2016-11-15

NPM No. 089-2016

Requesting Entity: Philippine Commission on Women (PCW)

Issues Concern: Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Order (DO) No. 150-16

 

Details

Whether the GPPB ruling contained in its Resolution Nos. 14-2012 and 26-2013 on the administrative cost for security services contract is still valid, considering that the latest DOLE Order increased further the administrative cost for security services from 10% of the total contract price per DOLE DO No. 18-A to 20% of the total contract price per DOLE DO No. 150-16.

 

[T]he position of the GPPB, as contained in its Resolution No. 14-2012, was reiterated through Resolution No. 14-2015 and Circular No. 04-2015, both dated 30 April 2015, and is therefore still valid and existing.

 

Whether the BAC shall consider bids from interested bidders where the administrative cost is lower than what the DOLE Order requires.

 

Similar to the 10% administrative fee imposed under Section 9(b)(ii) of DOLE DO No. 18-A, the 20% administrative fee provided for under Section 4 of DOLE DO No. 150-16 is also a percentage imposition that has for its effect the fixing of a floor price on Service Agreements. In this regard and following the position of the GPPB as stated and explained in the above-mentioned issuances, as well as the case of Philippine Sports Commission, et. al. v. Dear John Services, Inc., we are of the opinion that Section 4 of DOLE DO No. 150-16, insofar as it imposes a minimum administrative fee of 20% of the total contract cost for Service Agreement for security services, likewise runs counter to the provision of Section 31 of RA 9184 and its IRR.