Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by engrjhez® on Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:03 am

orlan747 wrote:x x x
Oh yes, I am familiar with the protest mechanism as per Rule XVII of the IRR. The more notable section is Section 55.3:
"The protest must be filed within seven (7) calendar days from receipt by the party concerned of the resolution of the BAC denying its request for reconsideration. A protest may be made by filing a verified position paper with the Head of the Procuring Entity concerned, accompanied by the payment of a non-refundable protest fee. The non-refundable protest fee shall be in an amount equivalent to no
less than one percent (1%) of the ABC."

The amount of P330,000.00 (1% of ABC{33M}) is enough deterrent against frivolous and whimsical protests, right? WRONG!!! This particular procuring entity set the protest fee at 3%!!! When asked why during the Pre-Bid Conference, the BAC Chairman just referred us to Section 55.3 and instructed us to look for the words " no less than one percent of the ABC". (Please note that on their other projects, they set protest fee at 1% only.) Mad

This is similar on the way how bidding documents are priced. Ever wonder why there is no fixed pricing of bidding documents? It is because the criteria is so complicated that only a prescribed set guidelines may be suggested as to recover cost of printing, incidental expenses, and honoraria of BAC members can be presented (see a discussion here.)

I hope I have my time to stay on this case. But just like everybody else, we are too busy beating the deadline of closing the book of accounts. And there is the common bulk-of-jobs-at-the-end-of-the-year syndrome. Since we do not have an EO on an intermediate office facilitating the process after the BAC recommended the awards, we shoulder the jobs until the documents are transmitted to the Accounting Office.

But just like McDonald's este McArthur, I shall return! 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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by sunriser431 on Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:50 pm

engrjhez wrote:
WormaixJr wrote:Sir engrjhez,

W/ all do respect the provision of the IRR provides That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contract is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines as prescribed by the PCAB.

Please enlighten us on such provisions (underlined) either by enumerating it or by providing appropriate link (for discussion purposes).

Thank you. Very Happy

for those who would like to know more about pcab, contractors licensing and registration etc. refer to this link you'll find this information useful bounce
http://www.gppb.gov.ph/issuances/Resolutions/2004/13-2004.pdf
http://www.gppb.gov.ph/laws_rules/laws/MO_171.pdf
http://www.gppb.gov.ph/laws_rules/laws/MO_171-A.pdf
http://www.dti.gov.ph/uploads/DownloadableForms/2ndstage_arcc.pdf
http://www.dti.gov.ph/uploads/DownloadableForms/New%20Application%20Forms112107.doc
http://www.dti.gov.ph/dti/index.php?p=634 (Contractors Licensing and Registration requirements)
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:42 am

WormaixJr wrote:
engrjhez wrote:
WormaixJr wrote:Sir engrjhez,

W/ all do respect the provision of the IRR provides That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contract is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines as prescribed by the PCAB.

Please enlighten us on such provisions (underlined) either by enumerating it or by providing appropriate link (for discussion purposes).

Thank you. Very Happy

The Procuring entity here requires 7 years of experience but according to the provision 23.5.2.5, first of all the provision provided for the period of within 10 years of experience.. But limiting it to 7 years means those contractors who have below 7 years of similar experience is ineligible. Second the same provision those contractors under PCAB small A and small B w/ no experience may be allowed to join a public bidding. Thus the requirement provided is in violation of the IRR. (PCAB Circular 01-2009)

WormaixJr:

Considering that you are from GPPB-TSO, and based on your answers, I would like to get clarifications on your statements in relation to my own interpretation of the provision of Sec. 23.5.2.5.

First, may I quote a portion of that Section: "The prospective bidder must have an experience of having completed within a period of ten (10) years from the date of submission and receipt of bids, at least one (1) contract that is similar to the contract to be bid, and whose value adjusted to current prices using the NSO consumer price indices, must be at least fifty percent (50%) of the ABC to be bid:"

My understanding of that provision is that the following conditions should be possessed by a bidder to be eligible:
1. The bidder must have an experience (therefore, bidders without any experience are necessarily ineligible to participate);
2. If it has an experience, that experience should be:
a) at least one (1) completed contract;
b) that contract should be "similar" to the contract to be bid;
c) that contract should be completed within a period of 10 years counted from the date of submission of receipt of bids (if the similar contract was completed earlier than that period, that would not count); and
d) the value of that contract (adjusted for current prices) must be no lower than 50% of the ABC.

