NPM No. 129-2015
Requesting Entity: Aparri Water District (AWD)
Issues Concern: Bid Securing Declaration
Whether a Supplemental/Bid Bulletin is necessary to clarify that a BSD is not necessary to be submitted by the bidder if another recognized form of Bid Securities has been submitted.
[A] Supplemental/Bid Bulletin is not necessary if the BAC has not received any written request for clarification or interpretation before the deadline for the submission of bids, or that there was no clarification or modification made to the Bid Documents as deemed necessary by the BAC. Accordingly the BAC need not issue clarifications or interpretations of the requirements if such matter has been duly addressed by the GPPB, in this case through GPPB Circular No. 01-2014.
Whether the failure to post a Supplemental/Bid Bulletin may be used as basis for the denial of the issuance of a Certificate of No Objection by the creditors.
In accordance with Section 37.1.4 of the IRR of RA 9184, a Certificate of No Objection is not among the documentary requirements needed in order for the contract to be awarded. We understand that this document is required alongside the loan agreement entered into by AWD with LWUA and KfW, which renders it outside the ambit of RA 9184. As such, we cannot opine on whether AWD has complied with its obligations to warrant the issuance of a Certificate of No Objection.
Whether there is a legal impediment in awarding a contract if the Head of the Procuring Entity (HOPE) failed to act on the recommendation of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) within the prescribed period.
It is emphasized that the periods provided under Section 37 of RA 9184 are mandatory as articulated by the nomenclature used therein. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in the case of Jacomille v. Abaya (G.R. No. G.R. No. 212381, 22 April 2015), ruled that failure to comply with the mandatory periods set forth in Section 37 is an irregularity which renders the procurement process null and void.