Transcript jagna.gov.ph

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT POLICY BOARD
TECHNICAL SUPPORT OFFICE (GPPB-TSO)
Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
Scope and Application
Procurement Organizations
PhilGEPS
Bidding Documents
Bidding Procedure
Detailed Evaluation of Bids
Post-qualification
Award of Contract
Alternative Methods of Procurement
Contract Implementation
Protest Mechanism
Blacklisting
Capacity Development Division
2
SCOPE AND APPLICATION
Scope and Application:
Authority of GPPB
On Granting exemption from application of RA 9184

It is beyond the authority of the GPPB to grant exemptions from the
application of RA 9184 and its IRR as it does not have the mandate
to legislate nor determine the coverage of the law. The GPPB
however, may render contemporaneous construction of the
provisions of the law pursuant to its quasi-legislative fiat, and issue
rules and regulations on the basis of its rule-making power.
NPM 100-2013
Capacity Development Division
4
Scope and Application:
Authority of GPPB
On Resolving issue on post-disqualification
 GPPB cannot grant a bidder’s request to resolve the issue of their
post-disqualification. Nonetheless, they are urged to follow the
prescribed rules and procedures on Protest Mechanism laid down in
Section 55 of the IRR of RA 9184.
 Itcannot dictate to the procuring entity how to decide or resolve
issues relative to its procurement activities. The GPPB is a quasilegislative body mandated to formulate and amend the IRR. It has
no quasi-judicial powers and functions; hence, cannot investigate
and ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and exercise
discretion of a judicial nature over actual controversies with regard
to the conduct of bidding by procuring entities.
NPM 104-2013
Capacity Development Division
5
Scope and Application:
Authority of GPPB
On Declaring Failure of Bidding
 GPPB is not vested with the authority to declare a PE’s
procurement activity to have incurred a failure of
bidding.
 Declaration of failure of bidding is within the authority
and accountability of the Bids and Awards Committee
and the Head of the Procuring Entity to exercise, under
Sections 35 and 41 of the IRR of RA 9184, respectively.
NPM 99-2013
Capacity Development Division
6
Scope and Application:
Non-Applicability of RA 9184 and its IRR
Lease Concession Agreement
 This may be most appropriately conducted following PPP-related
laws, rules, and regulations, such as BOT Law or JV Guidelines.
NPM 48-2013
Partnership with interested private entities
 Transactions involving the contribution of money/capital, services,
or assets by the parties to the transaction is considered a Joint
Venture (JV) agreement under Section 5.7 of the Guidelines and
Procedures for Entering Into Joint Venture Agreements Between
Government and Private Entities (JV Guidelines).
NPM 58-2013
Capacity Development Division
7
Scope and Application:
Non-Applicability of RA 9184 and its IRR
Treaty or International Executive Agreements
 Procurement rules shall not apply in cases when a Treaty or
International or Executive Agreement expressly provides use of
foreign government/foreign or international financing institution
procurement procedures and guidelines.
NPM 47-2013
Capacity Development Division
8
Scope and Application:
Non-Applicability of RA 9184 and its IRR
Disposal of Confiscated Properties
 The Manual on the Disposal of Government Property
covers the disposal of government properties. The
issuance of rules or guidelines on disposal of
government properties is outside the mandate of GPPB.
NPM 03-2014
Capacity Development Division
9
Scope and Application:
Non-Applicability of RA 9184 and its IRR
Leasing Out of Government Properties for Private Use
 As long as lease out undertakings do not involve
expenditure of public funds for the procurement of
goods, works and consulting services, RA 9184, its IRR,
and its associated rules will not apply.
 Transactions involving lease of government properties
for private use are covered by Executive Order No. 301,
series of 1987 (EO 301).
NPM 10-2014
Capacity Development Division
Scope and Application:
Non-Applicability of RA 9184 and its IRR
Engagement of Personnel under Job Order and Contract of Service
 RA 9184 and its IRR will not apply in the hiring of individual
personnel under Job Order or Contract of Service :
a. The engagement does not require that level of expertise as
primary consideration for its selection,
b. It is not what is contemplated under the definition and
enumeration of what involves General Support Services and
analogous services.
 However, RA 9184 and its IRR find applicability in the engagement
of non-personal service through sole proprietorship, partnership or
a corporation contracted for the purpose.
NPM 15-2014
Capacity Development Division
Scope and Application:
Expandable Supplies
Spare Parts as Expendable Supplies
 If the spare parts sought to be procured have a life expectancy of
more than one (1) year but which shall have decreased substantially
in value after being put to use for only one (1) year, then the same
shall be classified as expendable supplies.
NPM 14-2014
Capacity Development Division
Scope and Application:
Procurement of Second-Hand Equipment
 Procurement of second-hand, refurbished, or
equipment is allowed under RA 9184 and its IRR.
reconditioned
 The decision of PE to procure second-hand, refurbished, or
reconditioned equipment does not require prior approval or
confirmation from GPPB inasmuch as the responsibility to identify
projects, as well as its requirements and specifications, including
considerations for the acquisition of brand new or second hand
goods/ equipment, rests with the procuring entity.
NPM 11-2014
Capacity Development Division
13
Scope and Application:
General Support Service
Engineering Services as General Services

For the maintenance of PE’s offices and facilities,
engineering services may be considered as within the
contemplated coverage of general support services, in
the same vein as are the services for janitorial and
security.
NPM 82-2013
Capacity Development Division
14
Scope and Application:
General Support Service
Encoding Service as General Support Service
 “General support services” is understood to include those services
that are essential, indispensable, or necessary to support the
operations of the procuring entity or for the enhancement of the
welfare of its personnel, including non-personal or contractual
services.
 If the encoding services being acquired are essential, indispensable,
or necessary to support of PE’S operations, then such service may be
considered within the coverage of the term “general support
services”.
NPM 127-2013
Capacity Development Division
15
Scope and Application:
Accreditation of Bidders
Accreditation System
 Municipal Order requiring an accreditation process for Bidders as a
condition precedent for their participation in procurement activities
of the local government unit runs counter RA 9185 and its IRR
would limit the participation of bidders only to those accredited
suppliers, to the exclusion and prejudice of other bidders in the
market, it in fact contravenes the very basic principles of
competitive bidding.
NPM 48-2013
Capacity Development Division
16
Scope and Application:
Registry System

Registry system should not be considered an accreditation system,
and is not tantamount to a finding of eligibility, nor a guarantee that
the registered supplier, contractor, or consultant will be eligible for
any particular procurement activity or contract award.

Prospective bidders not included in the registry system used by the
procuring entity, whether the PhilGEPS or its own manual or
electronic system, should not be precluded from participating in any
procurement opportunity.
NPM 97-2013
Capacity Development Division
17
Scope and Application:
Bidder’s Right to Ask Questions
Protest Mechanism
 Section 55 of the IRR states that prospective bidders are allowed to question
decisions of the BAC at any stage of the procurement process by filing a
request for reconsideration within three (3) calendar days from receipt of
written notice or upon verbal notification of such decision.
Clarifications
 Section 22 also affords bidders the opportunity to raise concerns or
clarifications on the requirements, terms, conditions, and specifications
stipulated in the bidding documents for the contract to be bid. Questions or
clarifications pertaining to the matters that may be discussed during the
pre-bid conference must be raised at least ten (10) calendar days before the
deadline set for the submission and receipt of bids
NPM 49-2013
Capacity Development Division
18
Scope and Application:
Mixed Procurement
Classification of ICT Services
 An ICT procurement consisting of different components involving
goods, infrastructure project or consulting service is regarded as a
mixed procurement and the nature thereof is based on the primary
purpose of the contract, which must be determined by the procuring
entity based on its identified needs and the best way by which these
needs may be addressed, managed and satisfied.
NPM 88-2013
Capacity Development Division
19
Scope and Application:
Mixed Procurement
“Installation” of air conditioning system as a Construction Activity
 The motivation and underlying reason behind the project is of
primordial importance as this will dictate the nature and
categorization of the procurement and the process and procedures
to be adopted whether the procurement activity is treated as goods
or infrastructure project.
NPM 04-2014
Capacity Development Division
20
Scope and Application:
PADPAO Rates
 PADPAO rates are rates issued and prescribed by the PADPAO, an
organization of private security agencies (PSAs), in order to ensure
that its member security agencies pay uniform rates for the service
of its security guards.
 However, said rate must be compliant to the wage orders issued by
RTWPB which form part of the labor laws and standards in order to
qualify PSA as bidder. Their compliance is ensured through the
submission of an Omnibus Sworn Statement.
 Non-compliance
disqualification.
therewith
shall
result
in
the
bidder’s
NPM 91-2013
Capacity Development Division
21
Scope and Application:
Extension of Mandatory Periods
 Should PE decides to extend the period, it must show and provide
compelling, sufficient, valid, reasonable, and justifiable cause. Such
valid justification, however, will only free officials from penal
sanction or liability, but not from applicable administrative and civil
sanctions or liabilities under existing laws, rules and regulations
NPM 57-2013
Capacity Development Division
22
Scope and Application:
Trade-in Transaction
 Proposal amounts to an acquisition of brand new equipment, rather
than just mere repair services, which is different from the original
procurement activity.
 Proposal is akin to a trade-in transaction. It involves two distinct,
but relatively connected activities of government, namely, Disposal
(EO 888) and Procurement (RA 9184).
 Although trade-in is not prohibited, the PE must have intended to
resort to such scheme from the start, and not merely as an afterthought, considering that corresponding disposal and procurement
processes and documentations must be complied with.
NPM 41-2013
Capacity Development Division
23
Scope and Application:
Joint Venture Agreements
 The IAESP reveals that the Project pertains to a JV between a GOCC
and a private entity in pursuit of development goals.
 The rules for such transaction are either covered by the Joint Venture
Guidelines issued by NEDA pursuant to §8 of EO 423 (s. 2005); or by RA
6957 (BOT Law), as amended by RA 7718.
 Since the Project involves a JVA, RA 9184 and its IRR, including its
associated guidelines, such as the Guidelines on the Sale of Bidding
Documents, do not apply.
NPM 28-2013
Capacity Development Division
24
Scope and Application:
Submission of Letter of Intent (LOI)

