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


Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by riddler on Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:08 pm

Sec 32.4.3 of the draft IRR (a) bid PRICES in figures and in words (it does not harmonized with SF-INFR-55 form in the Bill of Quantities, what does the Bid Prices in (a) referred to? Is it the unit PRICE/S in figures, or the Figure in the Amount "column" in the Bill of Quantities form?). Items (b), (c), and (d) are much clear now, however, Sec. 32.4.3 of the draft keeps on interchanging the nouns "price", "cost", and the noun "amount" used in the Bill of Quantities form, can we just use one Noun to make the evaluation more easier? Is the correction follows a hierarchical pattern like first, we applied corrections in (a) then we proceed to (b) and so on?, Because mathematical corrections in (b) and (c) may altogether affect the total amount of the Bid. What about if discrepancies were made in the amount in "words" and "figures" used in the Contract, shall we follow the amount as corrected in Sec. 32.4.3?


Last edited by tianchon,ruel on Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:18 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by engrjhez® on Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:02 pm

tianchon,ruel wrote:
Sec 32.4.2 of the draft IRR (a) bid PRICES in figures and in words (it does not harmonized with SF-INFR-55 form in the Bill of Quantities, what does the Bid Prices in (a) referred to? Is it the unit PRICE/S in words and figures, or the Amount and Figure in the Component Item of the Bill of Quantities form?).
The "description" column (SF-INFR-55) shall be in WORDS. Unit prices (in the unit price column) shall be in FIGURES. The "amount" column shall also be in FIGURES.

tianchon,ruel wrote:
Items (b), (c), and (d) are much clear now, however, Sec. 32.4.2 of the draft keeps on interchanging the nouns "price", "cost", and the noun "amount" used in the Bill of Quantities form, can we just use one Noun to make the evaluation more easier? Is the correction follows a hierarchal pattern like first, we applied corrections in (a) then we proceed to (b) and so on?, Because mathematical corrections in (b) and (c) may altogether affect the total amount of the Bid.
I am not so sure which part are you confused of, but the "correction system" is plain and simple as 1, 2, 3:

1. the wordings shall govern over the figures;
2. the amount as a result of unit cost multiplied by quantity shall govern over the amount stipulated in the "amount column"; and
3. if there is a conflict on the first two rulings, the amount leading to the lower calculated bid shall govern.

tianchon,ruel wrote:
What about if discrepancies were made in the amount in "words" and "figures" used in the Contract, shall we follow the amount as corrected in Sec. 32.4.2?
Same as No.3 above, the most advantageous price for the government shall always be in effect.
Very Happy
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:04 pm

tianchon,ruel wrote:
Sec 32.4.2 of the draft IRR (a) bid PRICES in figures and in words (it does not harmonized with SF-INFR-55 form in the Bill of Quantities, what does the Bid Prices in (a) referred to? Is it the unit PRICE/S in words and figures, or the Amount and Figure in the Component Item of the Bill of Quantities form?). Items (b), (c), and (d) are much clear now, however, Sec. 32.4.2 of the draft keeps on interchanging the nouns "price", "cost", and the noun "amount" used in the Bill of Quantities form, can we just use one Noun to make the evaluation more easier? Is the correction follows a hierarchal pattern like first, we applied corrections in (a) then we proceed to (b) and so on?, Because mathematical corrections in (b) and (c) may altogether affect the total amount of the Bid. What about if discrepancies were made in the amount in "words" and "figures" used in the Contract, shall we follow the amount as corrected in Sec. 32.4.2?

Ruel may probably be referreing to Sec. 32.4.3, instead of Sec. 32.4.2, which is quoted below:

"32.4.3. In case of discrepancies between: (a) bid prices in figures and in words, the latter shall prevail; (b) total price per item and unit price for the item as extended or multiplied by the quantity of that item, the latter shall prevail; (c) stated total price and the actual sum of prices of component items, the latter shall prevail; (d) unit cost in the detailed estimate and unit cost in the bill of quantities, the latter shall prevail."

On your first question, I think engrjhez has answered it already.

