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


IRR against an approved APP

View previous topic View next topic Go down

IRR against an approved APP

Post by mojacko on Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:24 am

Good Day to everyone!

Facts: The approved APP indicates that the "Period of Action of Procurement Activities" uses the "Earliest Possible Time" for the procurement of goods which is 28 CD. (emphasis mine)

SCENARIO: The members of the BAC complied as to the timeline up to the recommendation of award but the HOPE was not able to issue the NOA in due time as indicated in the approved APP which is supposedly on the next day.

Question:

Has the HOPE committed a violation considering that Section 37.1.3 of the IRR states that xxx In case of the approval, (BAC recommendation) the HOPE shall immediately issue the NOA to the bidder with the LCRB.xxx (underscoring mine)

SCENARIO: The winning bidder failed to post the required Performance Security and failed to enter into contract on the next day after the issuance of the NOA.

Question:

Has the winning bidder committed a violation considering that Section 37.2.1 of the IRR states that "The winning bidder shall post the required Performance Security and enter into contract with the procuring entity within ten (10) calendar days from receipt by the winning bidder of the Notice of Award". (underscoring mine)

What is then the relevant of the "Approved Procurement Plan" as to the provisions of the IRR in this case? Is it complementary or contradictory to the IRR. Quite puzzling and I believe that many of our colleagues in the LGU are experiencing this. Just want to solicit your views about this.

Advance Merry Christmas to everyone!!

[b]

mojacko
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 43
Company/Agency : LGU
Occupation/Designation : Government Employee
Registration date : 2012-10-10

Back to top Go down

Re: IRR against an approved APP

Post by engrjhez® on Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:18 am

mojacko wrote:Good Day to everyone!

Facts: The approved APP indicates that the "Period of Action of Procurement Activities" uses the "Earliest Possible Time" for the procurement of goods which is 28 CD. (emphasis mine)

SCENARIO: The members of the BAC complied as to the timeline up to the recommendation of award but the HOPE was not able to issue the NOA in due time as indicated in the approved APP which is supposedly on the next day.

Question:

Has the HOPE committed a violation considering that Section 37.1.3 of the IRR states that xxx In case of the approval, (BAC recommendation) the HOPE shall immediately issue the NOA to the bidder with the LCRB.xxx (underscoring mine)

SCENARIO: The winning bidder failed to post the required Performance Security and failed to enter into contract on the next day after the issuance of the NOA.

Question:

Has the winning bidder committed a violation considering that Section 37.2.1 of the IRR states that "The winning bidder shall post the required Performance Security and enter into contract with the procuring entity within ten (10) calendar days from receipt by the winning bidder of the Notice of Award". (underscoring mine)

What is then the relevant of the "Approved Procurement Plan" as to the provisions of the IRR in this case? Is it complementary or contradictory to the IRR. Quite puzzling and I believe that many of our colleagues in the LGU are experiencing this. Just want to solicit your views about this.

Advance Merry Christmas to everyone!!

[b]

Remember that APP is still a "plan" subject to changes where necessary (Sec.7.4, IRR). Please look also in the periods of "Latest Allowable Time". Your periods of action must not be later than the latest possible time. In your first question, the HOPE has seven (7) days to issue the approve or disapprove the BAC Resolution (Sec.37.1.2, IRR). The same is true on your second question. The winning bidder has ten (10) days to post the performance security and enter into contract. He is not required to do it all in one day. Although it may be possible for a bidder to accomplish it in one day (earliest possible time). Nothing is violated on both cases.

In general, you look into the periods of Annex "C" as a range of periods and not a restrictive date to comply with. 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: IRR against an approved APP

Post by mojacko on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:06 am

mojacko wrote:Good Day to everyone!

Facts: The approved APP indicates that the "Period of Action of Procurement Activities" uses the "Earliest Possible Time" for the procurement of goods which is 28 CD. (emphasis mine)

SCENARIO: The members of the BAC complied as to the timeline up to the recommendation of award but the HOPE was not able to issue the NOA in due time as indicated in the approved APP which is supposedly on the next day.