The submission of LOI is no longer required upon the
effectivity of GPPB Resolution No. 27-2012.
NPM 101-2013
Capacity Development Division
25
Scope and Application:
Projects Partly Funded by Private Funds
 As long as public fund is utilized or contemplated to be
spent for any procurement activity, it shall by force, fall
within the ambit of the present procurement law.
NPM 44-2013
Capacity Development Division
26
Scope and Application:
Grant of Honoraria
 Payment of honoraria is limited to procurement that involves
competitive bidding:
o Competitive Bidding (Section 10),
o Limited Source Bidding (Section 49),
o Negotiated Procurement under Two-Failed Biddings (Section 53.1)
 Honoraria will not be paid when procurement is through all the
other alternative modes of procurement
NPM 59-2013
Capacity Development Division
27
Scope and Application:
Grant of Honoraria
 Section 5 of DBM BC 2004-5A provides that the Chairs and members of the
BAC and its TWG may be paid honoraria only for successfully completed
procurement projects.
 If the items awarded in the first bidding and those subject of the re-bidding
belong in the same procurement project that is identified, described,
detailed, scheduled, and budgeted for in the procuring entity’s PPMP, the
BAC may only claim honoraria once all items have been successfully
awarded. Hence, if the BAC has already received its honoraria, it should no
longer be entitled to claim on the basis of the successfully awarded items
during the re-bid.
 The grant of honoraria shall not exceed the rates and limits prescribed in
Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of BC 2004-5A
NPM 108-2013
Capacity Development Division
28
PROCUREMENT
ORGANIZATIONS
Procurement Organizations:
Head of the Procuring Entity
 Designation as OIC, although temporary in nature, entails the assignment
of additional functions bestowed upon him – functions which otherwise
would have been performed by a duly appointed regular Chief.
 Designation entails exercise and execution of actual, related, incidental
power and authority inherent in the office, unless designation contains
specific reservations, limitations, or qualifications on the functions to be
performed.
 Hence, the OIC is authorized to make decisions on procurement activities of
the PE, subject to the limits stated in the Department Circular.
NPM 14-2013
Capacity Development Division
30
Procurement Organizations:
BAC Functions
On Declaration of failure of bidding
 The authority of the BAC to declare a failure of bidding is limited to
instances enumerated in Section 35.1 of the IRR of RA 9184, specifically,
when (a) no bids are received, (b) all prospective bidders are declared
ineligible, (c) all bids fail to comply with all the bid requirements or fail
post-qualification, or, in the case of consulting services, there is no
successful negotiation, or (d) the bidder with the LCB or HRB refuses to
accept the award.
 The BAC cannot declare a failure of bidding for reasons other than those
provided in Section 35. It cannot exercise the reservation clause provided in
Section 41 of the IRR in declaring a failure of bidding since such authority
exclusively belongs to the HOPE.
NPM 122-2013
Capacity Development Division
31
Procurement Organizations:
BAC Functions
On evaluation of bids

The BAC, in line with its function of determining the eligibility of
prospective bidders, conducting the evaluation of bids and
undertaking post-qualification, is in the position to rate bidders
as having “passed” or “failed” in complying with the requirements
in the Bidding Documents in accordance with the provisions of RA
RA 9184 and its IRR.
NPM 94-2013
Capacity Development Division
32
Procurement Organizations:
Qualifications of a BAC Chair

Procuring entity’s compliance with the ranking requirement under
Section 11.2.2 of RA 9184 and its IRR for its BAC composition and
membership is based on the term “permanent”.

The term “permanent”, does not qualify whether the personnel
occupying the plantilla position holds the same in a contractual,
regular, or permanent status, rather the concern specifically refers to
whether the position exists within the organizational structure of the
procuring entity.

HOPE may appoint someone as BAC Chairperson provided that he
is occupying a plantilla position that is at least third ranking within
the organizational structure of the PE and is not a designated
approving authority.
NPM 95-2013
Capacity Development Division
33
Procurement Organizations:
Qualifications of a BAC Chair
4th Level Official cannot be designated as BAC Chairperson
 The absence of a personnel occupying the position of Sr. Vice
President (second ranking), does not make the plantilla positions for
the Sr. Department Manager (fourth ranking) a third ranking plantilla
position.
 As long as the entire organizational structure has the Sr. Vice
President position in the plantilla, the Sr. Department Manager
position remains a fourth ranking plantilla position, for which reason
the Sr. Department Manager cannot be designated as BAC Chairman.
NPM 02-2014
Capacity Development Division
Procurement Organizations:
Qualifications of a BAC Vice-Chairman
Executive Assistant of the General Manager as BAC ViceChairperson
 The EA of the GM may be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the BAC
provided that he possesses all the qualifications as a regular member of the
BAC under Section 11.2.2(b) or Section 11.2.2(c) of the IRR of RA 9184, and
does not have an approving authority delegated unto him by the HOPE.
 The prohibition stated in Section 11.2.5 of IRR of RA No. 9184 is limited to
the HOPE and/or approving authority wherein they cannot be the
Chairman or a member of the BAC. It is the approving authority that may
be deemed the alter-ego of the HOPE. Thus, for the Alter-Ego Principle to
apply, the EA should be the designated approving authority by the HOPE.
NPM 134-2013
Capacity Development Division
35
Procurement Organizations:
Qualifications of a BAC Member
4th Level Official as BAC Member

The BAC for regional offices consists of at least three (3) regular
members, and at least two (2) provisional members. The regular
BAC members, including the BAC Chairperson, shall be at least
third ranking permanent officials.

