additional requirement

View previous topic View next topic Go down

additional requirement

Post by chris on Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:11 pm

good day!

I just would like to solicit points of view with regards to this scenario: The BAC unanimously agreed during their regular meeting to require prospective bidders (existing suppliers) to secure from the procuring entity a "certificate of good standing" in addition to the eligibility/technical requirements prescribe in the ITB. This is to ensure track record/performance of a certain supplier. However, one of the suppliers questioned the authority or the legal basis of the BAC in imposing it since said requirement was not even stipulated in the PBDs or in the revised IRR. If my memory serves me right, I think there is a certain provision on the revised IRR that allows a procuring entity any additional requirement for the prospective bidders if NEEDS to. Do we need to have this additional requirement be approved first by the GPPB or can we impose it right away? Thank you so much in advance for taking your time reading this.God speed!
avatar
chris
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 21
Company/Agency : gocc
Occupation/Designation : BAC Secretariat
Registration date : 2009-10-15

Back to top Go down

Re: additional requirement

Post by engrjhez® on Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:54 pm

chris wrote:good day!

I just would like to solicit points of view with regards to this scenario: The BAC unanimously agreed during their regular meeting to require prospective bidders (existing suppliers) to secure from the procuring entity a "certificate of good standing" in addition to the eligibility/technical requirements prescribe in the ITB. This is to ensure track record/performance of a certain supplier. However, one of the suppliers questioned the authority or the legal basis of the BAC in imposing it since said requirement was not even stipulated in the PBDs or in the revised IRR. If my memory serves me right, I think there is a certain provision on the revised IRR that allows a procuring entity any additional requirement for the prospective bidders if NEEDS to. Do we need to have this additional requirement be approved first by the GPPB or can we impose it right away? Thank you so much in advance for taking your time reading this.God speed!

I think you are referring to Sec.23.4, to wit:

23.4. To facilitate determination of eligibility, the BAC of a procuring entity may maintain a
registry system using the PhilGEPS or its own manual or electronic system that
allows submission and/or recording/entry of eligibility requirements simultaneously
with registration.

23.4.1. The registry system shall contain the foregoing Class “A” documents which
should be maintained current and updated by the bidder concerned at least once
a year or more frequently when needed.

23.4.2. A bidder who maintains a current and updated file of his Class “A” Documents
shall be issued a certification by the BAC to that effect, which certification may
be submitted to the procuring entity concerned in lieu of the foregoing Class “A”
documents.


x x x
The Certification shall be issued in lieu of Class A documents. It is basically to facilitate checking. This is not even accreditation as this will conflict the principle of "competitiveness". Unlike in the past IRR, there is no provision of "additional eligibility requirement" in the eligibility section. Additional documents shall only be required in the post qualification process.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: additional requirement

Post by jcolas on Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:30 pm

Chris, please refer to Section 23, of the Revised IRR of the Act. It mandates what documents shall the prospective bidder submit. That will be the basis for the BAC to determine the eligibility of the bidder. Corollary to this, the GPPB issued Circular No. 01-2008 dated March 7, 2008 stating among others , that as a general policy, imposition of additional eligibility or technical documents is discouraged because it increases transaction cost and reduces competition. In effect, the BAC has no right to impose additional requirements/documents. The bidder is right in asking what legal basis has the BAC anchored its request for additional requirement. However, the BAC, under Section 23.4.1, 23.4.2 and 23.4.3 of the Revised IRR and in order to facilitate determination of eligibility,may maintain a registry system which shall contain an updated Class "A" documents of prospective bidders. A bidder who maintains a current and updarted file of his Class "A" Documents shall be issued a Certification to this effect which, the bidder may submit during bidding. Please go over the sections I cited so that you may be clarified.
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: additional requirement

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:08 pm

chris wrote:good day!

I just would like to solicit points of view with regards to this scenario: The BAC unanimously agreed during their regular meeting to require prospective bidders (existing suppliers) to secure from the procuring entity a "certificate of good standing" in addition to the eligibility/technical requirements prescribe in the ITB. This is to ensure track record/performance of a certain supplier. However, one of the suppliers questioned the authority or the legal basis of the BAC in imposing it since said requirement was not even stipulated in the PBDs or in the revised IRR. If my memory serves me right, I think there is a certain provision on the revised IRR that allows a procuring entity any additional requirement for the prospective bidders if NEEDS to. Do we need to have this additional requirement be approved first by the GPPB or can we impose it right away? Thank you so much in advance for taking your time reading this.God speed!

Requiring the submission of additional eligibility/echnical requirements more than what has been prescribed in the ITB, is NOT ALLOWED in the revised IRR.

In the case of the eligibility requirements, to which the submission of a "certificate of good standing" submission would fall into, you cannot add anymore to the eligibility requirements under Sec. 23.1, which provides that: "For purposes of determining the eligibility of bidders using the criteria stated in Sec. 23.5 of this IRR, only the following documents shall be required by the BAC..." After that are the itemization of the Class "A" and Class "B" documents which shall be required to be submitted and nothing more.

The technical requirements are already part of the eligibility requirements Class "A" documents consist of legal, technical and financial documents.
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: additional requirement

Post by chris on Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:23 pm

Thanks sirs for the insights. I am fully aware of the provision on Section 23.4.1, 23.4.2 & 23.4.3. but what I meant on the supposed additional requirement of "certificate of good standing" (which the BAC of our agency is requiring and applicable to the existing suppliers of our agency) refers to the performance of the existing suppliers as to the settlement of their obligations and compliance with delivery are concerned. Our predicament usually stems from those suppliers who delays delivery. This is a hospital institution and one move of delaying deliveries would mean life and death of the patients and from the BAC intiative thus, "certificate of good standing" was born just for the BAC to make sure how the suppliers make good of their deliveries. But on the other hand, since it is not allowed, I would surely inform the BAC about this. I know there are other ways to check on this one. Thank you so much.
avatar
chris
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 21
Company/Agency : gocc
Occupation/Designation : BAC Secretariat
Registration date : 2009-10-15

Back to top Go down

Re: additional requirement

Post by jcolas on Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:27 pm

Sir Chris, you can either impose a liquidated damage for suppliers who do not adhere to the terms and conditions as spelled out in the Purchase Order or in the contract and eventually move for their blacklisting if their performance is below par aside from instituting other measures to preserve the interest of the government.
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: additional requirement

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:05 am

chris wrote:Thanks sirs for the insights. I am fully aware of the provision on Section 23.4.1, 23.4.2 & 23.4.3. but what I meant on the supposed additional requirement of "certificate of good standing" (which the BAC of our agency is requiring and applicable to the existing suppliers of our agency) refers to the performance of the existing suppliers as to the settlement of their obligations and compliance with delivery are concerned. Our predicament usually stems from those suppliers who delays delivery. This is a hospital institution and one move of delaying deliveries would mean life and death of the patients and from the BAC intiative thus, "certificate of good standing" was born just for the BAC to make sure how the suppliers make good of their deliveries. But on the other hand, since it is not allowed, I would surely inform the BAC about this. I know there are other ways to check on this one. Thank you so much.

If the intention is to find out if the prospective suppliers have no delays in their delivery to clients, that should be done during Post-Qualification. If the prospective bidder becomes the LCB, you verify, using the bidder's statement of ongoing and completed contracts, from the bidder's previous clients the former's performance in its contracts with them. If there were unexplained delays then you can always post-disqualify that bidder.
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: additional requirement

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