Capitol denies "bid rigging"

Tagbilaran City, BOHOL-

Two Capitol officials found no improprieties in the conduct of bidding for P168-million worth of heavy equipment to be purchased by the provincial government.
Provincial Legal Officer Atty. Handel Lagunay conducted an assessment on how the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) carried out the procurement process upon orders issued by Gov. Erico Aumentado who earlier declared a war against corruption at the Capitol.
Said to be the biggest single purchase of heavy equipment in recent years, the bidding took the spotlight after a disenfranchised Japanese supplier filed protests to the BAC for allegedly giving “undue advantage to preferred suppliers”.
Meanwhile, during the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) session last Tuesday, provincial Board Member Cesar Tomas Lopez lashed out at the committee for its “failure to comply” with key provisions of the procurement law that again placed the provincial government “in a bad light due to the fact that the manner by which goods [are purchased] cannot face up to public scrutiny”.
However, Lagunay stressed there is “no basis to the allegation that the bidding for the P168-million heavy equipment is rigged”.
“The BAC followed the rules and procedures under RA 9184 (Government Procurement Law) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR),” Lagunay said.
Speaking during the weekly radio program “The Governor Reports” on Friday, the provincial attorney recommended to the governor that the BAC should proceed as “there is no basis” to conclude that the bidding is a failure.
Lagunay also recommended that the protest filed by Japanese supplier Kowa Tsusho Ltd. be resolved first before the procurement contract is awarded to winning bidders.
Likewise, Provincial Administrator Atty. Tomas Abapo Jr. also believed that the BAC and its technical working group (TWG) “have done what is right and the bidding process had been done right since the start”.
Abapo recalled how he reminded BAC chair and General Services Officer Engr. Rosalindo Yu that “the bidding should be above board” considering the huge amount involved, and “there will be pressures along the way”.
4 SUPPLIERS PASS
During the post-qualification of bids, the BAC revealed that four suppliers already passed on the four items bidded out.
The qualifying bidders include JVF Commercial (Quezon City) to supply 4 units of brand new articulated motor road grader with an approved budget for contract (ABC) of P34,000,000; Civic Merchandising (Mandaue City) to supply 4 units of brand new road roller/vibratory compactor with an approved budget of P14,432,000; Isuzu Cebu Inc. (Mandaue City) to supply a brand new 6-wheeler water truck with pump with an approved budget of P4,720,000; and RDAK Transport Equipment (Cebu City) to supply a brand new 6-wheeler fuel tanker with pump.
The BAC’s post-qualification marked the other 3 items bid out as “failed” which includes the bidding for 2 units of backhoe/hydraulic excavator with breaker with an ABC of P16,236,000; 2 units of bulldozers with ripper with an ABC of P36,372,000; and 10 units of dumptrucks with an ABC of P40,800,000.
The BAC will conduct “further post qualification” proceeding on the tendered bid of JVF Commercial to supply 2 units of brand new payloader with an ABC of P17,136,000 in order to conduct “technical inspection and testing” of Holland, the firm’s offered brand.
ONLY 28 DAYS REQUIRED
In the complaint of Kowa Tsusho, the company alleged that considering the amount and nature of the project, Sec. 21.2.2 of the IRR-A of RA 9184 should have been observed before opening of bids, which is a maximum of 50 calendar days from the date of advertisement or posting of the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid (IAEB).
According to Kowa Tsusho, there was no ample time to prepare the bid because they only had 16 days to comply with requirements since the pre-bid conference on January 23, 2009 up to the deadline of submission of bids on February 9.
Lagunay clarified that the 50-day period does not apply to the procurement of heavy equipment as it is clearly a purchase of goods needed in the pursuit of a government undertaking, project or activity.
Thus, under the IRR-A of RA 9184, to complete the entire bidding process only 28 calendar days is required, he explained.
NO POSTPONEMENT ALLOWED
Lagunay continued that there is “no provision in the IRR-A which allows the BAC to postpone the bidding at a request of a prospective bidder”.
He said that this would only be perceived as “giving of undue favor to the disadvantage of the other bidders [who] managed to submit their bids as scheduled”.
The provincial attorney also noted that it was precisely requested by the equipment end-user that they expect to “take advantage of favorable weather conditions during which the heavy equipment will be used in the repair and improvement of provincial roads”.
Moreover, Lagunay did not find any deviation of the BAC from the IRR-A with regards to the publication of the IAEB in newspapers based in Cebu City that are being circulated in other parts of the country.
“In fact, we had participating bidders coming from Quezon City [which] bolsters the fact that the said newspapers are of nationwide circulation,” he stressed.
ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTS
On the allegation by the prospective bidder that bid documents were not provided at the time the IAEB was first published and posted nor at the time of the pre-bid conference, Lagunay said that this allegation was denied by the BAC.
According to the BAC, even as the issuance of bid documents was set on January 23, 2009, it does not mean that the documents were not available to the bidders right after the IAEB was first posted or published.
The BAC said that two bidders were able to get bid documents immediately after the pre-bid conference.
“After carefully reading letters of the counsel of the prospective bidder (Kowa Tsusho), it was found out that there was no allegation or statement that the prospective bidder ever asked for copies of the bids documents…”
Meanwhile, clarifications on some specifications of the heavy equipment to be purchased would naturally crop up during the pre-bid conference as this is the time where details of the equipment are discussed whether it is responsive to the needs of the procuring entity.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
According to Lagunay, the BAC and the TWG stressed that the specifications were only minimum requirements of the heavy equipment.
“The preferences on specifications are only descriptive but not restrictive,” he said. “Any bidder who can offer equipment with specifications which are above the minimum requirement is not precluded from participating the bid and can be ultimately awarded the contract.”
“There should be no confusion between preferred specifications on one hand and a preferred brand or bidder in the other,” Lagunay explained.
The preferred specification of an equipment is a vital factor in awarding the project, Lagunay concluded.