Joint Venture

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Joint Venture

Post by Atty JC on Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:31 pm

I would like a clarification regarding Sec. 23.1 of the IRR, which states, in part: "Valid joint venture agreement (JVA), in case the joint venture is already in existence."

When Sec. 23.1 states "in case the joint venture is already in existence," does it mean that the Joint Venture must have already been registered with the SEC as a joint venture? Or does it suffice for the parties to execute a Joint Venture Agreement creating the Joint Venture?

Thanks.
avatar
Atty JC
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 1
Company/Agency : Law Office
Occupation/Designation : Lawyer
Registration date : 2009-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by sunriser431 on Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:03 pm

Atty JC wrote:I would like a clarification regarding Sec. 23.1 of the IRR, which states, in part: "Valid joint venture agreement (JVA), in case the joint venture is already in existence."

When Sec. 23.1 states "in case the joint venture is already in existence," does it mean that the Joint Venture must have already been registered with the SEC as a joint venture? Or does it suffice for the parties to execute a Joint Venture Agreement creating the Joint Venture?

Thanks.

Welcome to the Forum Sir. Try this link http://www.gppb.gov.ph/cgi-bin/news/news_details.asp?news_id=145
RE:Guidelines and Procedures for Entering into Joint Venture (JV) Agreement Between Government and Private Entities Per Section 8 of EO 423. or this link http://www.gppb.gov.ph/laws_rules/other.asp
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: Joint Venture

Post by amang'65 on Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:11 pm

Atty JC wrote:I would like a clarification regarding Sec. 23.1 of the IRR, which states, in part: "Valid joint venture agreement (JVA), in case the joint venture is already in existence."

When Sec. 23.1 states "in case the joint venture is already in existence," does it mean that the Joint Venture must have already been registered with the SEC as a joint venture? Or does it suffice for the parties to execute a Joint Venture Agreement creating the Joint Venture?

Thanks.


No comment Attorney. Welcome to the forum.
avatar
amang'65
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor

Female Number of posts : 282
Company/Agency : City of Baguio
Occupation/Designation : sekretarya
Registration date : 2009-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by engrjhez® on Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Atty JC wrote:I would like a clarification regarding Sec. 23.1 of the IRR, which states, in part: "Valid joint venture agreement (JVA), in case the joint venture is already in existence."

When Sec. 23.1 states "in case the joint venture is already in existence," does it mean that the Joint Venture must have already been registered with the SEC as a joint venture? Or does it suffice for the parties to execute a Joint Venture Agreement creating the Joint Venture?

Thanks.

Actually, it doesn't matter if the JV already has a valid JVA or SEC Registration. Even a notarized statement between the two parties will suffice. Quoting the section:

Valid joint venture agreement (JVA), in case a joint venture is already in
existence. In the absence of a JVA, duly notarized statements from all the
potential joint venture partners stating that they will enter into and abide by
the provisions of the JVA in the instance that the bid is successful, shall be
included in the bid. Failure to enter into a joint venture in the event of a
contract award shall be ground for the forfeiture of the bid security.
Each
partner of the joint venture shall submit the legal eligibility documents. The
submission of technical and financial documents by any of the joint venture
partners constitutes compliance.

Further compliance is only enjoined once award is to be issued. But until then, with or without JVA will still work out in participating. Very Happy
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: Joint Venture

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:14 pm

Atty JC wrote:I would like a clarification regarding Sec. 23.1 of the IRR, which states, in part: "Valid joint venture agreement (JVA), in case the joint venture is already in existence."

When Sec. 23.1 states "in case the joint venture is already in existence," does it mean that the Joint Venture must have already been registered with the SEC as a joint venture? Or does it suffice for the parties to execute a Joint Venture Agreement creating the Joint Venture?

Thanks.

Atty JC:

I think, for purposes of participating in the bidding, registration with the SEC of the JVA is still not necessary considering that even those who are only "potential" joint venture partners (without any JVA yet) are already allowed to participate under Sec. 23.1, by merely submitting a notarized statement that the potential JV partners will enter into a JVA in the instance that their bid is successful.

However, once the JVA has been awarded the contract (meaning, their bid is successful and a Notice of Award is issued), it has to be registered with the SEC first before the contract signing in order to give the JVA the juridical personality which it does not yet possess pending registration with the SEC.

RDV
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: Joint Venture

Post by engrjhez® on Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:10 pm

A similar but elaborate discussion of JV requirement is provided in this link.

For JVs of infrastructure projects, click here.

For rules on evaluating JVs, click here.