On your comment that instead of using "cost" "price" and "amount" and interchangeably using them, I think you cannot have one common noun to use since they do not mean the same. Even the word "price" are used differently: "total price", "unit price", "sum of prices". They are all of different meanings ("total price" is the result when you multiply quantity with "unit price"; "sum of prices" is the sum total of all "total price").

Corrections do not follow a "hierarchical pattern".

Discrepancies between "words" and "figures" applied in the contract will not apply here because the rule provideed for under Sec. 34.4.3 is on the bid evaluation only. You are already referring to a contract in your question, which means the procuring entity has already awarded the project to the winning bidder at a particular contract amount. If there is discrepancy, then refer to the Notice of Award because it is there where you could see at what price is the project awarded.
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

Bid Evaluation for Infrastructures

Post by riddler on Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:54 pm

engrjhez, thanks for your reply,” The "description" column (SF-INFR-55) shall be in WORDS. Unit prices (in the unit price column) shall be in FIGURES. The "amount" column shall also be in FIGURES.”

But, going back to my previous query in (a),

Sec 32.4.3 in the draft IRR (a) BID PRICES in figures and in WORDS (SF-INFR-55 form in the Bill of Quantities), what column does the Bid Prices in WORDS refers to? Is it the denomination in figure in the UNIT PRICES column? If (a) refers to the “Figures in the Unit Price Column” (since it stated in the SI unit/s in the SF-INFR-55 form), I suggest that we shall re-phrase (a) this way, “UNIT PRICE/S (instead of Bid Price/s) in FIGURES and in WORDS, the latter shall prevail,…

And to further harmonize Sec. 32.4.3 with the SF-INFR-55 form (Bill of Quantities), may I suggest some corrections (capitalized) in the proposed IRR amendment;

Sec. 32.4.3. In case of discrepancies between: (a) UNIT bid prices in figures and in words, the latter shall prevail; (b) BID AMOUNT price per item and unit price for the item as extended or multiplied by the quantity of that item, the latter shall prevail; (c) GRAND stated total BID price IN FIGURES and the actual sum of AMOUNTS prices of component items, the latter shall prevail; (d) unit cost in the detailed estimate and unit cost in the bill of quantities, the latter shall prevail."

Thanks to RDV too, Mabuhay! This forum shall gradually release the BAC-TWG from nightmares, specially the LGU’s concerned.


Last edited by tianchon,ruel on Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:59 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by engrjhez® on Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:08 pm

tianchon,ruel wrote:
Sec 32.4.3 in the draft IRR (a) BID PRICES in figures and in WORDS (SF-INFR-55 form in the Bill of Quantities), what column does the Bid Prices in WORDS refers to? Is it the denomination in figure in the UNIT PRICES column? If (a) refers to the “Figures in the Unit Price Column” (since it stated in the SI unit/s in the SF-INFR-55 form), I suggest that we shall re-phrase (a) this way, “UNIT PRICE/S (instead of Bid Price/s) in FIGURES and in WORDS, the latter shall prevail,…
I think Section 32.4.3 is already worded fine and accurate. BID PRICE is a collective term for the proposed amount whether as to item costing or total costing.

Consider looking at only one item (as in one row, say Item 1). If we shall be rephrasing the section as you wish to propose, "(a)" will mean we have to put both amounts in FIGURE and in WORDS under the "unit prices column" of that specific item. But that is not the case. The discrepancy (if there is any) has to be reconciled between the TOTAL ITEM COSTING IN WORDS under the "description column" and the TOTAL ITEM COSTING IN FIGURES appearing in the "amount column".
tianchon,ruel wrote:
Sec. 32.4.3. In case of discrepancies between: (a) UNIT bid prices in figures and in words, the latter shall prevail; (b) total AMOUNT price per item and unit price for the item as extended or multiplied by the quantity of that item, the latter shall prevail; (c) GRAND stated total BID price IN FIGURES and the actual sum of AMOUNTS prices of component items, the latter shall prevail; (d) unit cost in the detailed estimate and unit cost in the bill of quantities, the latter shall prevail."
In comparing, we always set parameters on equal footings. As to "(b)", the discrepancy (if there is any) between the total cost (under the "amount column") and the unit cost (under "unit price" column) multiplied by the quantity ("quantity column") , the latter shall prevail means that the basic unoperated values shall govern over the (probably) written end product.