Fourth ranking permanent officials of regional offices are
disqualified from becoming regular BAC members, but may be
designated as a provisional BAC member since Section 11 of the IRR
does not require a provisional BAC member to be of a specific rank,
thus implying that an employee of any rank can qualify as a
provisional BAC member.
NPM 001-2014
Capacity Development Division
36
Procurement Organizations:
Concurrent Positions in the BAC and its Secretariat
 RA 9184 and its IRR do not categorically prohibit the HOPE from
designating the same personnel as BAC member and BAC
Secretariat Head.
 Nevertheless, procurement officials should avoid holding
concurrent positions in the BAC and its Secretariat in accordance
with the thrust to professionalize the procurement organization
geared towards strengthening the procurement functions in order to
increase operational effectiveness and efficiency.
NPM 001-2014
Capacity Development Division
37
Procurement Organizations:
Authority of BAC Sec Head to Notarize
 It is not advisable that the BAC Secretariat Head be the same Notary
Public who will notarize the ensuing contract for the project
although the BAC Secretariat Head is, technically speaking, not a
party to a contract between the procuring entity and the winning
bidder.
 It is worthy to stress that questions, insinuations and doubts on the
execution of documents should be obviated at all times.
NPM 66-2013
Capacity Development Division
38
Procurement Organizations:
Authority of BAC Sec Head to Sign Document
 BAC Secretariat Head’s authority to sign procurement-related
documents should be confined to those that are within the scope of
her duties and responsibilities under Republic Act (RA) No. 9184
and its IRR, and should exclude those that require the exercise of
discretion, consent or approval on matters under the jurisdiction of
a different authority
NPM 66-2013
Capacity Development Division
39
Procurement Organizations:
Authority of BAC Sec to Open and Examine Bids
 Sections 12.1, 30.1 and 30.2 of the revised IRR of RA 9184
categorically vests upon the BAC the authority to determine each
bidder's compliance with the required documents for purposes of
eligibility
 Such authority cannot be delegated to the BAC Secretariat
NPM 69-2013
Capacity Development Division
40
Procurement Organizations:
BAC Sec to Conduct Limited Source Bidding
 Section 12.1 of the IRR of RA 9184 categorically vests upon the BAC the authority to
process and evaluate the procurement requirements of bidders.
 The BAC Secretariat, which is tasked to assist the BAC, cannot be delegated with the
functions expressly conferred upon the BAC by RA 9184 and its IRR. An exception to
this policy was established for procurement using Shopping and Negotiated
Procurement (Small Value Procurement) under GPPB Resolution No. 09-2009 for the
reason that these particular methods of procurement are used for contracts that are of
considerably small amount and are generally simple/routinary, such that delegating
the functions to another unit will be more efficient and economical for the procuring
entity.
 However, GPPB Resolution No. 09-2009 did not provide that the same exception be
applicable to LSB inasmuch as the circumstances surrounding procurement activities
using LSB are not similar to those covered by Shopping and Negotiated Procurement
(Small Value Procurement).
NPM 135-2013
Capacity Development Division
41
Procurement Organization:
Provisional Member
 Alter Ego principle (also Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency) falls
under the control power of the President, and dictates that
department secretaries are considered alter egos of the President.
 Approving authority may be deemed the alter ego of the HOPE.
Thus, for the Alter Ego principle to apply, the EA must be
designated as the approving authority.
 It is only when the EA is an approving authority that it is
disqualified under §11.2.5 of the IRR of RA 9184 from becoming a
BAC member.
NPM 32-2013
Capacity Development Division
42
Procurement Organization:
Separate BAC
 The HOPE may create a separate BAC pursuant to §11.1.2 of the IRR to
expedite the bidding of its numerous projects without the need of securing
any approval or ratification from GPPB, provided it is warranted by: the
number of the items, and the complexity of the items to be procured by the
PE.
 Rank requirement for BAC members provided in §11.2.2 of the IRR should
be followed in the creation of separate BACs.
NPM 04-2013
 State University has authority to establish separate BACs upon its
determination that the creation of separate BACs according to its
geographical location is necessary to expedite the procurement process.
 It may create separate BACs for each of its campuses.
NPM 26-2013
Capacity Development Division
43
Procurement Organization:
Special BAC for Multi-Agency Joint Procurement
 The BAC composition established in Section 11.2 of the IRR of RA
9184 requires that the members be permanent officials of the
procuring entity, i.e., those occupying plantilla position in the
procuring entity.
 The concept of a multi-agency joint procurement that will be
conducted using a Special BAC composed of the agencies’ respective
officials will run counter to the provisions of RA 9184 and its IRR.
NPM 131-2013
Capacity Development Division
44
Procurement Organization:
Conflict of Interest
 Conflict of interest arises when, in the case of the subject matter of
the inquiry, the Chairman of the BFP-BAC that conducted the earlier
procurement was eventually designated as OIC-BFP Chief.
 In this case, the subject procurement is deprived of checks and
balances as one of the persons conducting the bid evaluation and
post-qualification, who is no less than the BAC Chair, may have that
degree of proclivity towards the recommended action of the BAC;
thus, the subsequent award of contract may no longer enjoy the cold
neutrality of an impartial HOPE.
NPM 14-2013
Capacity Development Division
45
PhilGEPS
PhilGEPS:
Registration
 §8.5.1 RA 9184 IRR requires suppliers, contractors, consultants to
register with PhilGEPS. It does not qualify based on threshold.
 Inapplicability of the posting requirement is not tantamount to a
situation where PhilGEPS registration may also be dispensed with
since the amount of the project is not a factor for the condition to
apply.
 Registration with PhilGEPS is absolute, and must be complied with
regardless of the cost of procurement.
NPM 34-2013
Capacity Development Division
47
PhilGEPS:
Registration Certificate
 Although bidders are not precluded from submitting the post-qualification
documents required in §34.2 RA 9184 IRR during submission of bids, it is
prudent for the PE to request the latest and current documents during postqualification
 PE cannot recommend the award of contract if the bidder failed to submit a
current and updated PhilGEPS Registration Certificate within 3 calendar
days from its receipt of the BAC’s notice.
 Its belated submission of a renewed PhilGEPS Registration Certificate does
not cure the defect, and should result in the disqualification of the bidder
and forfeiture of its bid security.
NPM 19-2013
Capacity Development Division
48
BIDDING DOCUMENTS
Bidding Documents:
Wage Adjustment in ABC
 §35.2 of RA 9184 IRR provides that when there is failure
of bidding, the BAC shall conduct mandatory review
and evaluation of the terms, conditions, and
specifications in the bidding documents.
 Prior to the 2nd bidding, PE may modify the ABC for its
procurement of security services to incorporate the new
minimum wage rate/adjustment, subject to the necessary
approval processes in changing the APP to reflect the
revised ABC for the project.
NPM 18-2013
Capacity Development Division
50
Bidding Documents:
Authorized Representative
 §25.2 RA 9184 IRR requires the bidder or its duly authorized
representative to issue a sworn statement that the signatory is the
duly authorized representative, and granted full power and
authority to represent the bidder.
 §29 RA 9184 IRR provides that bidders or their duly authorized
representative may attend opening of bids.
 PE cannot restrict participation only to the principal/bidder, but
shall likewise extend the representation to the duly authorized
representative of the sole proprietorship.
NPM 43-2013
Capacity Development Division
51
Bidding Documents:
Technical Specifications
 PEs are precluded from requiring specific country of
origin as part of the technical specifications for the
project.
 Specifications shall be based on the performance
requirements and recognized industry standards and
not on the basis of country of origin.
NPM 22-2013
Capacity Development Division
52
Bidding Documents:
Net Financial Contracting Capacity (NFCC)
Required Amount of NFCC
 Participating bidder should be required to submit an NFCC that is
at least equal to all the lots to which it participated in, in order to
establish the bidder’s financial liquidity and absorptive capacity in
carrying out the contractual obligations required by the lots to which
it participated in.
NOTE:
Credit Line Commitment shall no longer be accepted as an alternative to the
prospective bidder’s computation of Net Financial Contracting Capacity.
(GPPB Resolution 20-2013)
NPM 76-2013
Capacity Development Division
53
Bidding Documents:
Net Financial Contracting Capacity (NFCC)
NFCC Computation
 During the preliminary examination of bids, the BAC shall examine
the NFCC computation submitted by the bidder based on a nondiscretionary “pass/fail” criterion.
 Bidders shall be deemed compliant with the requirement if the
submitted NFCC computation is at least equal to the ABC;
otherwise, it will be declared “failed” regardless of the fact that the
computation was based on an erroneous data or a mistake in
arithmetical computation.
NPM 08-2014
Capacity Development Division
54
Bidding Documents:
Net Financial Contracting Capacity (NFCC)
Basis in the Computation of NFCC
 The total “current” assets and liabilities as indicated in
the prospective bidder’s AFS, which is stamped
“received” by the BIR or its duly accredited and
authorized institutions for the preceding calendar year,
should be the basis for computing the NFCC.
NPM 08-2014
Capacity Development Division
55
Bidding Documents:
Similar Contracts
Nature of Similar Contracts
 PEs have the responsibility to clarify in the Bidding Documents
what projects can be considered similar to the contract being bid
out, for purposes of determining compliance with the SLCC
requirement.
 As guidance, a contract shall be considered "similar" to the contract
to be bid if it involves goods or services of the same nature and
complexity as the subject matter of the project being procured.
Similarity of contract should be interpreted liberally in the sense
that it should not refer to an exact parallel, but only to an analogous
one of similar category.
NPM 42-2013
Capacity Development Division
56
Bidding Documents:
Similar Contracts
 Definition or description of a “similar contract” should not
unreasonably limit competition and inequitably bar participation of
capable suppliers.
 Similarity of contract should be interpreted liberally in the sense
that it should not refer to an exact parallel, but only to an analogous
one of similar category.
NPM 54-2013
Capacity Development Division
57
Bidding Documents:
Single Largest and Completed Contract (SLCC)

IRR does not give the PE the option to adopt a different
criterion for eligibility.

PE cannot aggregate the amount of two (2) contracts as
compliance with the eligibility criterion on SLCC under
Section 23.5.2.5 of the IRR.
NPM 85-2013
Capacity Development Division
58
Bidding Documents:
Single Largest and Completed Contract (SLCC)
Sub-contracting to be included in SLCC
 IRR of RA 9184 does not limit the contracts that should be included
in the statement of all ongoing and completed contracts to those
where the bidder is the principal or main contractor. It can be
inferred from the PBDs that sub-contracts should be included in the
statement together with the percentage of the bidder’s participation
as a sub-contractor.
NOTE:
The 10-year limitation under Section 23.5.2.5 is no longer applicable.
(GPPB Resolution No. 11-2012, )
NPM 77-2013
Capacity Development Division
59
Bidding Documents:
Single Largest and Completed Contract (SLCC)
SLCC Requirement for Small A and Small B Projects
 A contractor will be qualified even if it does not have at least fifty
percent (50%) SLCC if such bidder is either a Small A or Small B
contractor participating in a project the Approved Budget for the
Contract for which is within fifty percent (50%) of its ARCC.
NPM 118-2013
Capacity Development Division
60
Bidding Documents:
Single Largest and Completed Contract (SLCC)
SLCC Requirement for Several Lots

In the case of a procurement activity that is divided into several lots,
where each lot may result in a separate contract, the ABC for each lot
becomes the reference of the required minimum percentage of the
amount of the SLCC to be complied.

