Pagkakaisa St. Brgy.

Quirino, Maria Aurora, Aurora 3200

Cellphone. No. (+63) 917-558-8223; Email Add: cortez2nd@gmail.com

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

May 16, 2019

AMELIA A. PICART, PhD

Chairperson, BAC
ASCOT

Madame,

This has reference to your letter dated April 20, 2019, which I have received today May
16, 2019, regarding your Notice of Post-Disqualification for the Project; Supply and Delivery of
Other Supplies and Materials. In your letter you mention that we are declared NON-
RESPONSIVE due to the reason cited on the said letter. Please note that on your letter dated
April 16, 2019, you informed us that a Post – Qualification Evaluation will be conducted by the
Chairperson of the ASCOT’s BAC – TWG. Please be informed that you cannot proceed to this
stage of the bidding process if the bidder was considered non – responsive during the Bid
Opening and Detailed Evaluation and Comparison of Bid (Rule IX*, Section 30*, 31*, 32*) The
BAC – TWG findings seem contradictory to the provisions of the aforementioned Implementing
Rules and Regulation.

Further you mentioned that the bid amount for the Item No. 3 was overpriced although
the total bid amount was within the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC). Please note that in
our opinion, there is no such thing as overpriced for as long as the total amount of the bid is
lower or equal to the amount of the ABC, the bid is still responsive. Please note further the in the
invitation to Bid the amount of ABC is 1,221,500.00 php as against our offered price is
1,119,000.00 php. We understand that bid prices shall be evaluated as a ‘Whole’ of the contract
and not on ‘per item’ basis.

With regards to the specification of requirements* it was the procuring entity (ASCOT)
who provided the requirement of the project. Please note that our offered prices are based on the
specification requirement of Section VII. Technical Specification of the bid documents. The
amount of the bid price has no direct correlation with the specification. Please note that the
procuring entity has specified the requirement of the contract and therefore we can conclude that
the amount offered was based on the specification. May we request further for the definition of
“low” specification by the BAC TWG to fully understand the requirement of the contract.

It is interesting to note on our part that the BAC secretary instructed us to antedate the
receipt of the letter of POST-Disqualification. We have also noticed that letter informing us for
the conduct of post-qualification dated April 16, 2019 was ahead of the letter of the BAC-TWG
chairperson informing the BAC chairperson for the non-responsiveness of the Bid. Please note
that as per IRR of RA 9184 you can’t conduct a post–qualification if the bidder was considered
non-responsive. In our opinion, since you’re already in the stage of Post-Qualification

* See attachment/s
(RULE X, IRR-RA 9184*), the evaluation shall then be limited to the premise (Section 34*,
34.3* a*, b*, & c*). In addition may we request the copy of bid evaluation report conducted by
the BAC – TWG duly signed by the members of the BAC.

In view of the foregoing, may we request for the reconsideration of the bid evaluation
conducted by BAC-TWG since the reason cited in our opinion does not confirmed to the
provision of the implementing rules and regulation of RA 9184 as amended.

Hoping for kind consideration regarding this matter.

Very truly yours,

Rolando M. Cortez II
Proprietor

* See attachment/s