For a deeper legal understanding of JVs (as participated by legal experts), click here.

Very Happy
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: Joint Venture

Post by sunriser431 on Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:16 am

RDV wrote:
Atty JC wrote:I would like a clarification regarding Sec. 23.1 of the IRR, which states, in part: "Valid joint venture agreement (JVA), in case the joint venture is already in existence."

When Sec. 23.1 states "in case the joint venture is already in existence," does it mean that the Joint Venture must have already been registered with the SEC as a joint venture? Or does it suffice for the parties to execute a Joint Venture Agreement creating the Joint Venture?

Thanks.

Atty JC:

I think, for purposes of participating in the bidding, registration with the SEC of the JVA is still not necessary considering that even those who are only "potential" joint venture partners (without any JVA yet) are already allowed to participate under Sec. 23.1, by merely submitting a notarized statement that the potential JV partners will enter into a JVA in the instance that their bid is successful.

However, once the JVA has been awarded the contract (meaning, their bid is successful and a Notice of Award is issued), it has to be registered with the SEC first before the contract signing in order to give the JVA the juridical personality which it does not yet possess pending registration with the SEC. RDV

Welcome back to the forum Sir RDV, I have concern about the underline txt. In reference to Annex C period of action on procurement activities "stage 11 Contract preparation and signing". Will the period of actions thereat be enough for the prospective bidder to comply in the preparation and registration of the JVA? or can the procuring entity extend the period (contract preparation and signing) provided without approval of the GPPB? TIA
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: Joint Venture

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:24 am

sunriser431 wrote:
RDV wrote:
Atty JC wrote:I would like a clarification regarding Sec. 23.1 of the IRR, which states, in part: "Valid joint venture agreement (JVA), in case the joint venture is already in existence."

When Sec. 23.1 states "in case the joint venture is already in existence," does it mean that the Joint Venture must have already been registered with the SEC as a joint venture? Or does it suffice for the parties to execute a Joint Venture Agreement creating the Joint Venture?

Thanks.

Atty JC:

I think, for purposes of participating in the bidding, registration with the SEC of the JVA is still not necessary considering that even those who are only "potential" joint venture partners (without any JVA yet) are already allowed to participate under Sec. 23.1, by merely submitting a notarized statement that the potential JV partners will enter into a JVA in the instance that their bid is successful.

However, once the JVA has been awarded the contract (meaning, their bid is successful and a Notice of Award is issued), it has to be registered with the SEC first before the contract signing in order to give the JVA the juridical personality which it does not yet possess pending registration with the SEC. RDV

Welcome back to the forum Sir RDV, I have concern about the underline txt. In reference to Annex C period of action on procurement activities "stage 11 Contract preparation and signing". Will the period of actions thereat be enough for the prospective bidder to comply in the preparation and registration of the JVA? or can the procuring entity extend the period (contract preparation and signing) provided without approval of the GPPB?

Thank you, sunriser! Very Happy

In the recent case of the COMELEC bidding for the automated elections for 2010, the winning bidder (the Joint Venture of Total Information Management or TIM and Smartmatic) were granted by the COMELEC more than 10 c.d. to have their JVA incorporated by the SEC. A procuring entity does not need a prior approval from the GPPB to extend that period, although the IRR provides that contract signing should be within 10 c.d. from issuance of the NOA, provided that the procuring entity is satisfied with the reason for the failure to sign the contract. And I think, COMELEC decided to wait even for a longer period (despite the fact that they were already pressed for time) rather than force the issue of their respective signing of the contract knowing pretty well that the JV partners are having relationship problems among themselves and signing with an entity not endowed with a 'juridical personality' (without a SEC registration) will be a BIG problem for the Comelec during contract implementation.
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: Joint Venture

Post by sunriser431 on Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:37 am

Thanks Sir RDV for the clarification. well said. Smile
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: Joint Venture

Post by kim_wd on Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:54 am

Good day everyone!

I'd like to ask whether the Contractor's Law has an amendment particularly on the provision on requiring parties entering into a JVA to submit their Special PCAB License as an eligibility requirement? I, so far, have not encountered any document or a even "Google" search stating such amendment.

I am asking this because we in the BAC once discussed about JVAs wherein one quoted a COA officer here in our place saying that the Special PCAB license is required at contract award on the context that it would be disadvantageous to the contractor/JV parties to secure a license when they are still not sure if the contract will be awarded to them.

I don't actually agree because in my opinion, this special license is required in order to give assurance to the procuring entity that the parties in the JVA are capable of undertaking that particular project that they are bidding for. Am I right on this?