Please correct me if my interpretation of that portion of the provision is wrong. If it is the right interpretation or the real intention of the framers of the revised IRR (which I suppose you can ask from them), please also say so.

If a contract is completed within the last seven (7) years, isn't it within the period of ten (10) years?

Second, reading and quoting further the same Section ("Provided, however, That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contracts is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines prescribed by the PCAB."), can you clarify or validate the following?:

1. That the quoted second portion of the section, provides for the exception to the General Rule (that bidders should have an experience); hence, bidders without any experience could participate; or

2. It is not actually an exception to the General Rule; hence, bidders are still required to have experience, but it is no longer required that their experience be "similar" to the contract to be bid; and

3. The use of the word "may be allowed to bid" does not actually give the procuring entity the option to allow or not Small A and Small B contractors "without similar experience", but they should still be allowed and should not be disqualified so long as the ABC is not more than 50% of the ARCC of the registration of either the Small A or the Small B.

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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:06 pm

questions

1.If a contract is completed within the last seven (7) years, isn't it within the period of ten (10) years? Yes, it means from 1- 10 years may join limiting it to 7 years will limit it to those company w/ 7-10 years only. (it defeats the competitiveness)

2. can you clarify or validate the following?:

1. That the quoted second portion of the section, provides for the exception to the General Rule (that bidders should have an experience); hence, bidders without any experience could participate = true

2. It is not actually an exception to the General Rule; hence, bidders are still required to have experience, but it is no longer required that their experience be "similar" to the contract to be bid. = false, no provision (as i recall) is there requiring that a contractor should have an experience not similar in the contract.

However If they have w/o similar experience they are required to indicate it in their Technical Document.

Correct me if I`m wrong if there is a provision requiring the "non similar contracts".

Please sir don`t consider my position in the GPPB-TSO i`m also the same as anyone else, we all undergo the trainings and understanding of the provisions. We join this forum to shed light to the interpretation of the provision but it does not mean that this is the authority on the issues raised.

I react on the post as it comes to me whoever is the TS or poster maybe.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:34 pm

WormaixJr wrote:questions

1.If a contract is completed within the last seven (7) years, isn't it within the period of ten (10) years? Yes, it means from 1- 10 years may join limiting it to 7 years will limit it to those company w/ 7-10 years only. (it defeats the competitiveness)

I think, the explanation given by Dir. Alvarez during our training is different from your explanation. She said that the requirement of experience within the period of ten (10) years is with respect to the SLCC or the Single Largest Completed Contract. There are contractors who have already decades of experiences, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. Under IRR-A, which was silent as to that requirement, contractors experiences, for purposes of identifying their respective SLCC, 20 or 30 years ago could still count, but the construction technology then and the methods may no longer be appropriate; hence, those experiences do not necessarily reflect the technical capability of the contractor. That is the reason behind the insertion of that 10-year period.

Your take is quite different because the procuring entity is actually requiring a minimum experience of 7 years. Although you said that is not allowed in the PBDs, given that the procuring entity (if the funding source is the GOP) is not actually allowed to set a minimum experience requirement. I consider that very dangerous. Imagine, a bidder without experience being able to participate and be eligible to construct a P33M project. Aside from the money involve, lives may be at stake here and we are saying that inexperienced contractors can participate and be awarded a contract, because of the principle of competitiveness.

WormaixJr wrote:2. can you clarify or validate the following?:

1. That the quoted second portion of the section, provides for the exception to the General Rule (that bidders should have an experience); hence, bidders without any experience could participate = true

2. It is not actually an exception to the General Rule; hence, bidders are still required to have experience, but it is no longer required that their experience be "similar" to the contract to be bid. = false, no provision (as i recall) is there requiring that a contractor should have an experience not similar in the contract.

However If they have w/o similar experience they are required to indicate it in their Technical Document.

Correct me if I`m wrong if there is a provision requiring the "non similar contracts".

The "non similar contracts" are required to be indicated also in the bidders statement of completed, ongoing and awarded contracts both private and government, similar or not similar, in the Class A Technical Requirements. That is where you could find it. However, for purposes of determining compliance to the SLCC, only similar contracts could be counted.

