Canlas: Saavedra is wrong
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) yesterday described as totally erroneous the suggestion of businessman Crisologo Saavedra to rebid the underpass project on UN Ave., Mandaue City for allegedly being illegal.
DPWH 7 Director Ador Canlas said that in fact, “with all due respect,” Saavedra cited an outdated provision of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) of 9184 that was approved in 2003.
In that provision, Canlas said, bid announcements for infrastructure projects above P200 million must be within the range of 60 to 90 days.
“It must be noted that the cited provision (Paragraph 2.1.2.2) had already been amended by the 2016 IRR of RA 9184,” Canlas said.
He said that Paragraph 25.5 provides that “bids received by the BAC on the date, time and place specified in the invitation to Bid/ Request for Expression of Interest up to the submission and request of bids shall be observed.” For infrastructure project that cost P50 million and less, the maximum period of bid announcement is 50 calendar days, and those above P50,000 will have 65 calendar days.
For the UN Ave. underpass project, Canlas said the bid announcement was 45 calendar days, which is within the period required by law. Otherwise put, the law only sets a ceiling for the project announcement period and this does not mean that it has to be in the same period.
“In any event, no damage was incurred by the government. In fact, there were five contractors that have participated in the bidding process and not a single interested bidder complained about them not being able to participate,” Canlas said.
Canlas added there was even a serious competition among the bidders, considering that the approved budget for the project was P890.2 million, but the contract price awarded to the contractor only amounted to P711.8 million.
“That only means that there was a high variance of 20.04 percent, showing how tight the competition among contractor was. This kind of competitive bidding among the contractors would only show that there was equal opportunity given to private contracting parties, who are eligible and qualified to participate in public bidding,” Canlas said.