Please give us insights on this because I believe that this is an important issue.
avatar
kim_wd
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 43
Company/Agency : GOCC water district
Occupation/Designation : BAC Member
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:22 pm

kim_wd wrote:Good day everyone!

I'd like to ask whether the Contractor's Law has an amendment particularly on the provision on requiring parties entering into a JVA to submit their Special PCAB License as an eligibility requirement? I, so far, have not encountered any document or a even "Google" search stating such amendment.

I am asking this because we in the BAC once discussed about JVAs wherein one quoted a COA officer here in our place saying that the Special PCAB license is required at contract award on the context that it would be disadvantageous to the contractor/JV parties to secure a license when they are still not sure if the contract will be awarded to them.

I don't actually agree because in my opinion, this special license is required in order to give assurance to the procuring entity that the parties in the JVA are capable of undertaking that particular project that they are bidding for. Am I right on this?

Please give us insights on this because I believe that this is an important issue.

I think, you are right on your position, kim.

Sec. 23.5.2.3 of the revised IRR provides as follows:

"23.5.2.3. In accordance with R.A. 4566, entitled “An Act Creating the Philippine Licensing Board for Contractors, Prescribing its Powers, Duties and Functions, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes”, the persons/entities enumerated in Section 23.5.1.1 of this IRR may participate in public bidding if he has been issued a license by the PCAB to engage or act as a contractor."

Included in the enumeration under Sec. 23.5.1.1 of those who may participate in public bidding are those forming themselves into joint venture. Therefore, for them to participate in public bidding the requirement of a valid PCAB license (in the case of joint ventures, a special PCAB license) is already required in the eligibility check and not after the award of contract.

In the revised IRR, the provision (under Sec. 37.1.4, Item a.ii) for the submission of valid PCAB license as a condition after issuance of NOA is applicable only for foreign bidders when the treaty or international or executive agreement expressly allows the submission of a PCAB license as a pre-condition to the NOA.
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: Joint Venture

Post by kim_wd on Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:39 pm

Thank you very much sir RDV!

So wala pa talagang amendment yung provision na yun ng RA 4566? Gusto ko lang kasing masiguro, if you don't mind, because this will support my contention on requiring the special PCAB license sa eligibility check pa lang, even to the extent of asking the COA official kung meron ba syang nakitang amendment pertaining sa provision na yun. Hindi naman nya sinabing personal opinion nya lang yun, which I think hindi makabubuti at maging liable pa ang BAC pag nagkamali ng desisyon.
avatar
kim_wd
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 43
Company/Agency : GOCC water district
Occupation/Designation : BAC Member
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:05 pm

kim_wd wrote:Thank you very much sir RDV!

So wala pa talagang amendment yung provision na yun ng RA 4566? Gusto ko lang kasing masiguro, if you don't mind, because this will support my contention on requiring the special PCAB license sa eligibility check pa lang, even to the extent of asking the COA official kung meron ba syang nakitang amendment pertaining sa provision na yun. Hindi naman nya sinabing personal opinion nya lang yun, which I think hindi makabubuti at maging liable pa ang BAC pag nagkamali ng desisyon.

Well, kim, I still have to read R.A. 4566, but the particular section I quoted is quite clear, that a PCAB license is a requirement and there is no exception, except for foreign bidders/contractors but only when a treaty, international agreement or executive agreement provides consistent with Sec. 4 of R.A. 9184 and its IRR.
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: Joint Venture

Post by kim_wd on Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:00 am

Thank you po, sir RDV!
This forum is really a big help for us people in the BAC.
More power po sa inyong lahat! cheers
avatar
kim_wd
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 43
Company/Agency : GOCC water district
Occupation/Designation : BAC Member
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:13 am

kim_wd wrote:Thank you po, sir RDV!
This forum is really a big help for us people in the BAC.
More power po sa inyong lahat! cheers

Welcome, kim.

I read RA 4566, and a PCAB license is necessary to participate in the bidding even for JVs. There is no showing that there is an amendment to R.A. 4566 which allows the submission of a special PCAB license for JVs only after they have won the bidding process.
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: Joint Venture

Post by kim_wd on Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:28 am

Again, thank you sir RDV. This would now clarify any misconceptions. Smile
avatar
kim_wd
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 43
Company/Agency : GOCC water district
Occupation/Designation : BAC Member
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by charlie brown on Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:42 am

kim_wd wrote:Good day everyone!