The participation of a bidder in several lots does not require the
submission of an SLCC that will specifically correspond to each lot.
It is sufficient that the bidder presents an SLCC that complies with
the percentage requirement for every lot that it participates in.
NPM 123-2013
Capacity Development Division
61
Bidding Documents:
Statement of Ongoing Contracts
 Bidder should submit a statement of all its on-going government
and private contracts within the relevant period stated in the Bid
Documents, including contracts awarded but not yet started, if any,
as part of the Class “A” Eligibility Documents.
 Additional documentary proof to support the statement of on-going
contracts such as contracts and notices to proceed need not be
attached. However, the BAC may request for additional proof (e.g.
copies of contracts and notices to proceed) during post-qualification
in order to verify, validate and ascertain all statements made and
documents submitted by the bidder.
NPM 86-2013
Capacity Development Division
62
Bidding Documents:
Statement of Ongoing Contracts
 The statement of ongoing government and private contracts to be
submitted by the bidder should include all of its ongoing
government and private contracts, even if they are immaterial or
dissimilar to the contract to be bid.
 GPPB Resolution No. 29-2012 provides that the failure to include or
disclose complete information in the statement of contracts shall
result in the “disqualification of the bidder for non-compliance with
the eligibility requirement under Sections 23.1 or 24.1 of the revised
IRR.” and may also be a ground for blacklisting under Section 65.3
(a) or (b) of the revised IRR
NPM 08-2014
Capacity Development Division
64
Bidding Documents:
Charging of fees
 Decision in charging fees for bidding documents, whether for the
first bidding or any subsequent re-bidding, depends upon the
procuring entity, taking into account the need to recover the cost of
its preparation and development vis-a-vis the effects on competition
and participation of bidders.
 However, fees must conform with the standard rates for the sale of
bidding documents under GPPB Resolution No. 04-2012, which took
effect on 4 September 2012.
NPM 68-2013
Capacity Development Division
65
Bidding Documents:
Discounts
 Discounts stated in the Bid Form allow bidders to itemize the
application of discounts that are not yet reflected in the amounts
specified in its BOQ and detailed estimates vis-à-vis the program of
works, as there could be a situation that the decision to offer a
discount came long after these amounts have been prepared,
finalized, and reflected in the bid documents, and changing the
entries may be too cumbersome and time consuming for the bidder.
 Discount offered in the Bid Form may be accepted even though the
financial documents do not contain or indicate any reference to such
discount.
NPM 17-2013
Capacity Development Division
66
Bidding Documents:
Discounts
 Although Section 32.2.4 of the IRR does not mention the word “discount”, ITB Clause
27.4 of the PBDs for the Procurement of Infrastructure Projects provides that the
determination of the Lowest Calculated Bid requires the evaluation and correction for
computational errors, discounts and other modifications.
 If the offered discount does not qualify the methodology of its application, it can be
presumed that the discount will apply to the whole amount of the identified bid
price. For instance, the bidder’s offer is PhP961,474.88, and offered a discount 5%. The
total calculated bid will be determined by deducting 5% from the bid price of
PhP961,474.88.
 The clause “excluding any discounts offered in item (d) below found in paragraph (b)
of the Bid Form, please note that considering that discounts cannot be offered in
relation to performance security, such clause will have no effect on the computation
of the bid price vis-à-vis the offered discount to arrive at the total calculated bid price.
NPM 126-2013
Capacity Development Division
67
Bidding Documents:
Re-advertisement of IB
 Advertisement or posting requirement under §21 RA 9184 IRR
serves as a notice to bidders informing them, directly or by
reference, of the matters to be bid upon and of the time and place of
receiving bids.
 Re-advertisement is not necessary since the original IB that was
advertised already provided the necessary and relevant information
that would sufficiently notify the public of the procurement
opportunity, including relevant components and the corresponding
ABC for each component.
NPM 46-2013
Capacity Development Division
68
Bidding Documents:
Supplemental/Bid Bulletin
 §22.5.2 RA 9184 IRR allows PEs to issue Supplemental/Bid Bulletins
upon their initiative for the purpose of clarifying or modifying any
provision in the Bidding Documents, including the IB.
 Accordingly, PE has the authority to revise or amend any statement
in the Bidding Documents, including the IB, specifically when such
revision or amendment is made for the purpose of clarifying or
modifying its provisions.
 Supplemental/Bid Bulletins must be posted in the PhilGEPS and at
the PE’s website, in order to address aspects of competition and
transparency.
NPM 46-2013
Capacity Development Division
69
Bidding Documents:
Supplemental/Bid Bulletin
Conduct of a new pre-bid conference
 In the case of a new procurement activity or a re-bidding activity, bidders
are informed of the details of the pre-bid conference through the IB, which
should comply with the posting/advertisement requirements under Section
21.2 of the IRR of RA 9184.
 In case the BAC decides to conduct new pre-bid conference not included in
the IB, it has to issue a Supplemental/Bid Bulletin on the matter. The
Supplemental/Bid Bulletin should be posted on the PhilGEPS and the
website of the procuring entity, if available.
 The BAC must inform bidders who have submitted bids before the issuance
of Supplemental/Bid Bulletin.
NPM 124-2013
Capacity Development Division
70
Bidding Documents:
Supplemental/Bid Bulletin
Extension of the bid closing time
 If the procuring entity intends to postpone or reschedule the deadline for
the submission and receipt of bids, it may do so by issuing a
Supplemental/Bid Bulletin specifying the revised schedule for the
procurement activity.
 Section 22.5.2 of the IRR of RA 9184 provides that “Supplemental/Bid
Bulletins may be issued upon the procuring entity’s initiative for purposes
of clarifying or modifying any provision of the Bidding Documents at least
seven (7) calendar days before the deadline for the submission and
receipt of bids.”
NPM 122-2013
Capacity Development Division
71
Bidding Documents:
Supplemental/Bid Bulletin
Failure to Post
 Section 22.5.3 of the IRR of RA 9184 states that “[a]ny Supplemental/Bid
Bulletin issued by the BAC shall also be posted on the PhilGEPS and the
website of the procuring entity concerned, if available.”
 The phrase “if available” refers to the phrase “the website of the procuring
entity”, and not “the PhilGEPS”.
 PE is mandated to post the Supplemental/Bid Bulletin in the PhilGEPS
website. The failure of the BAC to comply with this procedural requirement
amounts to a failure to follow the prescribed bidding procedures that may
warrant declaration of failure of bidding by the Head of the Procuring
Entity pursuant to Section 41 (b) of the IRR of RA 9184.
NPM 121-2013
Capacity Development Division
72
Bidding Documents:
Contracts for General Support Services
Multi-Year Contract
 General Appropriations Act provides that no agency shall enter into a
multi-year contract without securing a Multi-Year Obligational Authority
(MYOA) from the DBM following the provisions of Circular Letter No.
2004-12 dated 27 October 2004.
 As such, PE must first verify if it is allowed to enter into multi-year
contracts or whether its governing board is authorized to enter into multiyear contracts under its enabling law or corporate charter. In the event that
the confirmation yields a negative result, the contract should be procured
on a yearly basis.
NPM 130-2013
Capacity Development Division
73
Bidding Documents:
Contracts for General Support Services
Amendment of Existing Multi-Year Contract
 Section 5 of the Guidelines on the Procurement of Security and
Janitorial Services provides that all bid prices for a duration of three
(3) years shall be fixed and shall not be adjusted during contract
implementation.
 One of the exceptions is, when during the term of the contract the
procuring entity sees the need for an increase or decrease in the
number of security guards, it may make the necessary adjustments
in the bid price provided that the resulting cost does not exceed the
Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) for the relevant year.
NPM 05-2014
Capacity Development Division
74
Bidding Documents:
Contracts for General Support Services
Extension of contract for additional guards procured through SVP
 The Guidelines for Extension of Contracts do not require that the
original contract to be extended was awarded as a result of
competitive bidding. Hence to maintain status quo in the operations
of the procuring entity, the contract for additional guards procured
through SVP may be extended subject to the other conditions
provided in the Guidelines.
NPM 05-2014
Capacity Development Division
75
Contract Implementation:
Contracts for General Support Services
Contract Extension for General Support Services of a Province

All contract extensions shall be subject to the prior approval of the
HOPE upon recommendation of the BAC. If the proposed contract
extension exceeds six (6) months, the HOPE is required to inform
the GPPB in writing of its intent to extend beyond six (6) months.

Approval of the GPPB to extend the ongoing contracts for general
support services of the Province is not necessary, since it could do so
as long as the a conditions provided in the Guidelines are complied
with.
NPM 107-2013
Capacity Development Division
76
Bidding Documents:
Additional Participants in Consultancy Service Contract
 Section 61.1 provides that all bid prices shall be considered as fixed prices,
and therefore not subject to price adjustment and escalation during the
contract implementation.
 Section 2 of Annex F of the IRR of RA 9184 reiterates the same principle and
adds that any extension of the contract time shall not involve any additional
cost.
 Clause 55.6 of the GCC of the Philippine Bidding Documents for the
Procurement of Consulting Services provides that no additional payment
for variation order, if any, shall be allowed for the consultancy contract
Contract Implementation Guidelines for the Procurement of Consulting
Services.
 Additional participants may be allowed provided that there will be no
increase in contract cost, otherwise it shall be considered violative of the
provisions of RA 9184, its IRR and associated issuances.
NPM 70-2013
Capacity Development Division
77
Bidding Documents:
Additional Deliverables in Consultancy Contract
 PE may revise an existing design contract to include
additional deliverables, provided, that such revision will
entail no additional payment or cost.
NPM 119-2013
Capacity Development Division
78
Bidding Documents:
Modification of Bidding Documents
Modifying or Adding to the Statements in the Invitation to Bid
 Procuring entities are allowed to insert any necessary information in the Invitation to
Bid as it deems relevant to the procurement project. However, such information must
conform to the Instructions to Bidders and, in particular, to the relevant information
in the Bid Data.
 Clause 20.3 of the PBDs for the Procurement of Goods provides that the original and
copies of the envelopes containing the technical and financial components of the bid
shall be signed by the bidder, but is silent whether the same should be done with the
single envelope where all the envelopes containing the original and copies of the
technical and financial components of the bid are enclosed.
 The instruction that “all envelopes shall be duly signed in the sealed overlaps or
flaps by the bidder or duly authorized representative in order to maintain the
integrity of the documents” may be considered an additional information that
procuring entities may validly include in the Invitation to Bid inasmuch as it is not
contrary to the provisions of the PBDs.
NPM 102-2013
Capacity Development Division
79
Bidding Documents:
Modification of Bidding Documents
Change in Project Site
 The change in the project site after the issuance of Notice of Award
amounts to modification of bidding documents and it is not allowed
under RA 9184 and its IRR.
 Modification of government contracts, after the same had been
awarded after a public bidding, is not allowed because such
modification serves to nullify the effect of public bidding and
whatever advantages the Government had secured thereby and may
also result in manifest injustice to other bidders.
(Mata v. San Diego G.R. No. L-30447, 21 March 1975.)
NPM 90-2013
Capacity Development Division
80
Bidding Documents:
Source of Funds
 As provided in the template for the IB in the PBDs for the
Procurement of Infrastructure Projects, the source of funding
and the year to be indicated shall be the Budget for the
contract approved by the respective Sanggunian of the local
government unit.
 The information required in the IB should be clear and
adequate for the prospective bidder to understand and
identify in accordance with the guide notes provided in the
PBDs, failure to comply with which may affect the validity of
the process.
NPM 115-2013
Capacity Development Division
81
Bidding Documents:
Bill of Quantities
 The Bill of Quantities forms part of the Philippine Bidding
Documents (PBDs) for Goods and Infrastructure Projects, which
should be properly filled-out and submitted by the bidder as part of
his Bidding Documents, and evaluated by the bids and Awards
committee (BAC) using a non-discretionary “pass/fail” criterion.
 When a quantity of an item submitted by the bidder does not
comply with the quantity prescribed in the Bill of Quantities, the bid
shall be considered non-responsive and the bidder shall be
disqualified accordingly.
NPM 78-2013
Capacity Development Division
82
Bidding Documents:
Bill of Quantities
 Unless the Instructions to Bidders allow partial bids, bids that do
not address or provide all the required items or where no price was
indicated in the Bidding Documents, including bill of quantities,
shall be considered non-responsive, and thus, automatically
disqualified.
 Specifying a “0” (zero) or a “-” (dash) for an item would mean that
it is being offered for free to the Government.
NPM 80-2013
Capacity Development Division
83
Bidding Documents:
Bid Securing Declaration