My question on the meaning of "without similar experience" has been bothering me since the issuance of IRR-A and I thought you could give me the GPPB's position/opinion/interpretation on the matter. I take your answer is only your personal opinion, but it should really be given the proper interpretation.

WormaixJr wrote:Please sir don`t consider my position in the GPPB-TSO i`m also the same as anyone else, we all undergo the trainings and understanding of the provisions. We join this forum to shed light to the interpretation of the provision but it does not mean that this is the authority on the issues raised.

I react on the post as it comes to me whoever is the TS or poster maybe.

In that case, you may have to indicate if your answer is only a personal opinion so we can distinguish. Of course, you can also cite GPPB issuances and/or opinions in your answers which would mean those are not your personal views only.
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:28 pm

Sir RDV,

If you want a GPPB opinion its best to write us, this forum is not the official opinion of the GPPB as provided in the forum rules. I`m interpreting this rules in connection w/ one another and harmonizing it.
And take note that there is always to 2 sides of a coin.

I mean no disrespect sir.


Last edited by WormaixJr on Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:43 pm; edited 2 times in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Niwram on Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:30 pm

calm down people..
avatar
Niwram
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor

Male Number of posts : 263
Company/Agency : Matatag na Republika ng Pilipinas
Occupation/Designation : Katulong Pambatas II/Tagapayo sa Tawad at Parangal na Komite
Registration date : 2009-10-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:46 pm

WormaixJr wrote:Sir RDV,

If you want a GPPB opinion its best to write us, this forum is not the official opinion of the GPPB as provided in the forum rules. I`m interpreting this rules in connection w/ one another and harmonizing it.
And take note that there is always to sides of the coin.

I mean no disrespect sir.

Maybe you mean, there are two sides, and I agree, but we are interested not the side of the coin, but the side of the law (R.A. 9184 and its IRR).

I do not see any 'disrespect'. Very Happy
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:48 pm

Noted Thank You.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by amang'65 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:54 pm

wow! what can i say? ako nagtatanong na lang. please lang help me. heeelp.

with regards to the pinaka first na post ni orlan, because i am very much bothered with difference between the statement of orlan "With at least 7 years experience in similar projects" and the provision "23.5.2.5. The prospective bidder must have an experience of having completed, within a period of ten (10) years. because when we say at least 7 years in experience, does it mean that a contractor with 1,2,3,4,5,6 years in experience will not qualify to the project mentioned by orlan? whereas when we say within a period of 10 years experience, will a contractor having an experience from 1,2,3,4,5,6 be qualified already? (siguro si jhez patawatawa na lang, heh.he.he.)


Last edited by amang1965 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:00 pm

I believe so

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by engrjhez® on Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:04 pm

amang1965 wrote:wow! what can i say? ako nagtatanong na lang. please lang help me. heeelp.

with regards to the pinaka first na post ni orlan, because i am very much bothered with difference between the statement of orlan "With at least 7 years experience in similar projects" and the provision "23.5.2.5. The prospective bidder must have an experience of having completed, within a period of ten (10) years. because when we say at least 7 years in experience, does it mean that a contractor with 1,2,3,4,5,6 years in experience will not qualify to the project mentioned by orlan? whereas when we say within a period of 10 years experience, will a contractor having an experience from 1,2,3,4,5,6 be qualified already? (siguro si jhez patawatawa na lang, heh.he.he.)

Hehehe. Pano mo nalaman? Anyway, sumilip lang ako. Mainit ang diskusyon at sana makakasali ako. Kaya lang, toxic na kami sa dami ng followup sa office. Pero babalik ako pag nakahinga na. And I shall give my own stand on the matter as everyone else.

For the meantime, make the threads fluorish into an intelligent discussion. 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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:11 pm

engrjhez wrote:
amang1965 wrote:wow! what can i say? ako nagtatanong na lang. please lang help me. heeelp.

with regards to the pinaka first na post ni orlan, because i am very much bothered with difference between the statement of orlan "With at least 7 years experience in similar projects" and the provision "23.5.2.5. The prospective bidder must have an experience of having completed, within a period of ten (10) years. because when we say at least 7 years in experience, does it mean that a contractor with 1,2,3,4,5,6 years in experience will not qualify to the project mentioned by orlan? whereas when we say within a period of 10 years experience, will a contractor having an experience from 1,2,3,4,5,6 be qualified already? (siguro si jhez patawatawa na lang, heh.he.he.)