The principle is to assume that the more basic entry is less argueable to the entry as a result of the operation. That same principle is followed on (c) and (d).

By the way, see you in the Mid Year Convention? Very Happy
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by riddler on Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:16 pm

engrjhez wrote,
… ….“The discrepancy (if there is any) has to be reconciled between the TOTAL ITEM COSTING IN WORDS under the "description column" and the TOTAL ITEM COSTING IN FIGURES appearing in the "amount column".

Now, i think i am confused here, actually i have consulted this matter to different BAC-TWG within our Region, (some of them took its importance for granted) and I received confusing answer specially (a) of Sec. 32.4.3 of the draft IRR.

If we examine the "Description column" of the Bill of Quanitites (Form SF-INFR-55) the Amount in Words like, One hundred pesos per cu.m., per sq.m.,per month, etc. etc. , which in my opinion is taken from the figure in the "Unit Prices Column" and not in the "Amount Column" as you explained.

yes, i wish we shall see each other at the MId year Convention. See you around there engr.


Last edited by tianchon,ruel on Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:02 pm

I can see the problem being encountered by ruel. Unfortunately I cannot also make tails or heads of the Bill of Quantities (sample) form, particularly that of the Description column which contains the following:

"<Description of 1st Item>

(Pesos ___________________
____Amount in Words_______
_________________________
and ______________________
centavos per Month)


Initially, the bidder has to provide the description of each of the item he is bidding on in the BOQ. I initially surmised also that the amount in words would refer to his bid for that particular item, but the "per Month" at the end of the amount in words, would say to me that it could not be. If it is not the bid for that particular item, what could it be?

GPPB should already be of help here since any information that we may provide would add further confusion to the issue.
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

Bid Evaluation of Infrastructure Project

Post by riddler on Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 pm

whew! Thank you RDV, now you know my problem on the Evaluation of Infra . I wish somebody from the GPPB should clear that out. The same phrases on Bid evaluation of Goods are used by the draft too which may differ from the Infra... thanks again. Very Happy
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:28 pm

tianchon,ruel wrote:whew! Thank you RDV, now you know my problem on the Evaluation of Infra . I wish somebody from the GPPB should clear that out. The same phrases on Bid evaluation of Goods are used by the draft too which may differ from the Infra... thanks again. Very Happy

In the meantime that GPPB has not clarified the confusion, this is what you can do if you are scheduling another bidding for infra.

Consider that SF-IFR-55 is just a "SAMPLE" form. Since it is only as such, when you issue your bidding documents, you can provide your own Bill of Quantities, which would be clearer to the bidders so that they are not confused as well.

During the pre-bid conference, you can clarify, as well, with the bidders how to fill up the form so they are also guided accordingly.

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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by riddler on Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:55 pm

thanks again RDV,
if you take a look at the GPPB sample forms for the procurement of Goods, there is no Bill of Quantities forms for Goods, which shall be the basis for our Evaluation, while we require this form to the Bidder in the submission of their Financial Envelope, i wish a clear guidelines from the GPPB shall be reinforced this concern thru the new IRR. Very Happy
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:48 am

tianchon,ruel wrote:thanks again RDV,
if you take a look at the GPPB sample forms for the procurement of Goods, there is no Bill of Quantities forms for Goods, which shall be the basis for our Evaluation, while we require this form to the Bidder in the submission of their Financial Envelope, i wish a clear guidelines from the GPPB shall be reinforced this concern thru the new IRR. Very Happy

Ruel, our "Big Brother" from GPPB-TSO, in the person of dlsn (Dennis, is that you?) is now involve in our discussions. Of course, he is not literally BIG, but he is our Moderator. (engrjhez may ask, how did you get all those stars? Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Very Happy)

Hopefully, he can give feedbacks also to those who are, in anyway, involved in the revision or standardization of the forms.
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by engrjhez® on Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:26 am

We initially disregarded the last phrase "per month" based on the interpretation that this has nothing to do with the unit cost. I hope Engr.Ruel would agree that as far as infra projects are concerned, the item of work "per month" would probably refer to rental of equipment under fixed rates. Nothing more in other works. It cannot be consistent with works pertaining to concreting, masonry, etc.Does the GPPB (who apparently made the sample forms) overlooked this phrase? We thought not.