Section 27.2 gives bidders the option to choose from the
acceptable forms of Bid Security, including the Bid Securing
Declaration.

PE may not limit the acceptable forms of bid security to only
cash or cashier’s/manager’s check and bank draft/guarantee or
irrevocable LC.
NOTE:
Bid Securing Declaration as an additional form of bid security
(GPPB Resolution 03-2012)
NPM 85-2013
Capacity Development Division
84
BIDDING PROCEDURES
Bidding Procedures:
Pre-Qualification
 The practice of pre-qualification has been abandoned in RA 9184
and its IRR. the results of a pre-qualification have no legal force and
effect, bearing or weight, and cannot preempt the findings of the
BAC during the preliminary examination of bids conducted during
the opening of bids. Hence, a bidder may still be declared ineligible
during the opening of bids despite a finding of qualification during
the purported pre-qualification exercise.
NPM 54-2013
Capacity Development Division
86
Bidding Procedures:
Pre-Bid Conference
 Section 22.1 of the IRR of RA 9184 provides that at least one (1) pre-bid
conference should be conducted by the procuring entity for projects costing
at least PhP1 Million, in order to afford prospective bidders the opportunity
to inquire on or clarify any of the requirements, terms, conditions, and
specifications stipulated in the Bidding Documents.
 Failure to conduct a pre-bid conference for the Project amounts to a
violation of a mandatory provision of law, which will render the
procurement activity void under Article 5 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
NPM 48-2013
Capacity Development Division
87
Bidding Procedures:
Refusal to Accept a Bid
 Procuring entity cannot validly and legally refuse to
accept a bid submitted before the deadline for the
submission indicated in the RFQ. This shall open a
ground for the aggrieved bidder to file a request for
reconsideration and, subsequently, protest as provided
in Section 55 of RA 9184 and its IRR, without prejudice
to the institution of civil, administrative and/or criminal
actions against the erring officials under applicable laws
and rules.
NPM 67-2013
Capacity Development Division
88
Bidding Procedures:
Bid Opening
 BAC should open a reconsidered bid under the same
circumstances as it opened the bids that were not
disqualified, i.e., upon a duly scheduled opening of bid
with proper notices to the concerned entities.
NPM 69-2013
Capacity Development Division
89
Bidding Procedures:
Opening of a Reconsidered Bid
 Section 30 requires that the preliminary examination of bids be
conducted by merely checking for the presence or absence of
documentary requirements using a non-discretionary “pass/fail”
criterion.
 However, the BAC has the right to review the qualifications of a
bidder during the same stage if it has reasonable grounds to believe
that a misrepresentation has been made or there has been changes in
the bidder’s capability to undertake the project.
NPM 54-2013
Capacity Development Division
90
DETAILED EVALUATION
OF BIDS
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Arithmetical Corrections
 The process of rounding off numbers may be construed as an arithmetical
correction which may be done during the evaluation of bids for the
determination of the LCB. However, the details on how the prices should be
rounded off should be clearly stated by the procuring entity in its Invitation
to Bid (IB), and applied similarly to all bids so as to ensure that bids are
evaluated on equal footing, to ensure fair and competitive bid evaluation
Item 7, IB for Goods; Item 8, IB for Infrastructure Projects.
 Having made the arithmetical correction, and the bidder with the LCRB
fails, refuses or is unable to enter into contract with the procuring entity
and furnish the required performance security within ten (10) calendar days
from receipt of the notice of award, the bid security shall be forfeited and
appropriate sanctions provided in the IRR and existing laws shall be
imposed
NPM 125-2013
Capacity Development Division
92
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Valid PCAB License
 A valid PCAB license required as an eligibility requirement for the
procurement of infrastructure projects under Section 23.1 (a) (iv) of
the revised IRR of RA 9184 should be valid at the time of the
deadline for the submission and opening of bids.
 The submission of a PCAB license with validity period after the date
of the opening of the bids is a ground for the prospective bidder’s
disqualification
NPM 71-2013
Capacity Development Division
93
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
PCAB License for JV
 JV Bidders are required to submit a Joint License issued by the
PCAB in compliance with the eligibility requirement for a “valid
PCAB license and registration.
 §38 RA 4566 prohibits 2 or more contractors from jointly submitting
a bid without first securing a Joint License to engage or act in the
capacity of such a joint venture.
 Failure of the JV Bidder to submit a Joint License may be a ground
for its disqualification despite the submission of the individual
licenses of each joint venture partner.
NPM 17-2013
Capacity Development Division
94
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Audited Financial Statement
 Failure to submit documents or the submission of an otherwise incomplete
or patently insufficient AFS will disqualify the bidder based on the nondiscretionary “pass/fail” criterion under Section 30.1 of the IRR.
 AFS must comply with the requirements under Section 23.1(a)(v) of the IRR
of RA 9184, namely, (i) showing the prospective bidder’s current assets and
liabilities, (ii) stamped “received” by the BIR or its duly accredited and
authorized institutions, and (iii) for the preceding calendar year which
should not be earlier than two (2) years from the date of bid submission.
 The term “earlier” means that if the bid submission date is on 2013, an AFS
for the year 2011 can be considered compliant, provided that such AFS is the
most recent document that can be produced by the bidder without fault or
delay on its part in filing the same with the BIR.
NPM 103-2013
Capacity Development Division
95
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Submission of Tax Clearance
 EO 398 specifically requires the submission of Tax
Clearance issued by the BIR. It refers to the clearance
issued by the Collection Enforcement Division of BIR
attesting that the bidder has no outstanding Final
Assessment Notice and/or delinquent account.
NPM 02-2013
Capacity Development Division
96
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Submission of Tax Clearance
Submission of BIR receipt for renewal of Tax
Clearance will not suffice in lieu of a valid Tax
Clearance Requirement since substitution is not
allowed under Section 34.2 of the IRR of RA
9184.
NPM 48-2013
Capacity Development Division
97
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Tax Clearance of Foreign Bidder
 A Delinquency Verification Certificate issued to Non-Resident
Foreign Corporations (NRFC)/Non-Resident Aliens Not Engaged in
Trade or Business (NRANETB) pursuant to BIR RR 3-2005, attesting
to the fact that the taxpayer has no outstanding Final Assessment
Notice and/or delinquent account may be submitted as a form of
Tax Clearance required under Sec 34.2 of the IRR.
NPM 02-2013
Capacity Development Division
98
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Equivalent Document
 Foreign bidders may substitute eligibility documentary
requirements with the appropriate equivalent documents in their
country.
 BAC’s function to undertake post-qualification proceedings to look
into the legal validity of each documents by conducting proper
verification and validation.
 Only upon actual determination and confirmation of this
equivalence may it be categorically resolved that the foreign
documents submitted are acceptable substitutes of the required
eligibility documents pursuant to §23.2 of the IRR.
NPM 42-2013
Capacity Development Division
99
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Track Record
 Construction experience/track record of a sole
proprietor, cannot be carried over to a corporation
despite the fact that the sole proprietor’s assets,
personnel and other resources have been infused into the
corporation inasmuch as the latter has a separate and
distinct juridical personality from the former.
NPM 31-2013
Capacity Development Division
100
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Track Record
 Corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law, and
has a legal personality of its own, separate and distinct from the
persons composing it, as well as any other legal entity to which it
may be related.
 JV, professional partnerships, or sole proprietorships cannot be
credited with the past experiences of their corporation of origin.
 §§24.5.3(a) and 33.2.2(b) of RA 9184 IRR provides that, in case of
new firms, the individual experiences of the principal and key staff,
including the times when employed by other consultants, may be
considered as part of the new firms’ overall experience.
NPM 40-2013
Capacity Development Division
101
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Compliance with DOLE DO 18-A
 Except those that are in direct contravention to RA 9184
and its IRR, bidders are expected to comply with
existing labor laws and standards as these laws are
deemed incorporated in the offer, promise and
responsibilities of the bidder.
NPM 29-2013
Capacity Development Division
102
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
No Contact Rule
 The “no contact” rule applies only to those whose bids are being
evaluated by the BAC after passing the preliminary examination.
 No communication should be made by bidders until a decision to
award a contract is made by the BAC.
 Bidders who waived their right to utilize the protest mechanism or
those whose request for reconsideration and/or protest were
subsequently denied are not covered by the prohibition under §32.1
of RA 9184 IRR.
NPM 07-2013
Capacity Development Division
103
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Sealing and Marking of Bids
 Since the rule and the ITB Clauses 20.1 and 20.2 use the
word “shall”, connoting command and compulsion, the
requirements on sealing and marking of bids are
regarded as mandatory.
 Improper sealing and marking of bids may be a ground
to disqualify a bidder.
NPM 36-2013
Capacity Development Division
104
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Discrepancies in Bid Price
 Section 32.2.3(c) of the IRR states that where there is a
discrepancy between the stated total price and the actual
sum of prices of component items, the latter shall
prevail.
NPM 51-2013
Capacity Development Division
105
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Nature of Bidder’s Business
 Mayor’s Permit allows an entity to legally perform the requirements
and obligations of the project and the resultant contract.
 It is therefore necessary for the BAC to determine whether the
Mayor’s Permit issued to the construction company authorizes it to
engage in the business of supplying dump trucks.
 A finding to the contrary would amount to non-compliance by the
bidder and will result in its disqualification.
NPM 36-2013
Capacity Development Division
106
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Conflict of Interest
 GPM provides that the firm that has been engaged to provide
consulting services for the preparation or implementation of a
project, and each of its affiliates, will be disqualified from
subsequently providing goods, works, or services resulting from or
directly related to the firm’s consulting services for such preparation
or implementation.
 There is conflict of interest when the entity that prepared the
plans/drawings likewise participates in the ensuing procurement
activities for the Project.
NPM 10-2013
Capacity Development Division
107
Detailed Evaluation of Bids:
Functional Testing
 The product testing, during which the procuring entity may conduct
the “functional test” and other test parameters is done during the
post-qualification stage. Thus, before BAC could even conduct the
product testing, it should first ensure that the bidder who will
undergo post-qualification has submitted all the legal, technical, and
financial requirements, and declared as the LCB/HRB.
 Subjecting all bids declared as “passed” during the bid evaluation
to a “functional test” before the verification, validation, and
ascertainment of the submitted documents of the Lowest Calculated
Bid (LCB) runs counter to the provisions of Section 32 and 34 of RA
9184 and its IRR.
NPM 106-2013
Capacity Development Division
108
POST-QUALIFICATION
Post-Qualification:
Requiring Additional Documents
 PE may request for the submission of additional documents from
the bidder in support of the information it has provided in the
bidding documents.
 However, non-submission of the additional supporting documents