Hehehe. Pano mo nalaman? Anyway, sumilip lang ako. Mainit ang diskusyon at sana makakasali ako. Kaya lang, toxic na kami sa dami ng followup sa office. Pero babalik ako pag nakahinga na. And I shall give my own stand on the matter as everyone else.

For the meantime, make the threads fluorish into an intelligent discussion. Very Happy

sabe ko na e palipad lipad lang po kayo sa paligid

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by dlsn on Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:26 pm

Good afternoon. I hope you don't mind if I join the fray. Correct me if I'm wrong in my take that the issue we are discussing here is the propriety of imposing a specific years' experience as a minimum requirement (i.e., at least 7 years experience in similar projects). I will limit my discussion in the context of an infrastructure project procurement considering that the project involved is infrastructure.

I am of the view that requiring a specific minimum number of years of experience is not in accord with the IRR. The requirement under Sec. 23.5.2.5 that "the prospective bidder must have an experience of having completed, within a period of ten (10) years from the date of submission and receipt of bids, at least one (1) contract that is similar to the contract to be bid" pertains to the experience of the bidder of having completed a project that is similar to that being bid out. The phrase "within a period of ten (10) years" qualifies which completed similar contracts may be considered to establish technical capability. This means that any experience obtained from a contract done earlier than 10 years will not be considered. The rationale behind limiting the acceptable experience to 10 years is that the experience obtained from a project completed earlier than that may no longer be applicable to the project being bid out considering the changes in technology and methodology.

In the case given by sir orlan747, the requirements are (i) to have at least 7 years experience in similar projects; and (ii) to have designed at least two (2) local Sanitary Landfills that are already implemented and operational. This means that only those contractors who have been operating within the last 7 years and have completed at least 2 similar contracts will qualify. Clearly, these requirements contradict the policy that only 1 similar contract completed within the last 10 years is required.

The eligibility criteria is a policy which procuring entities do not have the authority to change, unless allowed by the IRR (e.g., relevant period in case of procurement of goods). In the case of the requirement for a single largest completed contract for infrastructure project, the policy is to consider a contractor compliant if it has completed, within 10 years from submission and receipt of bids, at least 1 similar contract amounting to at least 50% of the ABC to be bid. It may be worth noting that the PBDs for Infrastructure Projects, specifically the BDS provision for ITB Clause 5.4, reiterates the requirement under Sec. 23.5.2.5. This signals that the procuring entity has no option to require a different criteria.

Lastly, let us not confuse years of experience with the period of 10 years. The former pertains to the length of time the contractor has been operating while the latter pertains to the universe of acceptable experience. The IRR does not really look into the years of experience, but focuses on the acceptable contract from which the contractor has derived its experience.
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:43 pm

dlsn wrote:[justify]Good afternoon. I hope you don't mind if I join the fray. Correct me if I'm wrong in my take that the issue we are discussing here is the propriety of imposing a specific years' experience as a minimum requirement (i.e., at least 7 years experience in similar projects). I will limit my discussion in the context of an infrastructure project procurement considering that the project involved is infrastructure.

I am of the view that requiring a specific minimum number of years of experience is not in accord with the IRR. The requirement under Sec. 23.5.2.5 that "the prospective bidder must have an experience of having completed, within a period of ten (10) years from the date of submission and receipt of bids, at least one (1) contract that is similar to the contract to be bid" pertains to the experience of the bidder of having completed a project that is similar to that being bid out. The phrase "within a period of ten (10) years" qualifies which completed similar contracts may be considered to establish technical capability. This means that any experience obtained from a contract done earlier than 10 years will not be considered. The rationale behind limiting the acceptable experience to 10 years is that the experience obtained from a project completed earlier than that may no longer be applicable to the project being bid out considering the changes in technology and methodology.

