Latest topics

re: Bidding

View previous topic View next topic Go down

re: Bidding

Post by sorayda on Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:26 pm

hi..hello,

I'm from dvo city, we had our bidding yesterday November 5, 2008 at city gov't. of panabo, i'm lone bidder, in my technical documents i attached "performance security:bank guarantee" instead bid security:bank guarantee, our BAC Chairman declared me as NONE COMPLYING can i request for motion for re-consideration? do i have a chance to qualify and to open my financial documents?

thank you..

sayda...

sorayda
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 1
Company/Agency : J & S Escuadra Const. & Supply
Occupation/Designation : Proprietress
Registration date : 2008-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: re: Bidding

Post by RDV @ GP3i on Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:42 pm

You have three (3) calendar days from being verbally informed, if present on bid opening day, or upon receipt of written notification of disqualification from the BAC, to file Motion for Reconsideration. That is your right. But whether the BAC will reconsider its decision is another matter. Part of it will depend on your justification.

Very clearly, in the bidding document, you are not required to submit a Performance Security, because that is only for the awardee to the contract to submit, but to submit a Bid Security, in the form and amount indicated in the bidding document that you bought.

You will have to examine also the wordings of the bank guarantee to find out if you have the chance of being reconsidered from "non-complying" to "complying." Take note that the purpose of the bid security is very much different from the performance security.

That is my take of your situation. And a word of advice, next time be very careful.

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: Bidding

Post by Overseer on Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:14 pm

You can always argue on the basis of clerical error on the title of the document. But then, as stated before the substance of the document will need to be examined to prove your case that it is not the other way around.

The plain meaning (of the substance or wordings) of the document will be your savior in this present case.

Also, make no mistake on the name or initials of the procuring entity, should the complete name of the procuring entity was not indicated in the document. To my mind, that is a grave blunder which cannot be remedied, neither should be reconsidered by the BAC.

my two cents...

Overseer
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 2
Company/Agency : Clark Development Corporation
Occupation/Designation : Manager
Registration date : 2008-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: re: Bidding

Post by engrjhez® on Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:21 am

I agree with RDV and Overseer that the very essence of the document must be considered over typographical error and this must be carefully examined by the BAC. Even though a security or insurance company issues similar form for both PERFORMANCE and BID SECURITIES, other phrases typed or printed may suggest the nature of the document. This shall be weight as to the error or omissions.

On the other hand it seems not valid to claim the "typographical error" as an excuse for the disqualification. Basic as it seems, a bidder must be knowledgeable in the procurement process as to what, when and where to secure the documents for the bid to expressly deliver the goods or services most advantageous to the government. Failure in this basic knowhow may discourage anyone, especially the government.

Anyway, the BAC concerned may see the light on this on your favor. Just be very careful on these "non-discretionary" criteria on eligibility as this may not favor the discretion in the post qualification. Smile
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

In My Opinion

Post by ideasnco on Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:59 pm

In My Opinion

Everything you said here is right. However, to some Procuring Entity, they have their own data interpretation, and they have the discretion to pass/fail you. Of course, it will not pass our minds if this bidding is being rigged or they have favored someone for the particular project. Nevertheless, on your case, this is plain and simple ignorance of the RA 9184 for the BAC on my opinion, considering your reasons, but try to find out more about the reasons of your ineligibility and contest it to your MFR. I guess they will have the right answers for you in their response. Be friendly to them also, 'cause sometimes nosy people gets unfavorable response sad to say.

I suggest that GPPB be given authority like the OMBUDSMAN's to persecute and correct violators of RA 9184. It's sad that while there's an ideal agency governed to secure and oversee the policies' correct practices, they are just mere puppets to the arrogant and hipocrite PE's Public Officials whose only function is to secure their SOPs and not for the basic welfare of it's primary function.

ideasnco
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 9
Company/Agency : IDEAS ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS
Occupation/Designation : Representative
Registration date : 2009-03-02

Back to top Go down

Re: re: Bidding

Post by venom.0420 on Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:37 pm

sorayda wrote:hi..hello,

I'm from dvo city, we had our bidding yesterday November 5, 2008 at city gov't. of panabo, i'm lone bidder, in my technical documents i attached "performance security:bank guarantee" instead bid security:bank guarantee, our BAC Chairman declared me as NONE COMPLYING can i request for motion for re-consideration? do i have a chance to qualify and to open my financial documents?

thank you..

sayda...

Hi sayda! Though some procuring entity would be very lenient on the "substance over form" issue, I won't bet on it. Remember that part of the bid documents that you submitted is your Certification on Bidder's Responsibilities where you clearly stated that "you have taken steps to carefully examine all bidding documents". This and the nondiscretionary pass/fail criteria, would give any procuring entity a reason to deny your motion for reconsideration. Just learn from this experience and like RDV has said, be very careful next time around. Cool
avatar
venom.0420
Active Poster
Active Poster

Male Number of posts : 98
Company/Agency : Government
Occupation/Designation : Government Employee
Registration date : 2009-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: re: Bidding

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