3) All eligibility documents – legal, technical, financial
4) Accomplished Checklists for the First and Second Envelope
5) Bid security
6) Omnibus Sworn Statement
7) BAC Resolution(s) on the preliminary examination of bids
8) Technical Working Group (TWG) report on the bid evaluation for determination
of the bidder with the Lowest Calculated Bid (LCB), as reviewed by the BAC
9) Minutes of the BAC meeting on bid evaluation;
10) Resolution of the BAC declaring the LCB
11) Notice to bidder with LCB
12) Post-Qualification Evaluation Summary Report supported by the:
a) Latest income and business tax returns of the winning bidder
b) TWG report on the post-qualification conducted as reviewed by the BAC
c) Minutes of the post-qualification activities
d) BAC Resolution declaring the Lowest Calculated and Responsive Bid and
recommending Award, approved by the Head of the Procuring Entity
13) Notification of bidding results to losing bidder duly received
14) Posting of Notice of Award within three days from its issuance on PhilGEPS, the
LGU website, if any, and any conspicuous place in the city premises
15) Warranty
6.6. The foregoing deficiencies, aside from rendering the authenticity of the procurement
procedures conducted questionable, violate many of the provisions of the 2016
Revised IRR. Section 30.1 thereof is emphasized in particular as it clearly states:
“The BAC shall open the first bid envelopes in public to determine each
bidder’s compliance with the documents required to be submitted for
eligibility and for the technical requirements, as prescribed in this IRR. For
this purpose, the BAC shall check the submitted documents of each bidder
against a checklist of required documents to ascertain if they are all present,
using a non-discretionary ‘pass/fail’ criterion, as stated in the Instructions to
Bidders. If a bidder submits the required document, it shall be rated ‘passed’
for that particular requirement. In this regard, bids that fail to include any
requirement or are incomplete or patently insufficient shall be considered as
‘failed.’ x x x” (Underlining ours.)
6.7. Due to the absence of these important documents, the propriety of the foregoing
procurements cannot be properly evaluated. Furthermore, any deviation by the BAC
from the procedures required under R.A. No. 9184 might pose a risk on the validity
of these disbursements.
6.8. We recommended that the BAC and TWG be properly supervised and be made
accountable for any lapses in the performance of their functions, as warranted.
51