I agree with you as far as the interpretation of the experience requirement is concerned, as it is the same way I interpret the provision and as explained by Dir. Alvarez during our training. Maybe, we or I just do not understand WormaixJr's position. I have posted earlier the following explanation to him as to how I understand the provision, as simply as possible:

"My understanding of that provision is that the following conditions should be possessed by a bidder to be eligible:
1. The bidder must have an experience (therefore, bidders without any experience are necessarily ineligible to participate);
2. If it has an experience, that experience should be:
a) at least one (1) completed contract;
b) that contract should be "similar" to the contract to be bid;
c) that contract should be completed within a period of 10 years counted from the date of submission of receipt of bids (if the similar contract was completed earlier than that period, that would not count); and
d) the value of that contract (adjusted for current prices) must be no lower than 50% of the ABC."

dlsn wrote:In the case given by sir orlan747, the requirements are (i) to have at least 7 years experience in similar projects; and (ii) to have designed at least two (2) local Sanitary Landfills that are already implemented and operational. This means that only those contractors who have been operating within the last 7 years and have completed at least 2 similar contracts will qualify. Clearly, these requirements contradict the policy that only 1 similar contract completed within the last 10 years is required.

Prescribing a minimum experience, whether that is seven (7) years or less, would be a gray area as you said that "requiring a specific minimum number of years of experience is not in accord with the IRR." You are probably right, although it would only be as far as infra is concerned since in the case of Goods, the procuring entity is allowed to provide the relevant period, but I do not agree to wormaixJr's proposition that even without experience a bidder could participate.

dlsn wrote:The eligibility criteria is a policy which procuring entities do not have the authority to change, unless allowed by the IRR (e.g., relevant period in case of procurement of goods). In the case of the requirement for a single largest completed contract for infrastructure project, the policy is to consider a contractor compliant if it has completed, within 10 years from submission and receipt of bids, at least 1 similar contract amounting to at least 50% of the ABC to be bid. It may be worth noting that the PBDs for Infrastructure Projects, specifically the BDS provision for ITB Clause 5.4, reiterates the requirement under Sec. 23.5.2.5. This signals that the procuring entity has no option to require a different criteria.

I would agree that requiring at least 2 similar contracts instead of only one would not be in accord, but prescribing a minimum for infra projects should be clarified that it is not allowed. I see gray in that area.

dlsn wrote:Lastly, let us not confuse years of experience with the period of 10 years. The former pertains to the length of time the contractor has been operating while the latter pertains to the universe of acceptable experience. The IRR does not really look into the years of experience, but focuses on the acceptable contract from which the contractor has derived its experience.

I am not confused as far as that is concerned, dlsn. You have clearly explained it. I hope wormaixJr, without any disrespect to him, should be clear in his.

Lastly, thank you for joining in the fray.
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by engrjhez® on Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:28 am

dlsn wrote:
I am of the view that requiring a specific minimum number of years of experience is not in accord with the IRR. The requirement under Sec. 23.5.2.5 that "the prospective bidder must have an experience of having completed, within a period of ten (10) years from the date of submission and receipt of bids, at least one (1) contract that is similar to the contract to be bid" pertains to the experience of the bidder of having completed a project that is similar to that being bid out. The phrase "within a period of ten (10) years" qualifies which completed similar contracts may be considered to establish technical capability. This means that any experience obtained from a contract done earlier than 10 years will not be considered. The rationale behind limiting the acceptable experience to 10 years is that the experience obtained from a project completed earlier than that may no longer be applicable to the project being bid out considering the changes in technology and methodology.

In the case given by sir orlan747, the requirements are (i) to have at least 7 years experience in similar projects; and (ii) to have designed at least two (2) local Sanitary Landfills that are already implemented and operational. This means that only those contractors who have been operating within the last 7 years and have completed at least 2 similar contracts will qualify. Clearly, these requirements contradict the policy that only 1 similar contract completed within the last 10 years is required.


Sorry I'm late. I just have this very scarce time to see the forum again and have time to respond (as I am also writing my regular weekly article on a newspaper due today).

