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


Senate Bill No. 1963

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Senate Bill No. 1963

Post by dlsn on Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:35 pm

The bill seeks the amendment of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9184 (RA 9184) to put under its coverage the procurement of infrastructure projects, goods and consulting services funded by foreign loans classified as Official Development Assistance.

Further, as a measure to prevent collusion, it also proposes the amendment of Section 13 of RA 9184 by limiting the number of times an observer may be invited by the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) to three (3). It also recommends the deletion of the requirement that observers be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In its stead, it proposes that the observer present a certification of good standing coming from the president, head or chairperson of the association or civil society organization to which s/he belongs.

The bill also seeks to further lessen any discretion that may be exercised by procuring entities by amending Section 36 of RA 9184 on Single Calculated/Rated and Responsive Bid. In sum, it proposes that any award to a single calculated/rated and responsive bid must be subject to the approval of the GPPB.

Lastly, the bill proposes the inclusion of Section 36-A in RA 9184 to strengthen and advance transparency by mandating the posting of the decisions of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) relative to criteria, ratings and calculations of bids on the procuring entity’s website or that of the GPPB.

This SB was introduced on the 14th Congress by Senator Francis G. Escudero.

You may read the complete text of this SB by clicking here.
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: Senate Bill No. 1963

Post by shobe on Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:37 pm

The bill seeks the amendment of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9184 (RA 9184) to put under its coverage the procurement of infrastructure projects, goods and consulting services funded by foreign loans classified as Official Development Assistance.

I think this concern will be addressed with the approval of the one IRR.

Further, as a measure to prevent collusion, it also proposes the amendment of Section 13 of RA 9184 by limiting the number of times an observer may be invited by the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) to three (3). It also recommends the deletion of the requirement that observers be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In its stead, it proposes that the observer present a certification of good standing coming from the president, head or chairperson of the association or civil society organization to which s/he belongs.

First point: Are the there a number of “active” observers right now? From what I heard, some procuring entities find it difficult to invite observers who are more or less knowledgeable under the procurement law. Limiting their attendance in the procurement activities of an agency will not, to my mind, solve any issue as regards the problem in collusion. (I hope I’m not wrong). Second point: Considering that the observer has no authority to vote over BAC proceedings, I can hardly fathom how these bidders can possibly commit collusive practices. Familiarity is not ALWAYS tantamount to favoritism, complicity or connivance.

With regard the SEC registration, maybe an exception to that requirement can be provided under the IRR without the need of amending R.A. 9184.


The bill also seeks to further lessen any discretion that may be exercised by procuring entities by amending Section 36 of RA 9184 on Single Calculated/Rated and Responsive Bid. In sum, it proposes that any award to a single calculated/rated and responsive bid must be subject to the approval of the GPPB.

I think it’s high time people know the very nature of the GPPB. From my previous readings, the GPPB was created as a quasi-legislative agency with the primary mandate to safeguard and protect the national interest in all matters affecting public procurement. To have the same approve contracts (this is the reason why I don’t agree with EO 423) would, in effect, make the same prone to corruption and bribery. In my opinion, an agency crafting policies must not only be free, but also appear to be free, from corruption and bribery. Likewise, I think mandating agencies to have their SCRB approved by the GPPB will just be another unnecessary bureaucratic layer which would not only make the process even longer, but more dangerously transfer liabilities/accountabilities from one agency to another. Crying or Very sad

Lastly, the bill proposes the inclusion of Section 36-A in RA 9184 to strengthen and advance transparency by mandating the posting of the decisions of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) relative to criteria, ratings and calculations of bids on the procuring entity’s website or that of the GPPB.


This is a very dangerous proposal in my opinion. Posting the deliberations of the TWG and the BAC as regards the criteria, ratings and even the calculations as to how the ratings were arrived will open the procurement officials to question and even suits. It’s bad enough that these people are cautious of the 6 years and 1 day to 15 years (6115) imprisonment under the law’s penal clause... mandating the posting of their decisions would definitely make them fear making any decision relative to procurement. Bad, bad idea. Tsk, tsk, tsk
Evil or Very Mad
avatar
shobe
Active Poster
Active Poster

Female Number of posts : 79
Company/Agency : Makati Firm
Occupation/Designation : Lawyer
Registration date : 2008-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Senate Bill No. 1963

Post by jomadel86 on Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:35 pm

I agree entirely with all the comments made by Atty. Shobe on the proposed amendments of RA 9184 more specifically on the requirement that the lowest calculated and responsive bidder should be "declared" by the GPPB. This would further delay the procurement process considering that it would take a lot of precious time that will be wasted from the time that the P.E. submits its L.C.R.B. to the GPPB until the approval of the GPPB unless of course there is a provision in the law penalizing the GPPB if it fails to makes its decision within one day or within a certain prescriptive period.

I hope Senator Escudero will read your comments which was really thought provoking with a legal perspective so that he will be enlightened on the matter. Keep up the good work Atty. Shobe. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
avatar
jomadel86
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 26
Company/Agency : Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unit No. 6
Occupation/Designation : Information Officer
Registration date : 2009-09-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Senate Bill No. 1963

Post by jomadel86 on Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:16 am

Correction, I mean the the declaration of the LCRB should be "approved" by the GPPB and not declared.
avatar
jomadel86
New Member
New Member

Male Number of posts : 26
Company/Agency : Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unit No. 6
Occupation/Designation : Information Officer
Registration date : 2009-09-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Senate Bill No. 1963

Post by Guest on Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:21 am

Thank you very much,It is important to me


__________________________
Buy office 2007
Buy MS office 2007

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Senate Bill No. 1963

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