Issues Concern: Forms of Bid and Performance Security; Applicability of

Rule on Nepotism in Appointment of Bids and Awards Committee (BAC)

Members by the Head of Procuring Entity (HoPE); Filing of Motion for
Reconsideration on Decisions of the HoPE

Details

1. Whether or not forms of Bid Security as provided under Section 27.2 and
the forms of Performance Security under Section 39.2 of the 2016 revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184
are fixed and exclusive, such that the procuring entity cannot remove from
or add to, any of the forms provided in the 2016 revised IRR?

Under the 2016 IRR of RA 9184, the prospective bidder has the discretion
to select the form of Bid Security to accompany its bid, and the
Performance Security to guarantee the faithful performance of its
obligations under the contract;

2. Whether or not the designation made by the Governor, as Head of the

Procuring Entity of the Province, of his relative within the 4th degree of
consanguinity or affinity as a member of the Bids and Awards Committee
is valid?

Nepotism applies in appointments and designations made by the HOPE as

regards their relatives within the prohibited degree of relationship.

3. Whether or not a motion for reconsideration on the decision of the HoPE

denying a protest is necessary prior to filing a petition in court under Rule
65?

The Protest Mechanism under Section 55, Rule XVII, of the 2016 IRR must
be exhausted prior to resorting to court action. The filing of a Motion for
Reconsideration on the decision of the HoPE is not a condition sine qua
non for the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under RA 9184 and the 2016
IRR vis-a-vis Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.