Fixed Eligibility Requirements for Alternative Methods of Procurement

engrjhez wrote:

The Revised IRR is still silent on the "eligibility requirements" for Alternative Methods of Procurement. Let us summarized them:

• Sec. 49 Limited Source Bidding : "...direct invitation to bid by the procuring entity from the list of pre-selected suppliers or consultants with known experience and proven capability on the requirements of the particular contract."
  
  
• Sec.50 Direct Contracting : "...does not require elaborate Bidding Documents. The supplier is simply asked to submit a price quotation or a pro-forma invoice together with the conditions of sale. The offer may be accepted immediately or after some negotiations..."
  
  
• Sec.51 Repeat Order : (this is fine because it is understood that repeat order shall be allowed only after a successful public bidding, hence the supplier is already determined eligible under Sec.23)
  
  
• Sec. 52 Shopping :"...to be procured directly from suppliers of known qualifications..."
  
  
• Sec.53 Negotiated Procurement : (variable requirements)

May I propose, once and for all, to eliminate all the "not so clear" definitions of eligibility under the foregoing methods and we identify clearly, even in the same non-discretionary manner, the documents that has to be produced in order to obtain the fundamental requirements of the procurement, i.e. to procure form legally, technically, financially capable suppliers/contractors. This can be done by a simplified submission of :

1. DTI/SEC/CDA Registration Certificate (as a legal entity)
   
2. BIR Registration Certificate (to check the technical aspect as reflected in line of business, as well as to VAT or NON-VAT)
   
3. Mayor's Permit for Business issued from the city/municipality where the agency is situated (to check financial aspect as reflected on their tax base)*

*for Shopping and Small Value Procurement only. This may be extended to nearby cities in case of NCR, or up to nearby provinces elsewhere.

It would not be hard to apply these requirements under AMP. Mayor's Permit as in No.3 above is based on the fact that under Shopping and SVPs, the proximity of the business a factor for pricing, - unless otherwise contested. In the previous (IRR-A) discussions, I was of the opinion that the eligibility requirements as submitted under Public Bidding be the same as AMPs. But then after careful considerations and to the fact that even AMP in the form of Shopping and SVP is slowly being simplified, it's about time to impose something like this.

I hope our friends from the GPPB and GPPB-TSO address this issue positively.

Comment/observation, hopefully the GPPB, early as possible provide us the revised generic procurement manual, so the procedural guidelines (methodology) in the use of AMP will guide us accordingly.

For shopping and svp is answered by GPPB reso 9-2009 number 3 (j).

I think we should apply the requirements under section 23. because it is clearly stated that we should check the technical, legal and financial capability of the supplier.

engrjhez wrote:

Pritong Kandule wrote:For shopping and svp is answered by GPPB reso 9-2009 number 3 (j).

Hmmm. Let us see.

3(j) The procuring entity must validate whether it is entering into a
contract with a technically, legally and financially capable supplier,
contractor or consultant by requiring the submission of relevant
documents or through other means.

This is actually part of my question. How do we determine the legal, technical, and financial capabilities of a supplier/contractor? Does this mean, we apply the eligibility check under Sec.23 and 24? I don't think it should be purely discretionary.

The GPPB Resolution allows "other means" of validating the eligibility, other than submission of the "relevant documents". It seems to me that with that issuance by the GPPB, it has given the procuring entity the discretion of validating the eligibility in a less formal way. For example, the case of SM. If you ask SM to submit the legal, technical and financial requirements, it would only raise its eyebrows. It does not need to do that but you know (or should I say, you could physically see it with your two eyes) that it is legally, technically, and financially capable.

That is only my interpretation, considering that I do not know the spirit behind the allowance of validating eligibility "through other means" than requiring the submission of the relevant documents.