Restoring public trust

If there is anything that all aspirants for the presidency of this country should give a lot of serious thought to is how to reduce, if not eliminate altogether, graft and corruption in government. 

The problem of graft and corruption is so engrained in government that it will probably need an overhaul of the system. 

Very few people, if any, trust government. Everyone hates having to deal with a government office. Nobody would look for fixers if there is nothing to fix. But the sad reality is, the system is so inefficient. The only recourse people have is to shell out extra bucks to make government

employees, and fixers for that matter, take the extra mile.

The extent of graft and corruption in this country is best seen in the way government projects are awarded. 

There is so much room for graft and corruption in the way the procedures are set up. 

Just take a look at the case of the bidding for the P1.19 billion project for the reconstruction and restoration of the Ayuntamiento Building in Intramuros, Manila.

Why the Bureau of Treasury (BoT) bids and awards committee does not seem to be interested in the lowest bid submitted for the project is something that government authorities should look into. 

Sources from the BoT revealed that of the five contractors who bidded for the said project last July, only a company by the name of Hilmares Construction Corp. was able to comply with the eligibility documents. Inspite of this, four other contractors namely A.M. Oreta & Co. Inc., Young Builders Corp., DDT Konstract Inc., and DMCI were also allowed to participate in the bidding, inspite of the fact that the documents they submitted to be eligible for prequalification were incomplete. 

The reason, according to the same sources, is because the BoT bids and awards committee as well as the technical working group invoked their alleged “right to waive any formalities of documents as substantial compliance with the requirements under the eligibility documents and eligibility data sheet in a manner most advantageous to the procuring entity/government and to promote fair competition among bidders.” 

Hilmares submitted a bid of P919 million. The bids of the other companies are as follows: A.M. Oreta, P1.05 billion; Young Builders, P1.18 billion; DDT Konstract, P1.182 billion; and DMCI, P1.185 billion. 

Hilmares likewise submitted all the required detailed estimates necessary to determine the reasonableness of the bid and that the submitted detailed cost estimates are clear and complete enough to allow the two committees to evaluate the bid. 

Although some of these estimates were not presented in the form prescribed by the BAC, Hilmares is saying that it is only because it relied on the BAC’s earlier application and extension of liberty to the four other contractors when it allowed substantial compliance as an acceptable standard in the submission and evaluation of bids. 

I do not know the Hilmares group nor have I heard about them. But aren’t the two committees applying double standards. On one hand, they applied the principles of liberty and substantial compliance when they allowed the four contractors who were not prequalified to submit bids; on the other, they would not do the same in the case of Hilmares, despite the fact that the latter submitted a much lower bid. Take note that Hilmares’ bid would mean P269 million in savings for the government. 

As of press time, the top three lowest bidders, namely Hilmares, A.M Oreta, and Young Builders have been disqualified on the ground of very insignificant issues that could not have affected the qualification of the contractors.

The post-qualification process was supposed to be completed not more than seven calendar days after the determination of the lowest calculated bid/highest rated bid. In exceptional cases, the post-qualification period may be extended by the head of the procuring entity, but in no case shall the aggregate period exceed 30 days.

Schema Konsult, the project’s private consultant, is said to have prepared all the eligibility and bid documents. All the requirements for eligibility and bid were purposely made to be complicated but when the “favored contractor/s” failed to submit a document required in the eligibility process, the BAC chose to relax the rules and allowed the contractor/s to bid, saying they want a competitive bidding to make it beneficial to the government.

When the favored contractor/s lost in the bidding, the BAC went out of its way to look for ways to disqualify the other contractors during the post-qualification process, using very insignificant reasons. 

I remember an acquaintance whose specialization as a consultant is government projects, particularly making sure that his client wins in public biddings. He said that in any bidding for a government project, the winner is always predetermined. Beginning from the preparation of the eligibility and bid documents to the conduct of the bid itself, the whole process is designed to favor a particular bidder. Usually, the favored bidder is in cahoots with one or two other bidders so that they can design their bids to assure that the former’s bid is the best. The problem arises when a bidder, who is not part of the group, comes in and submits the best bid. That’s the time when the bids and awards committee interprets the bidding rules in order to find loopholes to disqualify the best bidder.

No wonder that the public is losing its trust in government. 

For comments, e-mail at philstarhiddenagenda@ yahoo.com