requested cannot be a ground for the bidder’s post-disqualification,
as a bidder may be post-disqualified only upon ascertainment,
validation, and verification of its non-compliance with the legal,
technical, and financial requirements of the project as provided in
the bidding documents.
NPM 25-2013
Capacity Development Division
110
Post-Qualification:
Submission of Additional Requirements
 The three (3) calendar day period under §34.2 of the IRR
is mandatory and should not be extended.
 In case PE accepts the post-qualification documentary
requirements beyond the reglementary period, it must
show that there is a compelling, sufficient, valid,
reasonable, and justifiable cause for such extension, so
that penal sanction or liability will not set in. Applicable
administrative and civil sanctions or liabilities may also
be imposed against the concerned officials.
NPM 27-2013
Capacity Development Division
111
Post-Qualification:
Additional Eligibility Requirements
 Procuring entities are proscribed from requiring
additional eligibility requirements because the list of
minimum
eligibility
requirements
has
been
streamlined/simplified
such
that
only
those
requirements enumerated in Sections 23.1, 24.1, and 25.1
of the IRR of RA 9184 are necessary for purposes of
determining a bidder’s eligibility.
NPM 53-2013
Capacity Development Division
112
Post-Qualification:
Tax Returns
 BDS Clause 29.2(b), provides that the option of allowing submission
of manually filed tax returns should be exercised by the PE by
specifying so in the Bidding Documents. (Amended by GPPB
Resolution 11-2013)
 Only EFPS-filed tax returns are now allowed and accepted.
NPM 01-2013
NOTE:
Mandatory requirement for the filing of tax returns and payment of
taxes through the EFPS. (GPPB Resolution 11-2013)
Capacity Development Division
113
Post-Qualification:
Submission of Certified True Copies
 The PE cannot require the submission of originals or certified true
copies as even the procurement rules allow the submission of copies
as sufficient compliance with the requirements.
 Section 25.2(a)(iv) of the IRR provides that a prospective bidder or
its duly authorized representative is required to submit a Sworn
Statement in the form prescribed by the GPPB, certifying under
oath, among other things, that each of the documents submitted in
satisfaction of the bidding requirements is an authentic copy of the
original, complete, and all statements and information provided
therein are true and correct.
NPM 133-2013
Capacity Development Division
114
Post-Qualification:
Observers’ Participation
 §13 of RA 9184 expressly states that the BAC shall, in "all stages of
the procurement process", invite Observers to sit in the proceedings.
 BAC is mandated to invite Observers in all stages of the
procurement process, including post-qualification stage.
 GPM enumerates the parties who are to conduct post-qualification.
Although Observers do not conduct post-qualification of the bidder,
they are not precluded from being invited and be present in the
meeting.
NPM 05-2013
Capacity Development Division
115
Post-Qualification:
Submission of Sample
 In the event that a sample product, indicating its brand
and model, has to be submitted, this requirement must
be clearly specified in the bidding documents. Absent
any clear requirement regarding the matter, the
procuring entity has no basis to disqualify the bidder.
NPM 49-2013
Capacity Development Division
116
Post-Qualification:
End User Complaint
 End-user complaint is not in itself ground for postdisqualification, unless the PE determines that the
bidder is not legally, technically and financially capable
to complete the project based on such complaints.
NPM 24-2013
Capacity Development Division
117
Post-Qualification:
Tie-Breaking Method
Drawing of lots for purposes of breaking a tie
should be conducted only after all the bidders
that submitted the lowest calculated bids are
declared post-qualified.
NPM 51-2013
Capacity Development Division
118
Post-Qualification:
Post-qualification Team
 Neither RA 9184 nor its IRR provide for the establishment of a postqualification team that is separate and distinct from the BAC, since
the responsibility and authority of conducting the post-qualification
is categorically delegated to the BAC under Section 12.1 of the IRR
of RA 9184.
 The post-qualification team shall be the BAC, which can be assisted
by the TWG, and shall be responsible in determining the
compliance of the bidder with the LCB with all the requirements
and conditions specified in the Bidding Documents.
NPM 117-2013
Capacity Development Division
119
Post-Qualification:
Internal Post-Qualification Procedures
 Procuring entity may adopt internal procedures on how it will conduct
the post-qualification in a manner that it deems effective in establishing the
responsiveness of the bidder with the requirements, and at the same time,
reliable in impressing upon the procuring entity the confidence of and
certainty in declaring the bidder as having submitted the Lowest Calculated
Responsive Bid.
 Adoption of an internal procedure on the manner of conducting postqualification is well within the discretion and accountability of the
procuring entity to undertake, and does not need the clearance or authority
from the GPPB as long as it does not run counter to the provisions of RA
9184 and its IRR.
NPM 114-2013
Capacity Development Division
120
Post-Qualification:
Certification of Domestic Preference
 PEs cannot require a bidder to submit a Certificate claiming
domestic preference as this is not an eligibility requirement and not
among those expressly required and enumerated by the IRR.
 If a bidder wishes to claim domestic preference, it should include
said Certification as among the documents in the Second Envelope,
forming part of the Financial Component of the bid.
 A bidder waives its right to claim preference as a Domestic Bidder
or Domestic Entity if it does not include said Certification as among
the documents to be included in the Second Envelope comprising
the Financial Component of the bid.
NPM 79-2013
Capacity Development Division
121
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Award of Contract:
Performance Security
 Submission by the winning bidder of a Performance Security in the
form of a personal check after the signing of the contract could be
considered as a failure to post the Performance Security in the
required form under §39.2 of the IRR and in the required period for
posting under § 37.1.4(b) of the IRR.
 §4.1.5 of the Guidelines provides that the refusal or failure of a
contractor to post the required Performance Security within the
prescribed period is one of the grounds for blacklisting.
NPM 35-2013
Capacity Development Division
123
Award of Contract:
Higher Approving Authority
 §37.3 of RA 9184 IRR recognizes that there are decisions on
procurement activities that may require further approval by higher
authority.
 In exercising the power to approve, the approving authority is
likewise deemed to have the mandate to disapprove any
recommendation on the matter.
 To interpret that the recommending official is only required to
elevate those matters it favorably recommends weakens the
mandate of the higher approving authority to take full jurisdiction
and cognizance of the matter.
NPM 14-2013
Capacity Development Division
124
Award of Contract:
Authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan
 Should the appropriation ordinance already contain in sufficient
detail the project and cost of a capital outlay such that all that the local
chief executive needs to do after undergoing the requisite public
bidding is to execute the contract, no further authorization is required,
the appropriation ordinance already being sufficient.
 But if the appropriation ordinance describe the projects in generic
terms there is an obvious need for a covering contract for every
specific project that in turn requires approval by the sanggunian. (Ex.
“infrastructure projects,” “inter-municipal waterworks, drainage and
sewerage, flood control, and irrigation systems projects,” “reclamation
projects” or “roads and bridges”)
NPM 17-2014
Capacity Development Division
125
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF
PROCUREMENT
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
NGO Participation
 When there is no appropriation law or ordinance that earmarks an amount
for projects to be specifically contracted out to NGOs, procuring entities
cannot resort to Negotiated Procurement (NGO Participation) and use the
Guidelines for the selection of the supplier, contractor, or consultant that
will perform the project.
 PE cannot limit its selection process to NGOs when the same condition for a
specifically earmarked budget is wanting. The general rule on public or
competitive bidding provided in Section 10 of RA 9184 and its IRR will
apply, and the selection of the supplier, contractor, or consultant for the
project shall be open to all entities allowed under Sections 23 and 24 of the
same law and rules.
NPM 137-2013
Capacity Development Division
127
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
NGO Participation
Posting of Performance Security
 Regardless of the category of procurement for a contract where the NGO
is engaged using Negotiated Procurement (NGO Participation) under
Section 53.11 of the IRR of RA 9184 and Section 6 of the Guidelines, the
selected NGO is required to post a performance security upon signing of
the MOA.
NPM 120-2013
Capacity Development Division
128
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Procurement Agent)
 Where a PE has determined that it lacks the proficiency or capability
to undertake its rehabilitation project, which need not be based
solely on the PE’s failure to constitute its BAC, the PE may request
another government agency to be its Procurement Agent as Section
53.6 of the IRR may also apply in cases where a BAC is validly
constituted, but due to the number of bidding activities to be
undertaken by the procuring entity; magnitude and complexity of
the project; experience of the members of the BAC; location and
situs of both the principal and the agent; and, other valid and
reasonable circumstances, the procuring entity may not have the
proficiency or capability to undertake the particular procurement
activity.
NPM 38-2013
Capacity Development Division
129
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Procurement Agent)
For multi-agency joint procurement
 Negotiated Procurement (Procurement Agent) under Section 53.6 of the IRR of
RA 9184 may be adopted as a modality to address multi-agency bulk
procurement.
 The member-offices may agree with the procurement agent to assign its officials
as part of the Technical Working Group that will assist the BAC of the
procurement agent in the procurement activity in order to ensure that the views
of member-offices are taken into consideration.
 Each member-office has the authority to approve the award of contract that will
be recommended by the BAC of the procurement agent, thereby maintaining the
power to make the final decision on the process.
NPM 131-2013
Capacity Development Division
130
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Two-Failed Bidding)
 In the implementation of this alternative modality of procurement,
Section 53.1.5 of the IRR requires that the procuring entity shall
select the successful offer on the basis of the best and final offer
which meets:
1. The procuring entity’s minimum technical requirements
2. An offer that does not exceed the ABC.
 Failure of a bidder to satisfy either one will result in its
disqualification.
NPM 109-2013
Capacity Development Division
131
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Two-Failed Bidding)
 If the failure of bidding is due to the declaration by the
HOPE pursuant to Section 41 of the IRR , Negotiated
Procurement (Two Failed Biddings) cannot be resorted
to.
NPM 72-2013
Capacity Development Division
132
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Two-Failed Bidding)
Minimum Number of Contractors Engaging in Negotiation
 Section 53.1.2 of the IRR of RA 9184 provides that where there has been a
failure of public bidding for the second time, the BAC shall invite and
engage in negotiations with a sufficient number of suppliers, contractors
or consultants to ensure effective negotiations.
 The phrase “sufficient number of suppliers, contractors or consultant”
refers to the minimum number of contractors that the PE must invite for
the purpose of engaging in negotiation.
 If only one bidder responded to such invitation, the PE may proceed with
the Negotiated Procurement as long as it has invited contractors of a
number that it deems sufficient to ensure competition in accordance with
Section 53.1.2 of the IRR of RA 9184.
NPM 136-2013
Capacity Development Division
133
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Adjustment of ABC after Two-Failed Bidding

