Bidding for Cebu reclamation project rigged — losing bidder

A company that lost in a recent bid to develop reclaimed land south of Cebu City has claimed that the biding was rigged to favor another bidder.

"Prior to the release, reports that the bidding was rigged and that the winning bidder had already been chosen had already proliferated," China State-WT Joint Venture, a partnership between Chinese and Filipino investors, claimed in a statement.

The statement added that "certain key personnel involved in the conduct of the bidding had favored a Japanese contractor," identified as TOA Construction. The "key personnel" were not identified.

"It was also reported that the plan of these key personnel was to retain only two out of the six contractors who have already prequalified," the statement said. "Thus, it came as no surprise to keepn observers that the results of the bidding indeed showed that four of the six contractors were disqualified."

China State and five other companies bid last month for the P500-million South Reclamation Project – funded by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) – that included a desalination and sewerage plant.

However, China State, Japanese firm Sumitomo Construction and South Korean companies Hansin Construction and Paradise construction were later disqualified. That left EEI Construction and TOA in contention.

To ensure that the favored contractor would eventually win the bid, according to the statement, the same "key personnel focused on the desalination and sewerage system plans submitted by the contractors" as the basis in choosing the winning bidder.

That should not have been the case, China State said, because the desalination and sewerage system "comprised only a mere 20 percent or a minor component of the project."

"The major aspects of the project are the road compnents, the construction of the proposed administration building, and the site development for Kawit Island," the statement said.

Using the desalination and sewerage system as the basis for the disqualification of the other contractors was unfair, China State said, because it was a "minor component of the project" and it "did not at all reflect the competence or incompetence of the contractor."

"The equipment for the system, it was observed, is not manufactured by the contractor, but rather procured from suppliers," the statement said, adding that "if the equipment proposed by the contractor is not acceptable, for instance, on the reason that the maitenance cost was high, then changes as to what equipment should be procured can be readily made."

If that were the case, the statement said the contractor "should not be faulted for recommending a specific equipment" because the proejct proponent did not give specifications beforehand.