I'd like to ask whether the Contractor's Law has an amendment particularly on the provision on requiring parties entering into a JVA to submit their Special PCAB License as an eligibility requirement? I, so far, have not encountered any document or a even "Google" search stating such amendment.

I am asking this because we in the BAC once discussed about JVAs wherein one quoted a COA officer here in our place saying that the Special PCAB license is required at contract award on the context that it would be disadvantageous to the contractor/JV parties to secure a license when they are still not sure if the contract will be awarded to them.

I don't actually agree because in my opinion, this special license is required in order to give assurance to the procuring entity that the parties in the JVA are capable of undertaking that particular project that they are bidding for. Am I right on this?

Please give us insights on this because I believe that this is an important issue.


hi kim,

I would just like to add that in JVs there is also the concept of collective compliance. Thus, is your case there is no need to suBmit a special PCAB license for the JV. in particular im quoting here a provision of the ITB.

24.6. Each partner of a joint venture agreement shall likewise submit the documents required in ITB Clauses 12.1(a)(i) and 12.1(a)(ii). Submission of documents required under ITB Clauses 12.1(a)(iii) to 12.1(a)(vi) by any of the joint venture partners constitutes compliance.
avatar
charlie brown
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor

Male Number of posts : 218
Company/Agency : national government
Occupation/Designation : BAC Chair
Registration date : 2010-01-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by charlie brown on Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:48 am

charlie brown wrote:
kim_wd wrote:Good day everyone!

I'd like to ask whether the Contractor's Law has an amendment particularly on the provision on requiring parties entering into a JVA to submit their Special PCAB License as an eligibility requirement? I, so far, have not encountered any document or a even "Google" search stating such amendment.

I am asking this because we in the BAC once discussed about JVAs wherein one quoted a COA officer here in our place saying that the Special PCAB license is required at contract award on the context that it would be disadvantageous to the contractor/JV parties to secure a license when they are still not sure if the contract will be awarded to them.

I don't actually agree because in my opinion, this special license is required in order to give assurance to the procuring entity that the parties in the JVA are capable of undertaking that particular project that they are bidding for. Am I right on this?

Please give us insights on this because I believe that this is an important issue.


hi kim,

I would just like to add that in JVs there is also the concept of collective compliance. Thus, is your case there is no need to suBmit a special PCAB license for the JV. in particular im quoting here a provision of the ITB.

24.6. Each partner of a joint venture agreement shall likewise submit the documents required in ITB Clauses 12.1(a)(i) and 12.1(a)(ii). Submission of documents required under ITB Clauses 12.1(a)(iii) to 12.1(a)(vi) by any of the joint venture partners constitutes compliance.

The implication here is that if one of the partners of the JV has already submitted a PCAB license then there is no need for the other to submit the same
avatar
charlie brown
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor

Male Number of posts : 218
Company/Agency : national government
Occupation/Designation : BAC Chair
Registration date : 2010-01-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by kim_wd on Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Good day, charlie brown. Smile
Yes, there is no question about the PCAB license which either one or all of the parties to the JV has. However, I am referring to the special PCAB license that is required to the JV itself for the particular project that it is bidding for. I understand there is still a need to submit one as an eligibility requirement...
avatar
kim_wd
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 43
Company/Agency : GOCC water district
Occupation/Designation : BAC Member
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by charlie brown on Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:54 pm

kim_wd wrote:Good day, charlie brown. Smile
Yes, there is no question about the PCAB license which either one or all of the parties to the JV has. However, I am referring to the special PCAB license that is required to the JV itself for the particular project that it is bidding for. I understand there is still a need to submit one as an eligibility requirement...

hi kim,

I may just have missed it but i have not come across such a requirement in the PBD. If there is then is would seem to run counter with the collective compliance principle. Eh kung pwede nga na isa lang ang mag submit, bakit kailangan pa ng special license. Very Happy
avatar
charlie brown
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor

Male Number of posts : 218
Company/Agency : national government
Occupation/Designation : BAC Chair
Registration date : 2010-01-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by dlsn on Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:46 am

kim_wd wrote:
Good day, charlie brown. Smile
Yes, there is no question about the PCAB license which either one or all of the parties to the JV has. However, I am referring to the special PCAB license that is required to the JV itself for the particular project that it is bidding for. I understand there is still a need to submit one as an eligibility requirement...