We presumed that the term "per month" is consistent with the CASH FLOW form wherein the billing is to be made each month or quarter. If we make use of "monthly billing", the form shall be in proper format since we ought to know by how much we should bill the contractor per month should their bid wins the award of the contract. This will lead to elaboration of BOMs per month if the particular item of work is expected to be done more But generally, we inform bidders on our pre-bids that they "may" use the the full lump sum amount of the item (considering small amounts of item for small projects in the Municipality).

We agree this is confusing. But in the absence of a more categorical answer, we stand on our interpretation on the use of the form. The "per month" as an indication of a "unit" is highly improbable and is very hard to incorporate to infra works due to the complexity of composite materials and labor/equipment components.

Our stand.
Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven (RDV, I think we should get those gold stars too, Laughing)
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:03 am

engrjhez wrote:We initially disregarded the last phrase "per month" based on the interpretation that this has nothing to do with the unit cost. I hope Engr.Ruel would agree that as far as infra projects are concerned, the item of work "per month" would probably refer to rental of equipment under fixed rates. Nothing more in other works. It cannot be consistent with works pertaining to concreting, masonry, etc.Does the GPPB (who apparently made the sample forms) overlooked this phrase? We thought not.

You may be right, engrjhez. And you are perfectly in your own right to revise the form as it fits you. As I said, it is only a Sample Form.

engrjhez wrote:We presumed that the term "per month" is consistent with the CASH FLOW form wherein the billing is to be made each month or quarter. If we make use of "monthly billing", the form shall be in proper format since we ought to know by how much we should bill the contractor per month should their bid wins the award of the contract. This will lead to elaboration of BOMs per month if the particular item of work is expected to be done more But generally, we inform bidders on our pre-bids that they "may" use the the full lump sum amount of the item (considering small amounts of item for small projects in the Municipality).

I have also suggested to ruel that they inform the bidders during the pre-bid conference so that they are properly guided.


engrjhez wrote:Our stand.
Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven (RDV, I think we should get those gold stars too, Laughing)

It is alright with me that we have to earn those Like a Star @ heaven . I lost 2 stars because my status as a Trainer has been downgraded, but it is alright to be "moderated". At any rate, our main reason for active participation in the forum is to help other forumers get the answers to their questions immediately. (Although, from time to time, I may be unable to answer immediately due to other commitments.) 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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by riddler on Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:13 pm

May I have your indulgence engrjhez and RDV to the following scenario that really happened during one of our Bid Evaluation for Infrastructure project in relation to my query on what “column” in the Bill of Quantities Form (SF-INFR-55) does paragraph (a) in Sec. 32.4.3 maybe referring to, I wish I can explain these matters in detail to you.

engrjhez wrote:... The discrepancy (if there is any) has to be reconciled between the TOTAL ITEM COSTING IN WORDS under the "description column" and the TOTAL ITEM COSTING IN FIGURES appearing in the "amount column".

Granting that the opinion is true, let me discuss the problem in the example below in the evaluation of Bid, using engrjhez opinion about paragraph (a) of Sec. 32.4.3:

1) Assuming the Amount in words in the “description column” for Item 1 satisfies the figure in the “amount column” in the condition of paragraph (a), Then we shall proceed to further evaluation in paragraph (b), However, if after evaluation in paragraph (b), the “Unit Price in column” as extended or multiplied by its Quantity “Column”, the resulting amount in Figures is different from the “Figures in the Amount Column”, therefore, we shall proceed to correct the Figures in the Amount Column as provided in paragraph (b), If this is the case, the correction in paragraph (b) shall be in conflict with correction in paragraph (a). The “Amount in words” in the description Column” of the above problem as corrected in paragraph (a) cannot be changed by a correction using paragraph (b), because paragraph (a) is very specific, the AMOUNT IN WORDS shall prevail over the FIGURES. Therefore, if we follow this pattern of correction based on the above-mentioned opinion, we will really be confused in the evaluation of the Bids using paragraphs (a) and (b).

