BAC RESOLUTION No. 008
(BAC Reference No. 2011-004CBC)
Date: 02 December 2011
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by DIANE AND JESSILYN GENERAL MERCHANDISE (DIANE & JESSILYN), with business address at 32 Batay Street, Cubao, Quezon City, assailing BAC Resolution No. 006 declaring DIANE & JESSILYN as disqualified to bid for the supply and delivery of furnishings for the COMELEC Baguio Cottages.
By way of backgrounder, this Committee conducted the opening of bids for the supply and delivery of furnishings for COMELEC Baguio Cottages on November 28, 2011 at the Project Management Office, Palacio del Gobernador, Intramuros, Manila. DIANE & JESSILYN submitted its bid consisting of three (3) envelopes composed of one (1) original and two (2) duplicate copies only, contrary to the express and mandatory requirements of Clause 20 of Section II and Clause 20.3 of Section III of the Bidding Documents that “each Bidder shall submit one (1) original and three (3) copies of the first and second components of its bid with appropriate labels or ear tabs for easy checking of the required documents.”
Through BAC Resolution No. 006, this Committee thus declared DIANE & JESSILYN as disqualified for being non-compliant with the aforesaid requirement.
DIANE & JESSILYN timely filed on November 28, 2011 its Motion for Reconsideration.
Movant therein ratiocinates that:
“We’re not able to submit the 3rd xerox copy because it was accidentally left in our office as we rushed the preparation of the bid documents. The last envelope containing 3rd Xerox copy was not included in the bundle for the submission to the COMELEC Bids Awards Committee (BAC).”
The submission of 4 envelopes (duplicate copies) is not mandatory for eligibility screening but merely for records and reference purposes of the BAC.”
It further acknowledged and concluded that:
“We submit that the 3rd copy was inadvertently not included in our submission but all the materials requirements are complied with and not accepting our bid would deprived the COMELEC of a wider choose of supplier which is the very essence of public bidding.”
The Committee does not see any justifiable reason in the above-mentioned statements for us to depart from our earlier decision in BAC Resolution No. 006.
In furtherance thereto, Clause 6 of Section II (Instruction to Bidders) clearly provides that:
“6.3. The Bidder is expected to examine all instructions, forms, terms, and specifications in the Bidding Documents. Unless otherwise indicated in the Bid Data Sheet ( BDS ), failure to furnish all information or documentation required in the Bidding Documents shall result in the rejection of the bid and the disqualification of the Bidder.”
The required number of copies was even specifically mentioned in the Bid Data Sheet (BDS): thus, it is mandatory in nature. The Committee assumed that all of the prospective bidders are well-aware of the terms and conditions for them to act in accordance with all the requirements set thereon.
Furthermore, BAC provided more than ample time of fourteen (14) days from the date of the Pre-Bid Conference to enable all prospective bidders to accomplish, prepare and complete all the necessary bidding documents. Hence, the mere accident of leaving the 3rd copy is not and never a permissible argument. Rather, it only further confirms that the movant-bidder erroneously neglected its responsibility as a bidder.
Moreover, the argument that non-acceptance of its bid would lead to the deprivation of COMELEC of a wider scope of suppliers, is at best merely a mythical conclusion on the part of movant.
It should instead be remembered that a trustworthy procurement body should not only recognize the significance of having a transparent system - by which it ensures the widest dissemination of bid opportunities through timely posting of its invitation in any fastest and accurate means of communication - but that it also carefully applies the Principle on Competitiveness. A competitive bidding process treats bidders equitably and provides fair grounds for competition among themselves.
Verily, should the movant, who admittedly failed to submit the required number of copies of bidding documents, be allowed to further participate in the bidding process, such leeway would constitute preferential treatment and partiality, in a palpable defiance of the said Principle.
Hence, this Committee RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to deny the foregoing motion for reconsideration of Diane & Jessilyn General Merchandise and to maintain BAC Resolution No. 006 disqualifying said bidder for being non-compliant with Clause 20 of Section II (Instructions to Bidders) and Clause 20.3 of Section III (Bid Data Sheet) of the Bidding Documents.
December 2, 2011, Intramuros, Manila.
|(Sgd.) J. THADDEUS P. HERNAN
(Sgd.) ATTY. DIVINA E. BLAS-PEREZ
(Sgd.) ATTY. EFRAIM Q. BAG-ID
(Sgd.) EDEN C. BOLO
(Sgd.) ELIZABETH D. BALBACAL
Download PDF [.pdf] [1,665 KB]