This will either make you laugh or cry.
Last Monday over dinner, lawyer Ven Canta shared with us something that intrigued him when he visited the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System or PhilGeps website.
It was an Invitation to Bid Reference No. 2785628.
The Procuring entity is the Manila International Airport Authority and the description of product or service it needs: Purchase of a Wristwatch.
Budget: P1,240,000.00.
Under the column “Quantity” is the figure “1”. Underneath another column “UOM” is the word “Lot.”
The phrase “Purchase of Wristwatch” appeared three times in the two documents that I saw.
The Bid Notice Abstract carries the following disclaimer: The PhilGeps team is not responsible for any typographical errors or misinformation presented in the system. PhilGeps only displays information provided for by its clients and any queries regarding the postings should be directed to the contact persons of the concerned party.
The documents showed that the chairman of the MIAA Bids and Awards Committee is MGen Vicente L. Guerzon, Jr ,AFP (ret).
Contact person is Franz Yrolle E. Veracion, BAC, Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
Ms Veracion’s contact details: yrolleveracion@hotmail.com; 877-1109 loc.3010 and 877-18-01.
Closing date for bidding: 10/09/ 2014, 12 :00 p.m.
Delivery Date: 15 days
We asked: What kind of watch is worth P1.24 million? And where would MIAA , that cannot even fix the airconditioning units at NAIA1, use that?
I emailed Ms Veracion Tuesday night asking for details about the bidding for a P1.2 million wristwatch. I was expecting to get an answer from her the next morning.
No reply by email. I was able to contact her Wednesday afternoon by phone.
Ms Veracion, who said she is with the BAC Secretariat, explained that P1,240,000.00 is for 124 watches (P10,000 each) that they would like to give to 124 employees who have rendered 30 years of service to MIAA.
I asked why the description is singular “Purchase of Wristwatch”? Why is there not stated that they need 124 pieces of wristwatches?
She explained the number of wristwatches would be known in the bidding documents. She said the P1,240,000.00 is for the whole “Lot” under UOM (Unit of Measure).
I thanked her for her patience in explaining to me the details of the Bid Notice Abstract.
I asked her why she did not reply to my email inquiry? She said the email address was for bidders.
You mean, it cannot be used for inquiry, I asked. What do you do with inquiries made by email about your office?
She said internet service at the MIAA is bad.
I laughed in order not to cry.
Lutong Macau, obviously. It’s an old practice of using vague specs in the bid invites so that a favored supplier wins and the tongpats is maximized in any of the two ways:
1. He wins by stating a lot price without specifying quantity so when the bid is questioned, the Bids and Awards Committee will have to verify kuno the actual quantity. The preferred bidder then overstates his actual quantity making his UNIT price just VERY SLIGHTLY LOWER than the real bid winner. Of course a cheaper replacement is substituted but still complying with the vague specs during actual delivery, this will definitely pass COA audit.
2. If the preferred bidder is forced to submit the lowest price thus falling way below the P1.24M budget in order to win, the quantity actually ordered is adjusted upwards to maximize the whole budget to make bigger room for tongpats. Again, it will breeze through COA audit because it is compliant with the original requisition of ONE LOT WRISTWATCH.
But now that media is getting nosey, they now know they’re busted. You’re such a killjoy, Ellen.
Let’s see how they pull this out of the hat.