Still on contentious LRT-2 contract
IT appears that the government’s transportation sector is never bereft of problems and snags. Adding to the woes and travails of commuters. Take the case of the LRT-2 contract.
The National Coalition of Filipino Consumers (NCFC) filed graft cases against LRT officials before the Sandiganbayan for allegedly favoring a prospective new maintenance service provider of the LRT 2, said an e-mail sent to this columnist.
The group complained that the LRT management’s bids and awards committee (BAC) and secretariat members violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Government Procurement Reform Act when they reopened the period for accepting bids after already having closed the bidding.
The technical submission of Busan-EDC Joint Venture is nonresponsive. According to insiders, the technical submission was lifted from the MRT 3 regime. This only shows the bidder’s inexperience in the Light Rail System. If that’s the case, let us be scared as we all know that MRT 3 is prone to breaking down.
The bidding appears allegedly to accommodate a favored party, and in this case, to the detriment of a working asset and the riding public.
Further, the e-mail said, the bid of Busan-EDC Joint Venture should have been declared a failed one for the following reasons:
1. Busan submitted its requirement after the deadline set by the BAC. Records show that Busan submitted its bid documents after the deadline set in the Invitation to Bid. The law is clear that the BAC is required to respect and comply with the deadline for submission set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
2. Despite constant and timely objections by the other bidder, the BAC, after previously declaring the submission of bids closed, issued a verbal order re-opening the bid submission and moving the deadline for submission to a later time.
3. Busan-EDC Joint Venture failed to submit a certification that the translation of foreign documents is accurate. When a bidder submits a foreign document with an accompanying English translation, the bidder must also submit a certification from the appropriate embassy or consulate in the Philippines, attesting to the accuracy of the translation.
4. In this case, the documents submitted by Busan should have been accompanied by a certification issued by the Embassy of the Republic of Korea, attesting to the accuracy of the translation. However, there is nothing in the bid documents submitted by Busan which remotely complies with the requirement.
5. The Tax Clearance submitted by Busan was not finally reviewed and approved by BIR, as required by GPPB Resolution No. 21-2-13. It is not enough that the BAC check Busan’s submission of a tax clearance. In compliance with the law, it should likewise determine, during the opening of the bids, whether or not such tax clearance was finally reviewed and approved by the BIR, as required by the Bid Data Sheet – something it can do through a bare visual inspection of the document in question.
As a result, the BAC appears to have seriously erred in ruling that the determination as to whether Busan’s Tax Clearance was finally reviewed and approved by the BIR may only be done in the post-qualification evaluation process.
DOTC Secretary Abaya, please look into this. Commuters have suffered enough. Let us not make them suffer more.