GPPB UPDATES ON SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF RA 9184

GPPB UPDATES AND
LATEST ISSUANCES
January 2013 May 2014
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

Government Procurement Policy Board
Technical Support Office (GPPB-TSO)
Outline
I. Scope and Application
II. Procurement Organizations
III. PhilGEPS
IV. Bidding Documents
V. Bidding Procedure
VI. Detailed Evaluation of Bids
VII. Post-qualification
VIII. Award of Contract
IX. Alternative Methods of Procurement
X. Contract Implementation
XI. Protest Mechanism
XII. Blacklisting
2
SCOPE AND APPLICATION
3
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
4
Authority of GPPB
On Resolving issue on post-disqualification
GPPB cannot grant a bidders 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 quasi-
legislative 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
5
Authority of GPPB
On Declaring Failure of Bidding
GPPB is not vested with the authority to declare a PEs

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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
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
11
Expandable Supplies
Spare Parts as Expandable 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
12
Procurement of Second-Hand Equipment
Procurement of second-hand, refurbished, or reconditioned

equipment is allowed under RA 9184 and its IRR.
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
13
General Support Service
Engineering Services as General Services
For the maintenance of PEs 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
14
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 PES operations, then such service may be
considered within the coverage of the term general support services.
NPM 127-2013
15
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
16
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
17
Bidders 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
18
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
19
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
20
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 therewith shall result in the bidders disqualification.
NPM 91-2013
21
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
22
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 after-
thought, considering that corresponding disposal and procurement
processes and documentations must be complied with.
NPM 41-2013
23
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
24
Submission of Letter of Intent (LOI)
The submission of LOI is no longer required upon the

effectivity of GPPB Resolution No. 27-2012 on 10
September 2013.
NPM 101-2013
25
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
26
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
27
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 entitys 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
28
PROCUREMENT
ORGANIZATIONS
29
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
30
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
31
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 9184 and its IRR.
NPM 94-2013
32
Qualifications of a BAC Chair
Procuring entitys 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
33
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
34
Qualifications of a BAC Vice-Chairman
Executive Assistant of the General Manager as BAC Vice-
Chairperson
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
35
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
36
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
37
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
38
Authority of BAC Sec Head to Sign Document
BAC Secretariat Heads 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
39
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
40
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
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
42
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
43
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
44
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
45
PhilGEPS
46
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
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 post-
qualification
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 BACs 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
48
BIDDING DOCUMENTS
49
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
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
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
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 bidders 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 bidders computation of Net Financial Contracting Capacity.
(GPPB Resolution 20-2013)
NPM 76-2013
53
Bidding Documents:
NFCC Computation
During the preliminary examination of bids, the BAC shall examine

the NFCC computation submitted by the bidder based on a non-
discretionary 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
54
Bidding Documents:
Basis in the Computation of NFCC

The total current assets and liabilities as indicated in
the prospective bidders 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
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
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
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
58
Bidding Documents:
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 bidders 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
59
Bidding Documents:
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
60
Bidding Documents:
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
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
62
Bidding Documents:
Projects where a NOA has been issued, but for which no contract has
been signed yet, should be included in the statement of ongoing
government and private contracts because these are already considered
awarded contracts.
NPM 111-2013
63
Bidding Documents:
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
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
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--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
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 bidders 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--vis the offered discount to arrive at the total calculated bid price.
NPM 126-2013
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
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 PEs website, in order to address aspects of competition and
transparency.
NPM 46-2013
69
Bidding Documents:
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
70
Bidding Documents:
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 entitys 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
71
Bidding Documents:
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
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 multi-year 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
73
Bidding Documents:
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
74
Bidding Documents:
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
75
Contract Implementation:
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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 cashiers/managers 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 84
BIDDING PROCEDURES
85
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
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
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
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
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 bidders capability to undertake the project.
NPM 54-2013
90
DETAILED EVALUATION
OF BIDS
91
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
92
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 bidders
disqualification
NPM 71-2013
93
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
94
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 non-discretionary 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 bidders 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
95
Equivalent Document
Foreign bidders may substitute eligibility documentary
requirements with the appropriate equivalent documents in their
country.
BACs 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
96
Track Record
Construction experience/track record of a sole proprietor,
cannot be carried over to a corporation despite the fact that
the sole proprietors 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
97
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
98
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
99
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
100
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
101
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
102
Nature of Bidders Business
Mayors 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

Mayors 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
103
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 firms 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
104
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
105
POST-QUALIFICATION
106
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 bidders 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
107
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
108
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 bidders eligibility.
NPM 53-2013
109
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)
110
Post-Qualification:
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.
Hence, submission of the enumerated documents cannot

be considered as compliance.
NPM 02-2013
111
Post-Qualification:
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.
The Tax Clearance must be valid and existing at the time it is

submitted to BAC and must be submitted within three (3) calendar
days from receipt of the notice from the BAC that the bidder has the
LCB. Failure to comply with the requirement for the submission of a
valid Tax Clearance shall be a ground for post-disqualification of the
bidder.
NPM 48-2013
112
Post-Qualification:
Submission of a Tax Clearance must be required and
must be indicated in the invitation to negotiate and
submitted along with the proposals or quotations;
otherwise disqualification is in order.
If not initially included as one of the eligibility

documents in the invitation to negotiate PE could still
require its mandatory submission as it is necessary in
determining the legal and financial capability of the
prospective suppliers, contractors, and consultants.
NPM 65-2013
113
Post-Qualification:
Tax Clearance of Foreign Bidder
Under 24.1(b) of the IRR, each JV partner shall submit the legal
eligibility documents under 24.1(a) and (b), and documentary
legal requirements for post-qualification under 34.2 of the IRR.
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
114
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
115
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
116
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
117
Post-Qualification:
End User Complaint
End-user complaint is not in itself ground for post-

disqualification, 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
118
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
119
Post-Qualification:
Post-qualification Team
Neither RA 9184 nor its IRR provide for the establishment of a post-
qualification 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
120
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 post-

qualification 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
121
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
122
AWARD OF CONTRACT
123
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
124
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
125
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
126
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF
PROCUREMENT
127
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
128
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
129
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 PEs 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
130
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
131
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 entitys 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
132
PE can only resort to Negotiated Procurement under Section 53.1