Anyway, please also allow me to share my personal view and (now) understanding of the challenged Sec.23.5.2.5. I am neither a lawyer nor a law student, but i believe the GPPB-TSO stands for the fundamental rule that "when the law does not distinguish, you should not distinguish". I must say I am beginning to agree with the "PROs". However, I also see another principle that needs to be addressed: that the law should only be implementable when it speaks in a clear and categorical manner. To me, the section is a gray area as I would likewise agree with RDV. I shall be basing my answer in my view as a Civil Engineer (with better knowlege of infrastructure projects):

The term "an experience" would look like singular. Meaning, only one (1). But in the engineering point of view, a project (or contract in layman) may range from one (1) day to "n" years depending on the project itself. A project like installing a deepwell could take 1-2 days only. A simple habitable structure could be constructed between 30 days to 6 months depending on size and number of storeys. A sanitary landfill construction period (or preparation period) on the other hand is about 1-2+years depending on the size or area where it would be constructed. But most important of all, it does not have a closed period of construction like that of deepwell or multi-purpose buildings because aside form construction, maintenance and operation is part of the project. The project does not end with the preparation of pit. It may vary from five (5) to twenty five (25) years with possible extensions if the policies and the land area still permits. The point is that, the year(s) of experience is actually indicative of the type of project. This is where "the law does not distinguish". Considering the first sentence in this paragraph, infrastructure projects are not like delivery of goods or services because it leans more on the technical side than the financial side. It must then follow that the PE that indicated "7 years of similar experience" may not actually be violative as far as the technical issues are concerned because I believe 7 years is close to the least period that a sanitary landfill is constructed, operated, and completed. Anything less than that is not likely to be a cost-effective landfill. So it is just an elaboration of "an experience".

Finally, I am to the view that the GPPB should define "experience" differently for infra. Experience and competitiveness should equally be considered especially on infrastructure projects. True that too much experience criteria loses competitiveness. But too much competitiveness allowing less experience is likewise dangerous. Consider entrusting the construction of your dream house to:

  • A contractor with an experience ...; or
  • A contractor with "n" years of experience


I bet we all choose No.2. Very Happy

Just sharing thoughts before I sleep (or should I sleep?)
Sleep
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Guest on Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:40 am

Sorry if I caused you so much confusion dear sirs but I interpreted the said provision w/ Section 23.5.2.5. x x x Provided, however, That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contract is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines as prescribed by the PCAB.

I am in the opinion that a contractor under the category may join
w/o the similar experience or
w/o experience required to be completed w/in 10 years.

(because the experience on not similar contract is not require except it is only required to be stated in the technical documents)

I posted my opinion w/ a consideration for PCAB contractors under Small A and Small B categories.

To ordinary contractors I have no opposing view regarding the matter however w/ PCAB contractors under the said categories I beg to disagree.

Still in my opinion the requirement of 7 years is not in accordance of the IRR.
Second PCAB contractors under Small A and Small B categories may join a bidding w/o similar experience required under the same provision completed w/in 10 years.

PCAB contractors still is limited to contracts as prescribed by the PCAB issuances.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by dlsn on Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:01 am

Thanks for the insights. However, I still see no ambiguity in Sec. 23.5.2.5. It clearly adopts the policy that any completed similar contract within 10 years should be considered. This is made even clearer, and I reiterate, in the PBDs for Infrastructure Projects (BDS provision for ITB Clause 5.4). Thus, it leaves no room for the procuring entity to limit the requirement to say 7 years, unlike in the case of procurement of goods where Sec. 23.5.1.3 uses the phrase "within the period specified in the Invitation to Bid" in qualifying the acceptable completed similar contract. If the intention of the GPPB was to allow procuring entities the option to adopt any period within 10 years as the minimum, Sec. 23.5.2.5 would have been written in the same manner as Sec. 23.5.1.3.

While I would agree with sir engrjhez that "experience" spans from 1 to "n" years, the IRR qualifies "experience" as having completed a contract. Thus, although it is true that, in the general sense, experience is continuously achieved from the day a project is started until it is finished, none of that can be considered for purposes of eligibility unless the project is completed within the 10 year period. Therefore, the 10 year period is not merely an elaboration of "experience" but an absolute figure which directs procuring entities which completed contracts should be considered.
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by amang'65 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:46 am

good day to one and all. point of clarification lang po, pag ito nasagot at nakontento, shut down na ako.

1. Considering the 33M, landfill infra project, and based on section 23.5.2.5. of the revised IRR, definitely an experience with the same contract to be bid, is required, right? Definitely a contractor with PCAB license small A & small B cannot be qualified even with an experience of more than 10 years, right?

