This pertains to the Memorandum dated September 10, 2009 of Executive Director Jose M. Tolentino, Jr. relative to the Memorandum of Director Maria Leah R. Alarkon, BAC Chairman, on the procurement of services of an established international certification entity for the Automated Election System in connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections.

The Memorandum of Executive Director Tolentino reads:

“Attached is the Memorandum dated 9 September 2009, of Atty. Maria Lea R. Alarkon, Chairman, Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), submitting that the above subject does not fall under the jurisdiction of the BAC, and that the COMELEC Advisory Council (CAC) is the most competent authority to assist the Commission in choosing the established international certification entity that will certify the Automated Election System (AES). Accordingly, Atty. Alarkon recommended several steps to be undertaken for the procurement of said services.

Initially, it was proposed that the Commission should immediately choose one international certification entity from among those identified by the CAC/Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). Said proposal, however, would be difficult to carry out since no selection criterion was submitted by the CAC/TEC.

Considering that the above subject is a specialized type of procurement of consultancy services, the same requires the expertise of the entities mandated by law to assist the COMELEC in implementing the AES. The undersigned, therefore, agrees with the recommendations of Atty. Alarkon, and further submits the following clarifications on the procedures proposed by her:

1. Since two international certification entities have already responded to the Request for Information (RFI) issued by the CAC/TEC, said responses shall be evaluated by the CAC/TEC to determine if the proposals submitted are sufficient to formulate a formal Request for Proposal (RFP).


2. Based on their evaluation, the CAC/TEC, shall finalize the RFP for issuance to the five (5) international certification entities that have been previously identified by them.


3. The approved budget for the contract (ABC) shall be based on the total man hours needed to complete the project as proposed by the entities that responded to the RFI, multiplied by the international industry standard cost per man hour.


4. Said RFP shall include, among other terms, statements on the ABC and the deadline for the submission of sealed technical and financial proposals, which shall be in two separate inner envelopes contained in one outer envelope.


5. The CAC/TEC shall be given the technical bids, while the COMELEC shall retain the sealed envelopes containing the financial bids. The CAC/TEC shall then evaluate the technical bids, rank the technical proposals from highest to lowest, and submit said ranking to the COMELEC.


6. The COMELEC shall open the financial bid of the entity that is ranked the ‘Highest Rated Calculated Bid’ (HRCB). If its bid is within the ABC, the award will be issued in favour of that entity. If not, the financial proposal of the entity with the next HRCB shall be opened, and so on, until an award is finally made to the entity with the ‘Highest Rated Responsive Bid’.

Since certification of the AES is a tedious process, the undersigned requests immediate consideration of this Memorandum.

Respectfully submitted.”

The Memorandum of Director Alarkon states:

“Undersigned herein most respectfully submits her comments as to the issue on whether or not the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) applying Section 10 and/or Section 49 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations Part A (IRR-A) of R.A. 9184, should be the one to identify the ‘ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATION ENTITY’ being referred to in Section 9 of R.A. 9369, amending Section 11 of R.A. 8436.

1. Said Section 11 provides to wit:



‘Section 11. Functions of the Technical Evaluation Committee. –The committee shall certify, through an established international certification entity to be chosen by the Commission from the recommendations of the Advisory Council, not later than three months before the date of the electoral exercise categorically stating that the AES, including its hardware and software components, is operating properly, securely, and accurately, in accordance with the provisions of this Act xxx’

2. Section 49 of the IRR-A of R.A. 9184, provides, to wit:



‘Section 49. Limited Source Bidding – x x x is a method of procurement of consulting services that involves direct invitation to bid by the concerned procuring entity from a set of pre-selected suppliers or consultants with known experience and proven capability on the requirements of the particular contract. The pre-selected suppliers or consultants shall be those appearing in a list maintained by the relevant Government authority that has experience in the type of procurement concerned, which list should have been submitted to, and maintained updated with, the GPPB x x x’

3. As per information, and as of present date, the TEC wrote five (5) entities to submit RFIs and two (2) submitted a response.


4. The foregoing provision of R.A. 9369 directly contradicts Section 49 of the IRR-A of R.A. 9184. The recommendees of the Comelec Advisory Council did not come from a list being maintained by any Government authority and neither such list exist much less has been submitted, maintained and updated with the Government Procurement Policy Board.



Said Section 49, is not therefore applicable.

The provisions on competitive bidding is not also applicable (Section 10, R.A.9184) considering that the short-listing of the consulting entities will be done by the Advisory Council and not by the BAC.

With the foregoing, and considering that the advisory council is the most competent authority to assist the Comelec in choosing the established international certification entity that will certify the AES, undersigned most respectfully recommends that:

1. The Advisory Council evaluate all the ‘proposals’ submitted by each entity who responded to its RFI;
2. Based on the submitted RFIs, the council should finalize the needed Terms of Reference and recommend the necessary budget for the same;
3. Request the entities who submitted a response to the RFI to submit proposals to the newly formulated TERMS OF REFERENCE;
4. Make a ranking based only on the technical proposals submitted by the entities who responded;
5. The COMELEC, through the EN BANC makes the final decision on which entity shall get the project based on an assessment of the FINANCIAL PROPOSALS.

Respectfully submitted.”

The Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve the foregoing recommendation of Director Ma. Lea R. Alarkon, BAC Chairman, as concurred in by Executive Director Jose M. Tolentino, Jr. that the Comelec Advisory Council is the most competent authority to assist the Comelec in choosing the established international certification entity that will certify the Automated Election System (AES) with clarifications on the following procedures proposed by Director Alarkon, to wit:

1. Since two international certification entities have already responded to the Request for Information (RFI) issued by the CAC/TEC, said responses shall be evaluated by the CAC/TEC to determine if the proposals submitted are sufficient to formulate a formal Request for Proposal (RFP).


2. The CAC/TEC, shall finalize the RFP for issuance to the five (5) international certification entities that have been previously identified by them based on their evaluation.


3. The approved budget for the contract (ABC) shall be based on the total man hours needed to complete the project as proposed by the entities that responded to the RFI, multiplied by the international industry standard cost per man hour.


4. Said RFI shall include, among other terms, statements on the ABC and the deadline for the submission of sealed technical and financial proposals, which shall be in two separate inner envelopes contained in one outer envelope.


5. The CAC/TEC shall be given the technical bids, while the COMELEC shall retain the sealed envelopes containing the financial bids. The CAC/TEC shall then evaluate the technical bids, rank the technical proposals from highest to lowest, and submit said ranking to the COMELEC.


6. The COMELEC shall open the financial bid of the entity that is ranked the “Highest Rated Calculated Bid” (HRCB). If its bid is within the ABC, the award will be issued in favor of that entity. If not, the financial proposal of the entity with the next HRCB shall be opened, and so on, until an award is finally made to the entity with the “Highest Rated Responsive Bid”.

Let the Project Management Office implement this resolution.

SO ORDERED.