(Two-Failed Biddings) of the IRR of RA 9184 for the procurement of
the Project if the two-failed biddings were due to circumstances
enumerated under Section 35 of the same IRR.
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
133
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. Accordingly, 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
134
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
135
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
136
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
137
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
138
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 non-

chartered GOCCs from being engaged as Servicing Agency for projects
procured through Negotiated Procurement (Agency-to-Agency).
NPM 110-2013
139
PITC Pharma, Inc. (PPI) has been given express mandate to be the
central/lead agency for procurement of all government agencies
requirements for drugs and medicines pursuant to RA 9501.
However, RA 9501 does not exempt it from the procurement policies,

rules and regulations established under RA 9184 and its IRR.
PPI is not exempt from posting a Performance Security under 39 of

RA 9184 and its IRR when entering into a contract with other
government agencies and the PE requires such security.
NPM 37-2013
140
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
141
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
142
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
143
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
144
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
145
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
146
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 PCSOs intent to extend beyond six (6) months.
NPM 132-2013
147
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
148
Repeat Order
Repeat Order under Section 51 of RA 9184 does not require post-

qualification.
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
149
By Administration
Clearance from GPPB is not a requirement in

implementing projects by administration
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
150
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
151
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
152
CONTRACT IMPLEMENTATION
153
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
154
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
155
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
156
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
157
PROTEST MECHANISM
158
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 non-
refundable 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
159
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 principals
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
160
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
161
BLACKLISTING
162
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
163
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
164
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
165
THANK YOU!!
Contact us at:
Unit 2506 Raffles Corporate Center

F. Ortigas Road, Ortigas Center
Pasig City, Philippines 1605
TeleFax: (632)900-6741 to 44
166

GPPB UPDATES ON SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF RA 9184

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GPPB UPDATES ON SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF RA 9184

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GPPB UPDATES AND

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

It is beyond the authority of the GPPB to grant exemptions from the

GPPB is not vested with the authority to declare a PEs

Declaration of failure of bidding is within the authority

Partnership with interested private entities

Treaty or International Executive Agreements

Procurement rules shall not apply in cases when a Treaty or

Disposal of Confiscated Properties

The Manual on the Disposal of Government Property

Leasing Out of Government Properties for Private Use

Transactions involving lease of government properties

However, RA 9184 and its IRR find applicability in the engagement of

If the spare parts sought to be procured have a life expectancy of

Procurement of second-hand, refurbished, or reconditioned

The decision of PE to procure second-hand, refurbished, or

Engineering Services as General Services

For the maintenance of PEs offices and facilities,

Encoding Service as General Support Service

If the encoding services being acquired are essential, indispensable,

Municipal Order requiring an accreditation process for Bidders as a

Registry system should not be considered an accreditation system,

Prospective bidders not included in the registry system used by the

An ICT procurement consisting of different components involving

The motivation and underlying reason behind the project is of

However, said rate must be compliant to the wage orders issued by

Non-compliance therewith shall result in the bidders disqualification.

Should PE decides to extend the period, it must show and provide

Proposal is akin to a trade-in transaction. It involves two distinct,

Although trade-in is not prohibited, the PE must have intended to

The IAESP reveals that the Project pertains to a JV between a GOCC

The submission of LOI is no longer required upon the

As long as public fund is utilized or contemplated to be

Honoraria will not be paid when procurement is through all the

Designation entails exercise and execution of actual, related, incidental

Hence, the OIC is authorized to make decisions on procurement activities of

On Declaration of failure of bidding

The BAC, in line with its function of determining the eligibility of

HOPE may appoint someone as BAC Chairperson provided that he

The absence of a personnel occupying the position of Sr. Vice President

The EA of the GM may be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the BAC provided

Fourth ranking permanent officials of regional offices are disqualified

Nevertheless, procurement officials should avoid holding concurrent

It is worthy to stress that questions, insinuations and doubts on the

BAC Secretariat Heads authority to sign procurement-related

Sections 12.1, 30.1 and 30.2 of the revised IRR of RA 9184

Such authority cannot be delegated to the BAC Secretariat

Approving authority may be deemed the alter ego of the HOPE.

It is only when the EA is an approving authority that it is disqualified

State University has authority to establish separate BACs upon its

The BAC composition established in Section 11.2 of the IRR of RA

The concept of a multi-agency joint procurement that will be

In this case, the subject procurement is deprived of checks and

Inapplicability of the posting requirement is not tantamount to a

Registration with PhilGEPS is absolute, and must be complied with

PE cannot recommend the award of contract if the bidder failed to submit a

Its belated submission of a renewed PhilGEPS Registration Certificate does

29 RA 9184 IRR provides that bidders or their duly authorized

PE cannot restrict participation only to the principal/bidder, but shall

Specifications shall be based on the performance

Required Amount of NFCC

During the preliminary examination of bids, the BAC shall examine

Bidders shall be deemed compliant with the requirement if the