2. however (I am amused by the arguement of orlan747) considering a certain infra project costing say 7M, and basing from the same section which a portion states that, "provided, however, That constractors under small A and small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid x x x x", definitely a small B contractor may be allowed to bid even without any experience as far as the project is concerned, right? and a Small A contractor cannot be qualified unless if the ABC is 250thou, right?

right or wrong, nalilito na talaga ako.
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Guest on Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:03 pm

1. Yes. Small A may join contracts w/ 7.5M ABC and small B may join contracts w/ 250K.

2. Yes and Yes

Under 23.5.2.5. x x xProvided, however, That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contract is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines as prescribed by the PCAB.

Base on my opinion.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by amang'65 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:10 pm

WormaixJr wrote:1. Yes. Small A may join contracts w/ 7.5M ABC and small B may join contracts w/ 250K.

2. Yes and Yes

Under 23.5.2.5. x x xProvided, however, That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contract is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines as prescribed by the PCAB.

Base on my opinion.


okay well taken junior, i suppose you are a junior because with your user name wormaixJr, anymore opinion mga kaibigans before i shutdown.heh.he. Maligayan Pasko, 15 days na lang.
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Guest on Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:39 pm

amang1965 wrote:
WormaixJr wrote:1. Yes. Small A may join contracts w/ 7.5M ABC and small B may join contracts w/ 250K.

2. Yes and Yes

Under 23.5.2.5. x x xProvided, however, That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contract is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines as prescribed by the PCAB.

Base on my opinion.


okay well taken junior, i suppose you are a junior because with your user name wormaixJr, anymore opinion mga kaibigans before i shutdown.heh.he. Maligayan Pasko, 15 days na lang.

cheers

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by amang'65 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:06 pm

WormaixJr wrote:
amang1965 wrote:
WormaixJr wrote:1. Yes. Small A may join contracts w/ 7.5M ABC and small B may join contracts w/ 250K.

2. Yes and Yes

Under 23.5.2.5. x x xProvided, however, That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contract is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines as prescribed by the PCAB.

Base on my opinion.


okay well taken junior, i suppose you are a junior because with your user name wormaixJr, anymore opinion mga kaibigans before i shutdown.heh.he. Maligayan Pasko, 15 days na lang.

cheers


wala na yatang gustong pumatol sa clarification ko? para naman makatulog ako mamayang gabi.
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Guest on Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:14 pm

amang1965 wrote:
WormaixJr wrote:
amang1965 wrote:
WormaixJr wrote:1. Yes. Small A may join contracts w/ 7.5M ABC and small B may join contracts w/ 250K.

2. Yes and Yes

Under 23.5.2.5. x x xProvided, however, That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contract is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines as prescribed by the PCAB.

Base on my opinion.


okay well taken junior, i suppose you are a junior because with your user name wormaixJr, anymore opinion mga kaibigans before i shutdown.heh.he. Maligayan Pasko, 15 days na lang.

cheers


wala na yatang gustong pumatol sa clarification ko? para naman makatulog ako mamayang gabi.

Meron yan. paikot ikot lang parang angel. w8 lang po tayo.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by amang'65 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:26 pm

WormaixJr wrote:
amang1965 wrote:
WormaixJr wrote:
amang1965 wrote:
WormaixJr wrote:1. Yes. Small A may join contracts w/ 7.5M ABC and small B may join contracts w/ 250K.

2. Yes and Yes

Under 23.5.2.5. x x xProvided, however, That contractors under Small A and Small B categories without similar experience on the contract to be bid may be allowed to bid if the cost of such contract is not more than fifty percent (50%) of the Allowable Range of Contract Cost (ARCC) of their registration based on the guidelines as prescribed by the PCAB.

Base on my opinion.


okay well taken junior, i suppose you are a junior because with your user name wormaixJr, anymore opinion mga kaibigans before i shutdown.heh.he. Maligayan Pasko, 15 days na lang.

cheers


wala na yatang gustong pumatol sa clarification ko? para naman makatulog ako mamayang gabi.




Meron yan. paikot ikot lang parang angel. w8 lang po tayo.


sana parang angel and sumagot, eh kung si...... BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
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: Track Record VS. Years of Experience

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum