Procedure for the procurement of consulting service - DOH

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MANUAL PROCEDURES FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF CONSULTING SERVICES ANNEX B. CASE STUDY A government agency wanted to engage the services of a consultant for the detailed improvement of the agency‟s website. During the pre-procurement conference, it was agreed upon by the BAC and other participants that the use of the QBE procedure would be recommended in the selection of a prospective consultant. The head of the agency approved the use of the said evaluation procedure. The project, which has ABC of Three Million Pesos (PhP 3,000,000.00), was advertised on 03 and 09 January 2010 in a newspaper of nationwide circulation, the agency‟s website, the PhilGEPS, and on conspicuous places within the agency‟s premises. Fifteen (15) firms responded by submitting their respective eligibility documents on or before the deadline specified in the REI. During the eligibility check conducted by the BAC on 25 January 2010, the BAC declared eight (8) firms as ineligible due to lacking eligibility requirements in their submission. The eight (8) ineligible firms received their notice of ineligibility before the meeting adjourned. The seven (7) other firms were declared by the BAC as eligible for short listing. One of the eight (8) ineligible firms, Company X, filed a request for reconsideration to the BAC on 01 February 2010. After an assessment of the justification provided by the said ineligible bidder, the BAC decided on 05 February 2010 to grant its request for reconsideration and declared Company X as eligible. After evaluating the eligibility documents submitted by the eight (8) eligible bidders based on the criteria specified in the REI and Terms of Reference, the BAC determined the ratings of the eight (8) bidders as follows: 1. Company A – 90.5 points 2. Company B – 85.5 points 3. Company C – 75.5 points 4. Company D – 69.5 points 5. Company E – 69.0 points 6. Company F – 68.5 points 7. Company G – 61.5 points 8. Company X – 49.5 points The BAC deliberated on the number of firms to be included in the shortlist and agreed to have a shortlist of six (6) firms. All six (6) firms were informed of their inclusion in the shortlist and requested them to submit the technical and financial proposals through a letter dated 17 February 2010 and signed by the BAC Chairperson. A pre-bid conference was scheduled on 22 February 2010, while the deadline for submission of technical and financial proposals was set on 03 March 2010, 10:00 A.M. at the BAC Conference Room, ground floor of the agency‟s building. 146
DOH CUSTOMIZED PROCUREMENT MANUAL VOLUME 4 2010 The BAC specified that the attendance of the firms in the pre-bid conference is mandatory, and that failure to attend would be considered as a ground for disqualification. All six (6) firms attended the pre-bid conference and the minutes of the same were issued to the six (6) bidders on 26 February 2010. Five (5) of the six (6) firms submitted their technical and financial proposals on or before 03 March 2010, 10:00 A.M. at the BAC Conference Room, ground floor of the agency‟s building. The sixth firm (Company F) arrived at the Conference Room at 10:05 A.M. and insisted that its technical and financial proposals should be accepted as the representatives were in the building at 9:45 A.M., as recorded in the security guard‟s logbook. The BAC decided to accept the technical and financial proposals of Company F. The BAC started opening the technical envelopes of the six (6) firms at the time indicated in the letter to determine the presence of the required technical documents. All the firms, except Company F, submitted all the required technical documents. Company F was declared disqualified by the BAC for not submitting all the technical requirements. After agreeing with the declaration of the BAC on its disqualification, Company F accepted its financial proposal that was returned unopened by the BAC. Prior to the detailed evaluation of the technical documents submitted by the five (5) technically-complying firms, the BAC deliberated on the sub-criteria and the corresponding weights. To more appropriately consider the requirements of the project, the general criteria were further subdivided. Based on the approved criteria, the BAC rated the five (5) firms, resulting in the following rankings: 1. Company A – 88.5 points 2. Company B – 81.5 points 3. Company C – 71.5 points 4. Company D – 68.0 points 5. Company E – 65.5 points The BAC sent a letter to Company A dated 22 March 2010, informing the firm that it submitted the highest rated bid, thus, inviting it for the contract and financial negotiations on 26 March 2010 at 9:00 A.M. The authorized representative of Company A met with the BAC and discussed, among others, its financial proposal. Upon opening of the financial proposal of Company A, the submitted bid price was read as PhP 3,300,000.00, exceeding the ABC by PhP 300,000.00. The BAC checked the calculation of Company A and it determined the correct bid price to be PhP 3,050,000.00, still exceeding the ABC by PhP 50,000.00. Company A offered a discount of PhP 50,000.00 so that the cost of its financial proposal would not exceed the ABC. Satisfied with the high technical score obtained by Company A, the BAC accepted the discount offered. Negotiations were successfully completed on 05 April 2010. Company A was considered to have submitted the Highest Rated and Responsive Bid after its successful post-qualification on 13 April 2010. The BAC deliberated and decided to award the contract to Company A. What steps, if any, are not consistent with the provisions of the revised IRR relating to the procurement of consulting services? 147
Page 3:
DOH Customized Procurement Manuals
Page 7:
Executive Summary The role of publi
Page 10 and 11:
MANUAL PROCEDURES FOR THE PROCUREME
Page 14:
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
Page 19:
SECTION 2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES ON CON
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 29:
SECTION 3 PREPARING FOR PROCUREMENT
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 47:
SECTION 4 PROCUREMENT OF CONSULTING
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111: MANUAL PROCEDURES FOR THE PROCUREME
Page 113 and 114: DOH CUSTOMIZED PROCUREMENT MANUAL V
Page 117 and 118: NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT 1. NEGOTIATE
Page 127: SECTION 6 GUIDELINES ON CONTRACT IM
Page 143: SECTION 7 PERIOD OF ACTION ON PROCU
Page 211 and 212:
DOH CUSTOMIZED PROCUREMENT MANUAL V
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
(SIGNATURE OVER PRINTED NAME) WITNE
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
show all

Procedure for the procurement of consulting service - DOH

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?