After two failed biddings under Section 35 of the IRR, and the PE
decides to resort to Negotiated Procurement (Two-Failed Biddings),
Section 53.1.1 of the IRR requires the BAC to conduct a mandatory
review of the terms, conditions, specifications, and cost estimates;
and, when necessary, increase the ABC provided that it is not more
than twenty percent (20%) of the ABC for the last failed bidding.
NPM 93-2013
Capacity Development Division
134
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Adjacent or Contiguous)
 The determination and the decision to resort to the alternative
modality of Negotiated Procurement (Adjacent or Contiguous)
under Section 53.4 of IRR of RA 9184 is subject to the prior approval
of the HOPE upon favorable recommendation of the BAC, provided
that the conditions set forth therein are present.
 The phrase “adjacent or contiguous” refers to projects that are in
actual physical contact with each other in the case of infrastructure
projects. Thus, the physical connection of the two (2) projects should
be actual and not superficial. The objective of this policy is to take
the advantage of the economy and efficiency in engaging the
contractor for the on-going project, and ensure that the two
structures are soundly connected.
NPM 96-2013
Capacity Development Division
135
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Adjacent or Contiguous)
Use of the Same Prices or Lower Unit Prices

Section 53.4 of the IRR stating that the contractor/consultant shall use
the same or lower unit prices as in the original contract, applies only
to the scopes of work that are present in both projects and should not
be interpreted as a qualification that only adjacent or contiguous
projects that have the exact same scopes of work shall be acceptable.

If there are no similar scope of work between the two projects,
compliance with such condition is not necessary. The procuring
entity, however, should ensure that the unit prices are lower than or
equal to the prevailing market prices.
NPM 112-2013
Capacity Development Division
136
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Adjacent or Contiguous)
Submission of Offer by the Original Contractor

Although the rules are silent as to the submission by the contractor
of a formal offer for the adjacent/contiguous project, it is imperative
that the original contractor submits an offer that is acceptable to the
procuring entity as compliant with the terms and conditions the
latter has adopted for the adjacent/contiguous project, in order to
establish the basis for the new contract.
NPM 112-2013
Capacity Development Division
137
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Agency-to-Agency)
Non-chartered GOCCs as Servicing Agency

Non-chartered GOCCs may be engaged as Servicing Agency by
procuring entities in contracts procured using Negotiated
Procurement (Agency-to-Agency) under Section 53.5 of the IRR of
RA 9184 starting 13 November 2013, subject to the requirements
provided in the Guidelines.

GPPB Resolution No. 12-2013 removes the disqualification of nonchartered GOCCs from being engaged as Servicing Agency for
projects procured through Negotiated Procurement (Agency-toAgency).
NPM 110-2013
Capacity Development Division
138
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Agency-to-Agency)
 Guidelines on the Procurement of Printing Services provides that …
Accountable Forms and Sensitive High Quality/Volume
Requirements should be sourced from Recognized Government
Printers (RGPs), through Negotiated Procurement under Section
53.5
 If SSS plans to procure printing services for some of its forms
through public bidding, it has to identify whether said forms are
considered Accountable Forms, and therefore subject to the
Guidelines. If SSS determines that said forms are not Accountable
Forms, printing services for its procurement may be engaged
through Competitive Bidding under RA 9184 and its IRR.
NPM 62-2013
Capacity Development Division
140
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Agency-to-Agency)
 For the procurement of CTC, the more appropriate method to be
used is A to A rather than Direct Contracting
 In cases where procurement from another agency of the government
is more efficient and economical, Negotiated Procurement under
Section 53.5 (Agency-to-Agency Agreements) may be resorted to.
This rule allows a government entity to procure from another
government entity without need of public bidding, subject to
compliance with the prescribed conditions and procedures under
existing rules and the Guidelines on Agency-to-Agency Agreements
(Guidelines).
NPM 52-2013
Capacity Development Division
141
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Emergency Cases)
GPPB Resolution No. 34-2013
 GPPB Resolution No. 34-2013 dated 14 November 2013, has granted authority to all
concerned government procuring entities to procure goods and infrastructure
projects, for the purpose of providing rescue, recovery, relief, and/or rehabilitation
efforts for, and to continue to provide basic services to victims in areas affected by
Typhoon Yolanda, through Negotiated Procurement (Emergency Cases) under
Section 53.2 of the IRR of RA 9184 with an ABC of at least Five Hundred Million
Pesos (PhP500,000,000.00) for the duration of the State of Calamity until lifted by the
President pursuant to Proclamation No. 682, Series of 2013.
 The same GPPB Resolution requires all concerned procuring entities to submit to this
office a list of all transactions covered by the grant of authority at the end of every
month.
NPM 107-2013
Capacity Development Division
142
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Negotiated Procurement (Emergency Cases)
GPPB Resolution No. 34-2013
 The grant of authority in GPPB Resolution No. 34-2013 is limited to
the use of Negotiated Procurement under Section 53.2 of the IRR of
RA 9184. Procurement activities for contracts amounting to at least
Five Hundred Million Pesos using alternative method of
procurement other than Negotiated Procurement under Section 53.2
of RA 9184 and its IRR are still subject to the requirement for prior
GPPB approval pursuant to Section 4 of EO No. 423, s. 2005, even if
the purpose is to provide rescue, recovery, relief, and/or
rehabilitation efforts for, or to continue to provide basic services to
victims in areas affected by Typhoon Yolanda.
NPM 06-2014
Capacity Development Division
143
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Direct Contracting
 Since there are other Passport Readers available in the market apart
from that manufactured by 3M Corporation, Direct Contracting
cannot be utilized for the acquisition of brand new passport readers.
 Even though 3M Passport Reader is proprietary in nature and can
be obtained from the proprietary source, there may be other
Passport Readers in the market, which are likewise proprietary in
nature that can be obtained.
NPM 41-2013
Capacity Development Division
144
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Direct Contracting

Assuming that only one supplier has been given a certification by PTRI for
being compliant to RA 9242, it does not automatically provide a basis to
resort to direct contracting.

