Then how will you seal 2 folders in 1 folder? Could it be possible to SEALED them? FOLDING is different from SEALING. Now, i am being confused. The purpose of the policy is to avoid confusions. can someone add some justification?

sam_mcbutuan
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 3
Company/Agency : EMCOR BUTUAN
Occupation/Designation : --------
Registration date : 2015-08-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Definition of two envelope bidding system?

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