8.10. In connection with this, the GPPB, in NPM No. 015-017 dated December 21, 2017,
explained the following:
“The purpose of the above-quoted provision is to strike a good balance
between protecting the government from inexperienced suppliers and
ensuring effective and efficient public procurement. Thus, in the
procurement of goods, if it is determined by the procuring entity (PE) that
imposing the SLCC requirement will likely result in failure of bidding or
monopoly that will defeat the purpose of public bidding, the exception
under the second paragraph of Section 23.4.1.3 of the 2016 IRR of RA
9184 may be utilized, provided that it is clearly indicated in the
Invitation to Bid and the Bidding Documents of the PE.” (Emphasis
ours)
8.11. However, upon examining the Invitation to Bid (ITB) and the Bid Data Sheet
(BDS) for this particular procurement transaction, the Audit Team noted that it was
not indicated therein that the Municipality chose to utilize the exception under the
second paragraph of Section 23.4.1.3 of the 2016 IRR of RA 9184 instead of the
general rule on the SLCC requirement. Therefore, BAC Memorandum No. 2024-
32, dated July 23, 2024, justifying their acceptance of the SLCC of R CODE
Builders and Aggregate Supply has no basis.
8.12. Furthermore, since the Bid Evaluation Report signed by the BAC TWG indicated
that RAV’s Enterprises did not complete similar contracts, it implies that they did
not meet the eligibility requirements. During the eligibility screening, which uses
the non-discretionary “pass/fail” criterion – where a bidder is considered “passed” if
all the required documents are present and complete and “failed” if any document is
missing, incomplete, or insufficient – RAV’s Enterprises should have been
automatically rated as “failed” due to the absence of their SLCC.
8.13. While the BAC justified that the owner of Rav’s Enterprises also owns R CODE
Builders and Aggregate Supply, the Audit Team asserts that the SLCC submitted to
support the procurement transaction must be that of Rav’s Enterprises, and not of
his other company. Each company is considered a separate legal entity with its own
credentials, liabilities, and performance records. Submitting another entity’s SLCC
violates the requirement for bidders to demonstrate their own experience and
capabilities. This practice undermines the intent of the law, which aims to assess the
individual qualifications of the bidding entity, ensuring that only capable and
experienced contractors participate. Adhering to this requirement is crucial to
safeguarding the integrity, fairness, and transparency of the procurement process.
Most importantly, the GPPB has also clarified in several NPMs that the SLCC track
record of another entity cannot be credited in favor of another entity.
8.14. In view of the foregoing, the submission of another entity’s SLCC by the sole
bidder was unacceptable and should have led to their automatic disqualification. On
the other hand, the BAC’s acceptance of a non-compliant bid resulted in a highly
67