PE has to first provide sufficient justification and proof of the
following(Section 50):
a.
Procurement of goods of proprietary nature which can be obtained
only from the proprietary source
b.
When the procurement of critical components from a specific supplier
is a condition precedent to hold a contractor to guarantee its project
performance, in accordance with the provisions of its contract, or
c.
Those sold by an exclusive dealer or manufacturer which does not
have sub-dealers selling at lower prices and for which no suitable
substitute can be obtained at more advantageous terms to the
government.
NPM 89-2013
Capacity Development Division
145
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Extension of Lease of Office Space
 PE may extend the duration or effectivity of contracts of lease of office
space that are about to expire, for a period not exceeding one (1) year, as an
emergency measure to maintain status quo in its operations and to avoid
interruption of such services that are essential, indispensable, or necessary
to support the operations of PE.
 In the event of failure of bidding for the new contract, PE may further
extend the duration of the contract provided that the aggregate period of all
extensions shall not exceed one (1) year in accordance with Section 4.1 of
the Guidelines.
 Under Section 5.2 of the Guidelines, if the proposed contract extension
exceeds six (6) months, the HOPE shall immediately report to the GPPB
through its TSO in writing of PCSO’s intent to extend beyond six (6)
months.
NPM 132-2013
Capacity Development Division
146
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Direct Transaction in Lease of Office Space
 There are only two modalities that would permit direct transaction
with a building owner without need of inviting other owners, i.e.,
Negotiated Procurement (Emergency Cases) under Section 53.2 and
Negotiated Procurement (Take Over of Contracts) under Section
53.3.
 However, PE may resort to any of the alternative modalities if it
cannot establish the conditions allowing the afore-mentioned
modalities of procurement provided that it can establish and justify
the existence of the conditions warranting its use.
NPM 113-2013
Capacity Development Division
147
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
Repeat Order
 Repeat Order under Section 51 of RA 9184 does not require postqualification.
 The phrase “subject to post-qualification process described in the
Bidding Documents”, as stated in the provision refers to
Competitive Bidding and not to Repeat Order.
NPM 13-2013
Capacity Development Division
148
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
By Administration
 Clearance from GPPB is not a requirement
implementing projects by administration
in
 Undertaking infrastructure projects by administration is
a decision that appropriately falls within the discretion
and responsibility of the procuring entity concerned. In
the same vein, it falls upon the same procuring entity to
ensure that the conditions and requirements established
in the Guidelines are complied with.
NPM 12-2014
Capacity Development Division
149
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
LSB for the Procurement of Catering Services
 Catering Services does not involve highly specialized
requirements, and is undoubtedly not a major plant
component. Limited Source Bidding cannot be resorted
to in the procurement of Catering Services. Competitive
Bidding should be resorted to in the acquisition of the
contemplated service.
NPM 61-2013
Capacity Development Division
150
Alternative Methods of Procurement:
LSB for the Procurement of Utility Motor Vehicle
 Section 49 of the IRR provides that LSB may be resorted to only
under two possible conditions:
(a) procurement of highly specialized types of goods and consulting
services which are known to be obtainable only from a limited
number of sources; and
(b) procurement of major plant components
 In order to apply LSB on the subject procurement, PE should first
establish that the motor vehicle sought to be procured is either a
highly specialized type of goods or a major plant component;
otherwise, Competitive Bidding shall apply.
NPM 63-2013
Capacity Development Division
151
CONTRACT
IMPLEMENTATION
Contract Implementation:
Notice to Proceed

PE cannot forego the issuance of the Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the
procurement of goods and services based on the claim that the
issued Purchase Order or Job Order already contains the conforme of
the winning supplier and indicates the delivery date, which in effect
authorizes the supplier to proceed and deliver the required goods
and services.

RA 9184, having been enacted for the advancement of public welfare,
contains mandatory provisions. Failure to follow such rules render
the proceeding to which it relates illegal and void, or the violation of
which makes the decision rendered therein invalid.

NTP together with the approved contract should be issued by PE to
the successful bidder within three (3) calendar days from the date of
the approval of the contract.
NPM 87-2013
Capacity Development Division
153
Contract Implementation:
Advance Payment
 Advance payment in case of infrastructure projects may be granted
by the procuring entity upon compliance with the conditions
provided in Section 4 of the Guidelines and only for the purpose of
mobilization.
 Thus, if the contractor has already mobilized its equipment and has
commenced with the required works under the contract, advance
payment can no longer be provided as doing so already negates the
very purpose of granting such privilege to the contractor.
NPM 56-2013
Capacity Development Division
154
Contract Implementation:
Warranty Security for Janitorial Services
 Interpretation and application of the clauses of the PBDs are to be
read together and in accordance with RA 9184 and its IRR. GCC
Clauses 17.1 to 17.5, should be read in consonance with Section 62.1
of the IRR of RA 9184
 The requirement for the posting of warranty security under Section
62.1 of the IRR of RA 9184 applies only in the case of contracts
involving expendable and non-expendable supplies. It excludes
services from its application.
NPM 64-2013
Capacity Development Division
155
Contract Implementation:
Variation Order
Deletion of Work Through Variation Order

Section 1.1 of Annex E of the IRR of RA 9184 provides that the scope of
works shall not be reduced so as to accommodate a Positive Variation
Order. In addition, the Manual of Procedures for the Procurement of
Infrastructure Projects provides that the “addition/deletion of works should
be within the general scope of the project as bid and awarded, and the
deletion of the work should not affect the integrity and usefulness of the
structure.”

It should be satisfactorily shown that the suggested deletion will not affect
the integrity and usefulness of the structure, why it is no longer necessary
and was not meant to accommodate a Positive Variation Order.

It is also necessary to verify whether the claim was made within the
applicable time required under Section 1.5 of Annex E of the IRR of RA 9184.
NMP 84-2013
Capacity Development Division
156
PROTEST MECHANISM
Protest Mechanism:
Rationalized Protest Fee
 The rules on Protest, particularly §55.3 of the IRR, which requires
that the verified position paper should be accompanied by a nonrefundable protest fee, has been recently amended by the
Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) through GPPB
Resolution No. 05-2012 to rationalize the amount of such fee.
 The rationalization of the protest fee amount is perceived to strike a
balance between the institution and filing of valid protests, and the
deterrence of filing vexatious and frivolous ones.
NPM 39-2013
Capacity Development Division
158
Protest Mechanism:
Protest Fee
 The posting of a surety bond as a form of non-refundable protest fee
should not be countenanced.
 A surety bond is a contractual arrangement between the surety, the
principal and the obligee whereby the surety agrees to protect the
obligee if the principal defaults in performing the principal’s
contractual obligations. This is not the rationale and purpose for
which the protest mechanism and fee are required under the Law
and rules; the purposes being to deter filing of frivolous complaints
and answer for the costs of the action.
NPM 39-2013
Capacity Development Division
159
Protest Mechanism:
Remedy Pending Protest
 Only upon the final resolution of the protest can the aggrieved party be
said to have exhausted the available remedies at the administrative
level. In other words, only then can he viably avail of the remedy
of certiorari before the proper courts. Non-compliance with this
statutory requirement, under Section 58 of R.A. No. 9184, constitutes a
ground for the dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction.”
(Dimson (Manila), Inc. and Phesco, Inc. v. Local Water Utilities Administration)
 Pending a request for reconsideration or protest, the aggrieved bidder
must await its resolution, unless it can establish that there is no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law then
extraordinary remedies of certiorari and mandamus may be resorted to.
NPM 116-2013
Capacity Development Division
160
BLACKLISTING
Blacklisting:
Applicability
 Section 2 of the Guidelines expressly provides that the Blacklisting
Order shall apply to all the JV partners as they are treated
collectively as one bidder.
 The members of the JV expectedly intend themselves to be jointly
and severally responsible or liable for the obligations and civil
liabilities actually incurred by the particular joint venture.
NPM 23-2013
Capacity Development Division
162
Blacklisting:
Applicability
Affiliate Company
 Affiliate/sister company of a blacklisted bidder may only be considered as
blacklisted upon determination by the procuring entity that the blacklisted
entity has that degree of relationship or extent of representation mentioned
in Section 2 of the Guidelines existing in the affiliate/sister company.
 If the blacklisted entity and its affiliate/sister company are sole
proprietorships owned by the same person, the blacklisting order applies to
the affiliate/sister company since a sole proprietorship does not have a
separate juridical nor legal personality from its owner, and it is thru the
individual doing business under the name and style of the sole
proprietorship who would in effect be blacklisted under the Guidelines.
 In this regard, the blacklisted person remains blacklisted regardless of the
name and number of sole proprietorships registered under her name, and
shall not be allowed to participate in the bidding of all government projects
during the period of disqualification unless delisted as provided for in the
Guidelines.
NPM 92-2013
Capacity Development Division
163
Blacklisting:
Applicability
Forfeiture of Performance Security Prior to Award of NOA

Section 7 of the Uniform Guidelines for Blacklisting states that if the
Blacklisting Order is issued prior to the date of the NOA, the blacklisted
entity shall not be qualified for the award, and such project or contract shall
be awarded to another bidder.

The performance security posted by a bidder who has been issued a
Blacklisting Order prior to the issuance of NOA should not be forfeited, but
instead returned in accordance with the principle of solutio indebiti under
Article 2154 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
NPM 98-2013
Capacity Development Division
164
THANK YOU
RESOURCE PERSON
AIDA N. CARPENTERO
Director III – Dept. of Education
(02)-6366542
Contact us at:
Unit 2506 Raffles Corporate Center
F. Ortigas Road, Ortigas Center
Pasig City, Philippines 1605
TeleFax: (632)900-6741 to 44
Capacity Development Division
165