2) Let us try another example, following paragraph (a), using the Amount in Words per sq.m. or per month, in the “Description column” as referring to the “Unit Prices in figure column.”

Assuming the Amount in words in the “description column” for Item 1 satisfies the figure in the “Unit prices column” in the condition of paragraph (a), (If it does not satisfy, we have to use the Amount in Words, translated into figures as corrected in the "Unit Prices column"). Then we shall proceed to further evaluation on paragraph (b), However, if after evaluation in paragraph (b), the “Unit price column” as extended or multiplied by its Quantity “Column”, the resulting amount in Figures is different from the “Figures in the Amount Column”, therefore, it shall be safe to correct the Figures in the Amount Column as provided by paragraph (b) because the AMOUNT IN WORDS (referring to unit price) in the "Description Column" would never be affected by paragraph (b), and we will noticed that in this particular case, corrections in paragraph (b) does not go in conflict with the Amount in Words in the “Description Column” as corrected in paragraph (a). For me, this type of correction will eliminate overlapping conflicts relative to the evaluation and corrections of paragraphs (a) and (b).

Conclusion: Sec. 32.4.3 of paragraph (a), the Amount in Words in the "Description Column" refers to Figures (in Peso) in the "Unit Prices Column".

This leads to my previous suggestion that in order to harmonize Sec. 32.4.3 with the SF-INFR-55 GPPB Form (Bill of Quantities), May I suggest the following corrections in the following paragraphs of the proposed IRR amendment for Infrastructure projects;

FROM:

"32.4.3. In case of discrepancies between: (a) bid prices in figures and in words, the latter shall prevail; (b) total price per item and unit price for the item as extended or multiplied by the quantity of that item, the latter shall prevail; (c) stated total price and the actual sum of prices of component items, the latter shall prevail; (d) unit cost in the detailed estimate and unit cost in the bill of quantities, the latter shall prevail."

TO:

Sec. 32.4.3. In case of discrepancies between: (a) UNIT bid prices in figures and in words, the latter shall prevail; (b) total AMOUNT price per item and unit price for the item as extended or multiplied by the quantity of that item, the latter shall prevail; (c) stated GRAND total BID price IN FIGURES and the actual sum of AMOUNTS prices of component items, the latter shall prevail; (d) unit cost in the detailed estimate and unit cost in the bill of quantities, the latter shall prevail."

I think the above paragraphs shall harmonize the Bill of Quantities in the SF-INFR-55 Form which will make it easier to Evaluate infrastructure projects.

We can also use this form in the Evaluation of Goods too, because GPBB did not provide this kind of Form in its website.

engrjhez & RDV, your opinions has really helped a lot of people. May your tribes increase! sunny
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by engrjhez® on Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:27 pm

tianchon,ruel wrote:
Conclusion: Sec. 32.4.3 of paragraph (a), the Amount in Words in the "Description Column" refers to Figures (in Peso) in the "Unit Prices Column".
Yes, that's right. Every computation is executed by figures (numbers). In the same manner as to correctly state the amount, an agreement on wordings and in figures must be resolved. The figures came first, and the wordings on the "description column" followed to "ratify" the figures (in the amount column).

The "description column" is referring to the TOTAL amount for that item (in the item column) and not for every line items within it, so I believe this need not to be conflicting (b), as (b) is supposed to come first before the values in (a).

I think it's time the GPPB (TSO) says something about this (or to the sample form itself).

tianchon,ruel wrote:
engrjhez & RDV, your opinions has really helped a lot of people. May your tribes increase! sunny
Now, that includes you too, Engr.Ruel! Very Happy
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:47 pm

Engr ruel,

That was a very exhaustive explanation of the confusion you had with the unharmonized SF and the provision of the IRR-A.

Now, i get your point and hope GPPB could consider your input in the finalization of the draft IRR.

In the meantime, in your evaluation, just apply the correction you see would fit the situation. If the proposal in the draft IRR allowing written clarification by the BAC to the bidder during bid evaluation is adopted, then you can request for a written clarification from the bidder. Otherwise, the bidder can still file a motion for reconsideration if he/she is not satisfied with the correction done by the BAC during bid evaluation.