The requirement is based on RA 4566, particularly Section 38 thereof, which reads as follows:

Section 38. Joint licenses. It is unlawful for any two or more licensees, each of whom has been issued a license to engage separately in the capacity of a contractor, to jointly submit a bid or otherwise act in the capacity of a contractor without first having secured an additional license for acting in the capacity of such a joint venture or combination in accordance with the provisions of this Act as provided for an individual, partnership or corporation.
avatar
dlsn
Moderator
Moderator

Male Number of posts : 52
Company/Agency : GPPB-TSO
Occupation/Designation : Deputy Executive Director
Registration date : 2008-07-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by charlie brown on Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:10 pm

dlsn wrote:
kim_wd wrote:
Good day, charlie brown. Smile
Yes, there is no question about the PCAB license which either one or all of the parties to the JV has. However, I am referring to the special PCAB license that is required to the JV itself for the particular project that it is bidding for. I understand there is still a need to submit one as an eligibility requirement...

The requirement is based on RA 4566, particularly Section 38 thereof, which reads as follows:

Section 38. Joint licenses. It is unlawful for any two or more licensees, each of whom has been issued a license to engage separately in the capacity of a contractor, to jointly submit a bid or otherwise act in the capacity of a contractor without first having secured an additional license for acting in the capacity of such a joint venture or combination in accordance with the provisions of this Act as provided for an individual, partnership or corporation.

I have read the particular provision just now and it does appear that a separate license is required. What i am not comfortable with if we allow this as a requirement is the idea that other than the provisions in the RA/IRR and the PBD, we could still make additional requirements for as long as we can cite a law for the same. Now, I am not a lawyer but as a layman i think section 75 of the IRR would be relevant in this instance. Im quoting here the specific sentence: "...Any other law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, proclamation, charter, rule or regulation and/or parts thereof contrary to or consistent with the provisions of the Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly."

i also happen to have attended just this morning a meeting of the dpwh and i remembered to ask a similar question and the answer of the RD and ARD was that a special license was no longer required. But then again maybe they are wrong or they just didnt understand my question or maybe i was not able to frame my question in a way that i would have wanted them to understand Very Happy
avatar
charlie brown
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor

Male Number of posts : 218
Company/Agency : national government
Occupation/Designation : BAC Chair
Registration date : 2010-01-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by dlsn on Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:21 am

Additional documents may indeed be required as long as there is a legal basis for such requirement. However, these additional documents cannot be required as part of the eligibility documents. The eligibility requirements remain to be exclusive to those provided in the IRR, one of which is a valid PCAB license and registration.

It should be noted that in requiring a "valid" PCAB license and registration as an eligibility document, the IRR, in effect, recognizes the rules under RA 4566. Thus, Section 75 does not hold much ground to argue against the submission of joint license by joint ventures because the requirement under RA 4566 is not contrary to or inconsistent with that of the IRR since RA 4566 merely provides for the conditions when a PCAB license and registration shall be deemed valid.
avatar
dlsn
Moderator
Moderator

Male Number of posts : 52
Company/Agency : GPPB-TSO
Occupation/Designation : Deputy Executive Director
Registration date : 2008-07-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

Post by charlie brown on Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:19 am

dlsn wrote:
Additional documents may indeed be required as long as there is a legal basis for such requirement. However, these additional documents cannot be required as part of the eligibility documents. The eligibility requirements remain to be exclusive to those provided in the IRR, one of which is a valid PCAB license and registration.

It should be noted that in requiring a "valid" PCAB license and registration as an eligibility document, the IRR, in effect, recognizes the rules under RA 4566. Thus, Section 75 does not hold much ground to argue against the submission of joint license by joint ventures because the requirement under RA 4566 is not contrary to or inconsistent with that of the IRR since RA 4566 merely provides for the conditions when a PCAB license and registration shall be deemed valid.

i think there is no question that RA 9184 "borrows" some of its provisions from other laws and in the case of PCAB license from RA 4566. However, it is my opinion that had ra 9184 intended to copy the specific provision requiring for a special PCAB license for JVs it would have made it clear under the IRR/ITB. It runs counter to logic that the bidder may only submit one PCAB license from any of the partners in the JV only to be required by another special license and NOT specifying the said requirement.

secgtion 38 (if not mistaken) of RA 4566 is clear that a joint venture will need to have a license to bid as suchand yet RA 9184 did not require that a JV should submit that requirement. It is even more liberal in the sense that it is only asking any one of the partners to comply with the requirement. To my layman's understanding that is entirely different from what RA 4566 provides.
avatar
charlie brown
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor

Male Number of posts : 218
Company/Agency : national government
Occupation/Designation : BAC Chair
Registration date : 2010-01-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Joint Venture

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