9.6 The project was procured through Negotiated Procurement (Two Failed Biddings).
The contractor had previously been disqualified for being non-responsive in both the
first and second bidding for the said project.
9.7 Our review of the supporting documents for Disbursement Voucher (DV)
No. 100-2024-10-1723 dated October 17, 2024, covering the payment of the 15%
mobilization revealed that, contrary to the aforementioned regulations, the DV was
not supported by the following:
9.7.1 Contractor’s updated Certificate of PhilGEPS Registration;
9.7.2 BAC’s recommendation to the Municipal Mayor for the award of the contract;
9.7.3 Municipal Mayor’s approval of the BAC’s recommendation; and
9.7.4 Documentary evidence or proof for the posting of the Notice Of Award,
Contract/Purchase Order, including the Notice To Proceed, for information
purposes, in the PhilGEPS website, the website of the Municipality, if
available, and at any conspicuous place reserved for this purpose in the
premises of the Municipality within ten (10) days from their issuance.
9.8 Further examination of the DV and its supporting documents revealed that the
Request for Quotation, signed by the BAC Chairman, and the Notice for Negotiated
Procurement, published on the PhilGEPS website, were both dated October 5, 2024.
However, the respective quotations from the three suppliers/contractors who
participated in the procurement were all dated October 4, 2024, suggesting that the
suppliers/contractors submitted their quotations even before the Request for
Quotation and the Notice for Negotiated Procurement were issued by Management.
9.9 The fact that the quotations were dated prior to the publication of the Request for
Quotation and the Notice for Negotiated Procurement suggests that the
contractors/suppliers may have been informed in advance or that the documents were
antedated, thereby impairing the integrity of the procurement process. Moreover, this
contravenes the principle of equal opportunity for all prospective
contractors/suppliers. It weakens market competition, which may result in
overpricing, substandard delivery, or biased awarding, defeating the primary
objective of government procurement.
9.10 Based on the foregoing, the technical, legal, and financial capability of the contractor,
as well as Management’s transparency, fairness, and compliance with RA No. 9184
and its Revised IRR, could not be properly validated.
9.11 We recommended that Management ensure strict adherence to the procurement
procedures prescribed under the Revised IRR of RA No. 9184, especially for
Negotiated Procurement under the "Two Failed Biddings" modality. This
includes requiring and retaining all mandated supporting documents, such as:
9.11.1 Updated Certificate of PhilGEPS Registration,
9.11.2 BAC recommendation to the Head of the Procuring Entity (HOPE),
9.11.3 HOPE’s approval of the award, and
55