So, you don't have to worry if you applied the correction wrongly. The IRR cannot possibly take every possible scenario that could happen during bid evaluation.
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by mealigan on Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:40 pm

Very well said. Have been following all your discussions.
Our experience showed that this only happens when the bidders are not properly reminded on how to accomplish the financial proposals. What we did was to conduct an orientation for all infra bidders in our region so as to minimize discrepancies and corresponding corrections on their financial proposals, emphasizing the basic evaluation criteria of words over figures, etc. as stated in Sec. 32.4.3. To-date, our TWG rarely encounter this problem except for new bidders.

mealigan
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 19
Company/Agency : Bicol University College of Engineering
Occupation/Designation : Asst. Dean / Procurement Trainor
Registration date : 2008-09-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by vince on Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:01 pm

Are bidders required to comply with DPWH DO#57 series 2002 (Preparation of ABC) in the preparation of their bid prices? It it therefore necessary for the BAC to check this during bid evaluation?

vince
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 9
Company/Agency : Bicol University
Occupation/Designation : Engineer III
Registration date : 2008-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:08 pm

vince wrote:Are bidders required to comply with DPWH DO#57 series 2002 (Preparation of ABC) in the preparation of their bid prices? It it therefore necessary for the BAC to check this during bid evaluation?

I have not read that DO but if the subject is "Preparation of ABC", it is the procuring entity's responsibility to prepare the ABC. Can you be specific?

Are you asking if the BAC needs to compare the costing in the ABC (which the procuring entity prepares) and that of the Bill of Quantities/Detailed Estimates which the bidder submits, during bid evaluation?
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by riddler on Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:25 am

RDV wrote:[
I have not read that DO but if the subject is "Preparation of ABC", it is the procuring entity's responsibility to prepare the ABC. Can you be specific?

Are you asking if the BAC needs to compare the costing in the ABC (which the procuring entity prepares) and that of the Bill of Quantities/Detailed Estimates which the bidder submits, during bid evaluation?

[b]unfotunately RDV there is no clear circulars nor department orders that would oblige the LGU in the uniform preparation of the ABC fo Infrastructure projects unlike the DPWH thru DO 57 s. 2002. most LGU's patterned the preparation of their ABC through the use of DO 57, can anybody from the DILG orient us on this matter? While it is the responsibilty of the procuring entity to prepare such thing, there should be a governent entity that would provide direction to all LGU's in the preparation of the ABC for infra, like what maximum or mininimum percentage shall we provide for Overhead Cost, Contingency Cost, Miscellaneous Cost, Insurance, Warranties, and other expenses relative to the Outlay.
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by vince on Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:58 am

DO 57 sets the max % of indirect cost in the computation of the ABC among others, yes it is the procuring entity that prepares the ABC and we prepare the ABC in accordance with DO 57, however in the conduct of bid evaluation, is it necesary to check if bidders also comply with this guideline?

vince
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 9
Company/Agency : Bicol University
Occupation/Designation : Engineer III
Registration date : 2008-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:15 pm

ruel t. wrote:
RDV wrote:[
I have not read that DO but if the subject is "Preparation of ABC", it is the procuring entity's responsibility to prepare the ABC. Can you be specific?

Are you asking if the BAC needs to compare the costing in the ABC (which the procuring entity prepares) and that of the Bill of Quantities/Detailed Estimates which the bidder submits, during bid evaluation?

[b]unfotunately RDV there is no clear circulars nor department orders that would oblige the LGU in the uniform preparation of the ABC fo Infrastructure projects unlike the DPWH thru DO 57 s. 2002. most LGU's patterned the preparation of their ABC through the use of DO 57, can anybody from the DILG orient us on this matter? While it is the responsibilty of the procuring entity to prepare such thing, there should be a governent entity that would provide direction to all LGU's in the preparation of the ABC for infra, like what maximum or mininimum percentage shall we provide for Overhead Cost, Contingency Cost, Miscellaneous Cost, Insurance, Warranties, and other expenses relative to the Outlay.
In the absence of a circular or guidelines for LGUs in the preparation of the ABC for Civil Works, similar to DPWH's Department Order No. 57 s. 2002, I don't see any problem if most LGUs adopt the DPWH guidelines.

