Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

HEXAMINDZ CORPORATION

Pearl Street, Marfori Subdivision, Davao City

March 29, 2017

THE BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE


Cotabato Polytechnic State Univeresity
Sinsuat Avenue, Cotabato City

Attn: Mr. DING DALAMBAN


BAC Chairman
Sirs:
This has reference to yout letter dated March 15, 2017 which we received only on March 28,
2017, in answer to our letter dated march 14, 2017 captioned: Clarification on our Bid Quotation during
the opening of Bids for the Construction of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Building (Phase 1).

WE raised out in that clarificatory letter the inclusion of the 3% Engineering Services item in the
Bill of Quantities Summary, interpreting it for purposes of this bidding as project supervision since we
could not determine at that moment the basis of its inclusion by the BAC in relation to the
implementation of RA 9184 otherwise known as “The Government Procurement Reform Act.

The steemed Committee in answer, ruled on our disqualification despite submitting a lower bid
proposal by citing provisioins of Revised IRR of RA 9184, particularly in Rule IX, Section 32.2.1 on a.)
Completeness of Bid, and b.) Arithmetic Correction. Further, it also mentioned that clarifications on
technical issues particularly pertaining to Bill of Quantities should have been raised only during the Pre-
bidding Conference or five days after.

To enlighten the Committee further on the issues raised surrounding the conduct of that
bidding, allow us to explain further to set the records in proper order, viz:

1. The clarification we raised on the inclusion of the 3% Engineering Services in the Bill of
Quantities Summary is not a simple technical issue as it violates certain provisions of the
Amended IRR of R. A. 9184 which states that:

“Rule VI – Preparation of Bidding Documents

Section 17.6 – Detailed Engineering for Procurement of Engineering Services

No Bidding and award of contract for infrastructure projects shall be made unless
the detailed engineering investigation, surveys and designs, including the
acquisition of of right of way for the project have been sufficiently carried out and
duly approved in accordance with the provisions of Annex “A” of this IRR.
The exception is the Design and Build Scheme, wherein the bidder shall be
allowed to submit its detailed engineering design as part of its bid…..”

The inclusion therefore of the 3% Engineering Services contained in the Summary of Bill
of Quantities grossly violated above stated provisions since it is not a design and build
scheme of implementation and that the plans, designs and specifications were already
prepared by Engr. Susa A. Elias and a private practitioner Structural Engineer, Allan Botoyan.
The said plans, designs and specifications prepared by the two engineers were used as basis
in the preparation of Program of Works and Approved Budget for Contract by the BAC, and
were part of the bidding documents issued to participating contractors.

2. The Committee cannot cite Rule IX, Section 32.2.1 of the Revised IRR of RA 9184 to
disqualify our company in that bidding since from the very start of preparing the bidding
documents it was already flawed with the inclusion of 3% Engineering Services, being an
unnecessary item and violative of Rule VI, Sectioin 17.6 of the Revised IRR of RA 9184. As
far as the provisions of this law is concerned, there is no basis of the BAC to disqualify our
bid for that particular project.

3. Serious technical issues such as an inclusion of an unnecessary item in the Summary of Bill
of Quantities can be raised at any time prior to the start of the project, and not just during
the pre-bidding conference to correct and straighten up the record and to protect the
interest of the government. In this particular case, if awarded to a bidder with the 3%
Engineering Services included as an item of work, the government stand to lose in millions
of pesos by paying the contractor of an item which was already done by the agency,
thereby resulting in double payment by the agency as the work progresses.

4. Should the Committee push through with awarding the project to the bidder, the amount of
3% for Engineering Services shall be deducted from his bid to protect the interest of the
government and set the records of the state university in proper order.

For your consideration.

Very truly yours,

RHEY CHRISTINE Q. ANGCOS


General Manager