Question:

Has the HOPE committed a violation considering that Section 37.1.3 of the IRR states that xxx In case of the approval, (BAC recommendation) the HOPE shall immediately issue the NOA to the bidder with the LCRB.xxx (underscoring mine)

SCENARIO: The winning bidder failed to post the required Performance Security and failed to enter into contract on the next day after the issuance of the NOA.

Question:

Has the winning bidder committed a violation considering that Section 37.2.1 of the IRR states that "The winning bidder shall post the required Performance Security and enter into contract with the procuring entity within ten (10) calendar days from receipt by the winning bidder of the Notice of Award". (underscoring mine)

What is then the relevant of the "Approved Procurement Plan" as to the provisions of the IRR in this case? Is it complementary or contradictory to the IRR. Quite puzzling and I believe that many of our colleagues in the LGU are experiencing this. Just want to solicit your views about this.

Advance Merry Christmas to everyone!!

[b]

I somewhat agree with you but my argument is focused on the word approved which means that it must have to be implemented according to the plan just like any approved plan or else it must have to be revised first.

mojacko
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 43
Company/Agency : LGU
Occupation/Designation : Government Employee
Registration date : 2012-10-10

Back to top Go down

Re: IRR against an approved APP

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:24 am

mojacko wrote:Good Day to everyone!

Facts: The approved APP indicates that the "Period of Action of Procurement Activities" uses the "Earliest Possible Time" for the procurement of goods which is 28 CD. (emphasis mine)

SCENARIO: The members of the BAC complied as to the timeline up to the recommendation of award but the HOPE was not able to issue the NOA in due time as indicated in the approved APP which is supposedly on the next day.

Question:

Has the HOPE committed a violation considering that Section 37.1.3 of the IRR states that xxx In case of the approval, (BAC recommendation) the HOPE shall immediately issue the NOA to the bidder with the LCRB.xxx (underscoring mine)
The APP is a plan. Plans change, therefore an APP could change. The fact that it has already been approved by the HOPE, doesn't mean that it could no longer be changed. It could, subject still to the approval of the HOPE. In making the plan, the procuring entity should, as much as possible, consider all possible scenarios. There could be failure of bidding and therefore the plan has to be adjusted. Although the BAC considered the shortest possible time for the procurement process but, without any intention, it took longer that it planned, then the BAC should and could not be held liable. The same with the HOPE, if there is no intention to delay the procurement process. Even if the APP considered the longest period as the basis of its timeline, but despite that the process exceeds the longest period. Will be BAC be held liable even if there was no intention to delay? The answer is NO. While the periods indicated in the IRR are mandatories, provided there is no intention to delay and the delay is justified, the BAC should not be held liable. So, if the HOPE failed to issue the NOA "immediately" after approval of the BAC recommendation, but there is justifiable reason for doing it, the HOPE is not liable.

mojacko wrote:SCENARIO: The winning bidder failed to post the required Performance Security and failed to enter into contract on the next day after the issuance of the NOA.

Question:

Has the winning bidder committed a violation considering that Section 37.2.1 of the IRR states that "The winning bidder shall post the required Performance Security and enter into contract with the procuring entity within ten (10) calendar days from receipt by the winning bidder of the Notice of Award". (underscoring mine)
On the other hand, if the winning bidder failed to enter into contract and/or post the required Performance Security within 10 c.d. from receipt of the NOA, the winning bidder could be disqualified and his bid security forfeited.

mojacko wrote:What is then the relevant of the "Approved Procurement Plan" as to the provisions of the IRR in this case? Is it complementary or contradictory to the IRR. Quite puzzling and I believe that many of our colleagues in the LGU are experiencing this. Just want to solicit your views about this.

Advance Merry Christmas to everyone!![b]
The APP is complementary but should not be contradictory to the provisions of the IRR. In case of conflict between the two, the IRR should prevail.
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: IRR against an approved APP

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