Since it has been brought out already here, and there appears a need for LGUs to be properly guided as well, maybe it would be necessary for the GPPB to consider issuing the necessary Circular, not only for LGUs, but also for other NGAs, GOCCs, GFIs, as well as SUCs.
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:29 pm

vince wrote:DO 57 sets the max % of indirect cost in the computation of the ABC among others, yes it is the procuring entity that prepares the ABC and we prepare the ABC in accordance with DO 57, however in the conduct of bid evaluation, is it necesary to check if bidders also comply with this guideline?

Supposing the procuring entity adopts the guidelines of DPWH's DO 57 in the preparation of its ABC, my answer to your question on whether it is necessary or not for the BAC/TWG to check, during bid evaluation, if the bidder's financial proposal has complied with such guidelines, is NO.

However, it could be done during post-qualification. During the process of verifying,validating, and ascertaining the statements and documents submitted by the bidder, particular his/her financial proposal, the BAC/TWG could check them against the procuring entity's computation of the ABC and ask the particular bidder, if he/she is the LCB, why the variance and any other probing questions necessary for the bidder's bid to be declared responsive.

If on the other hand, the BAC/TWG is not satisfied with the bidder's clarification, then that particular bidder may be post-disqualified, and the reason communicated to said bidder in writing to allow the same to file a Motion for Reconsideration.

That is my take on your question.
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by riddler on Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:56 pm

RDV wrote:
ruel t. wrote:
RDV wrote:[
I have not read that DO but if the subject is "Preparation of ABC", it is the procuring entity's responsibility to prepare the ABC. Can you be specific?

Are you asking if the BAC needs to compare the costing in the ABC (which the procuring entity prepares) and that of the Bill of Quantities/Detailed Estimates which the bidder submits, during bid evaluation?

unfotunately RDV there is no clear circulars nor department orders that would oblige the LGU in the uniform preparation of the ABC fo Infrastructure projects unlike the DPWH thru DO 57 s. 2002. most LGU's patterned the preparation of their ABC through the use of DO 57, can anybody from the DILG orient us on this matter? While it is the responsibilty of the procuring entity to prepare such thing, there should be a governent entity that would provide direction to all LGU's in the preparation of the ABC for infra, like what maximum or mininimum percentage shall we provide for Overhead Cost, Contingency Cost, Miscellaneous Cost, Insurance, Warranties, and other expenses relative to the Outlay.
In the absence of a circular or guidelines for LGUs in the preparation of the ABC for Civil Works, similar to DPWH's Department Order No. 57 s. 2002, I don't see any problem if most LGUs adopt the DPWH guidelines.

[b]Since it has been brought out already here, and there appears a need for LGUs to be properly guided as well, maybe it would be necessary for the GPPB to consider issuing the necessary Circular, not only for LGUs, but also for other NGAs, GOCCs, GFIs, as well as SUCs
.

YES, RIGHT RDV. that would provide all program holders a "uniform application of percentage for OCM" in the preparation of Individual Program of Work (IPW) and the ABC.
avatar
riddler
Board General
Board General

Male Number of posts : 598
Company/Agency : lgu
Occupation/Designation : endyeenel
Registration date : 2009-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by engrjhez® on Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:39 am

vince wrote:DO 57 sets the max % of indirect cost in the computation of the ABC among others, yes it is the procuring entity that prepares the ABC and we prepare the ABC in accordance with DO 57, however in the conduct of bid evaluation, is it necesary to check if bidders also comply with this guideline?
I agree with RDV - it's a NO.

When RA.9184 came into being, the upper and lower limits of bid price (for infra) were repealed. Nowadays, a bidder may drop their bid up to an absolute zero (0) which means they'll do the project for free. Failure to commit shall forfeit their bid securities and further, perpetual disqualification in joining government procurements.

Every contractor has their ways and means to accomplish the same project differently. Regardless of their methodologies, as long as the specifications are attained, and the project completely delivered, they are entitled to submit their bids as they want it to be (provided the rest of IRR-GPRA and PBDs are complied).
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: Bid Evaluation for Procurement of Infrastructures

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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