Losing bidder in PNP, BFP procurements airs side

We write to respond to a series of articles and opinion columns spread in different broadsheets, which painted Kolonwel Trading as a sore loser in the biddings conducted by the PNP for the purchase of handguns and by the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) in the procurement of firemen’s personal protective equipment.

We deplore this latest barrage of negative reporting because it did not reflect the truth about the matter. Allow us to correct certain inaccuracies printed in your newspapers.

1. On BFP bidding for personal protective equipment

While the trial court of Quezon City has dismissed our petition to enjoin the BFP from nullifying the bidding for the procurement of firemen’s protective gears, which Kolonwel was declared the winning bidder, the said decision is not yet final. We shall be appealing the said decision as we believe that the said decision is contrary to the law and evidence we presented.

What was not disclosed in the said news report is that the Ombudsman has placed Supt. Samuel Perez, the chief of the BFP, under preventive suspension for 6 months after the anti-graft agency found that there is a strong evidence submitted by Kolonwel that Perez gave due course to the allegations of the losing bidders and eventually declared a failure of bidding, despite the failure of the said bidders to file a protest. The Ombudsman, in its Resolution dated June 5, 2012 and approved on August 10, 2012, said that “failure of bidding, under the circumstances, notwithstanding DILG Secretary Robredo’s acquiescence, demonstrates a capricious act because it was, paradoxically, made in disregard of the procedure under the procurement law.”

With the finding by the Ombudsman that the act of Perez was not in accord with law, there is a probability that the decision of the trial court will be reversed.

2. Bidding for the 60,000 pistols

Mr. Jarius Bondoc got it all wrong when he reported that we were behind the “nasty rumors” against the winning bidder in the procurement of about 60,000 pistols by the PNP. Had he checked the official records at the PNP, he would be surprised to learn that everything that was reported in various newspapers about certain issues against Trust Trade have basis.

For one, we wish to inform you that the PNP awarded the contract to Trust Trade despite the fact that our motion for reconsideration on certain issues during the bidding has yet to be resolved. Section 55.1 of the IRR of RA 9184 requires the BAC to resolve our objections within 7 days from receipt thereof. Despite receipt of our motion for reconsideration on June 29, 2012, the BAC of the PNP, up to now, has not yet issued its ruling to the various issues that we raised during the bidding. It is, therefore, our position that the award of the contract to Trust Trade by DG Bartolome is a nullity.

Second, the testing of the Glock firearms required under the bidding rules is suspect and its result dubious. As only Glock pistol was tested, there would be no test data for comparison of the performance of the Glock pistols vis-à-vis the other firearms offered to the PNP. Thus, the PNP has no basis to determine if it will be going to get the best firearms.

Third, we were made aware of certain incidents that transpired during the testing which might compromise the result of the test. The following incidents took place during the testing:

a. Two representatives of Trust Trade were allowed entry into the restricted test area and were permitted briefly to handle and test fire the gun subject of the test.

b. The firing test was interrupted every 150 rounds, and then the gun was cleaned using brush, air fan and oil. This contrasted with the previous test practice of test firing a gun for 500 rounds before taking a pause to clean the gun by brush only.

c. The lady representative of Trust Trade now and then interrupted the test firing to request the test people to slow down the frequency of firing, which requests were accommodated by the test people.

All of these issues are documented and did not come from thin air as what was portrayed by Mr. Bondoc in his column. We have been in the business of participating in government contracts for the past 30 years and we have been quite successful no matter who sits in Malacañang or the head of the procuring entity. When we complain about certain issues that we feel our right is being violated, we are only doing that to protect our interest. At no point did we ever use any arm-twisting or influence-peddling just to get the contract we are bidding.

We hope that you will print this letter in the spirit of fair play and responsible journalism.— PETER GO CHENG, Sales Manager, Kolonwel Trading