Letter_felcontech_dswd_macapobre.docx

MENCIAS, PAMAN & ASSOC. LAW OFFICE Refindor Bldg. Capitol Site, Estancia, Kalibo, Aklan 5600 (036) 268-3718/ +639338672524 / [email protected]

March 12, 2019 Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines

MA. EVELYN MACAPOBRE, CESO III REGIONAL DIRECTOR FIELD OFFICE VI, ILOILO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT (DSWD)

Re: Protest to the award of the KALAHICIDSS solar-powered streetlights projects in Laua-an, Antique in favor of NEOTECH SOLAR AND I.T. SOLUTION, with Demand to conduct to investigations involving the members of BAC for the said projects

Madam: I am writing in behalf of our client, FELCONTECH TRADING AND SERVICES, INC., hereinafter “FELCONTECH”. Our office was informed that despite being declared as the lowest bidder for the two projects of KALAHI-CIDSS in two barangays in Laua-an, Antique, FELCONTECH was not awarded with the projects, for no apparent reason, and without due process. FELCONTECH intends to elevate its grievance before the proper Courts of Law and/or before the Office of the President, but we find it proper to raise the issue first before your good office as we know you have the authority and power to oversee the acts of your subordinates and to correct the wrongs being committed within your jurisdiction.

1

As a gist, FELCONTECH received no disqualification letter, nor was it granted a chance to be heard or to make good of its lacking requirements, if there was any. It was only made to wait for the result of the bidding, until it learned somewhere that the award would be granted to the highest bidder, the NEOTECH SOLAR AND I.T. SOLUTION. Clearly, there was anomaly in the said grant of award. The project referred to was designated as “Mitigation of Risks during Calamities and Improving Access to Basic Services through Community Managed Installation of Solar Powered Streetlights” of the KALAHI-CIDSS in Barangay Lugta and Oloc, Laua-an, Antique. FELCONTECH joined the bidding for the project on December 28, 2018, after it has duly complied with all the documentary requirements for the bid. With it were two other bidders – RESCUE LIFE and NEOTECH SOLAR AND I.T. SOLUTION. These three bidders were previously cleared as eligible to join the bid as the documents they submitted were declared to have “passed” the screening. In both barangays, the opening of bid was conducted in the presence of KALAHI-CIDSS staff, representatives from the DSWD Regional Office, community volunteers, the BAC Chairman, BSPMC and members of the Procurement Team. Of the three bidders, FELCONTECH had the lowest bid, both in Barangay Lugta and in Barangay Oloc. Second lowest bidder was RESCUE LIFE, and NEOTECH was the highest. FELCONTECH was told that they will be given instructions thereafter. During the pre-bid which was conducted on December 21, 2018, BAC announced that a Post Qualification evaluation of the 2

lowest bidder will be conducted on December 29, 2018 which was the day after the bidding. However, FELCONTECH has not heard anything from either of the two barangays about the bid. Its representatives initially assumed that there was still an on-going deliberation. Surprisingly however, when FELCONTECH’s representative called up KALAHI-CIDSS Area Coordinator, MR. ADERIANO ETO, he informed the former that FELCONTECH was disqualified. The basis of the disqualification was not clear at all. The only thing FELCONTECH’s representative grasped from what was said was that, some of their submitted documents had “inconsistent signatures.” As to which documents referred to, FELCONTECH had no idea. The

disqualification

was

not

only

informal,

but

also

capricious. For one, FELCONTECH was not properly informed of the problem in their documents. There was already a prior declaration that FELCONTECH’s entry has passed the screening that was why it was permitted to join the bid. The committee should have at least sent them a formal letter informing them of the problem, and explaining to them the ground for the disqualification.

Secondly,

there

was

no

due

process.

FELCONTECH does not even know who exactly determined that their documents had some problem, what was the procedure observed in the determination, and which particular documents fell short of the requirements. We submit that it was not for the members of the BAC to declare whether or not the signatures were “inconsistent.” None of the members was an expert in signatures. It takes someone from NBI to tell if the signatures were of the same person or not. In fact, 3

one cannot be expected to have identical signatures at all times. There would always be slight differences in each sign. Besides, nobody may question the validity of the signatures except the purporting signatory himself. But EMZTER C. JALBUENA, the president of FELCONTECH whose signatures appear in the documents never questioned his signatures therein. We could not grasp how the “inconsistent signatures” has disqualified FELCONTECH from receiving the award. There was not even an allegation of forgery or fraud.

It was already after the BAC declared that FELCONTECH was disqualified that a post-qualification investigation was conducted. Members of the BAC were obliged to carry out the same since the National Office of KALAHI-CIDSS so required. But the “investigation” circled upon the allegation that FELCONTECH paid someone who informed them about the project bidding. The same issue was touched during the visit of some representatives from the Regional Office of DSWD. The area coordinator, ADERIANO ETO, alleged that a certain ROGER BENNEJO was allegedly paid by FELCONTECH so that the latter learned about the bidding. This allegation, though vehemently denied, is immaterial. In the first place, the bidding is supposed to be made known to all. It is not meant to be kept only among those whom BAC wants to be informed. That is exactly the reason why publication of such biddings is required. Also, as project of the government, it is mandatory that the public is given a fair chance to get the project. That is why the public bidding is mandatory. The lowest bidder shall be entitled to the project. As such, the moment FELCONTECH was declared as the lowest bidder, it

4

obtained a vested right over the project and it cannot be taken from it without just cause and due process of law. This is in consonance with the Constitutional provision that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” FELCONTECH therefore prays to your Honorable Office for the following: 1) That

a

thorough

investigation

on

its

anomalous

“disqualification” be conducted. FELCONTECH demands to know who made the decision and how the decision was arrived at; 2) That comparison of the documents submitted by all the three

bidders

be

made.

This

is

to

establish

that

FELCONTECH’s documents were not in any way lacking vis-à-vis those of the other bidders; and 3) That the award of the projects in favor of NEOTECH despite being the highest bidder be declared null and void. FELCONTECH also prays that the following persons, being part of the bidding/screening procedures for the mentioned projects, be subjected to investigation:  ADERIANO ETO

Area

Coordinator,

Laua-an,

Antique  ROSIE S. VERDIN

BAC member, Lugta, Laua-an, Antique

 ARACELI P. GOBOY

PT, Lugta, Laua-an, Antique

5

 LUTHGARDA T. LUCES

BAC

Chairperson,

Lugta,

Laua-an, Antique  BUENCONSEJO V. BAYLON

BSPMC,

 HELEN SARMIENTO

BAC Chairperson, Oloc, Laua-

Lugta,

Laua-an,

Antique an, Antique

 MARLIA TERESA

PT, Oloc, Laua-an, Antique

BALADJAY  SHIELA MAE SARMIENTO BAC member, Oloc, Laua-an, Antique  LOVELYN BAJAR

BSPMC,

Oloc,

Laua-an,

Antique We are hoping for your immediate response on this matter. Further, should you find it necessary to set a hearing with us, please contact us through the contact information provided at the heading of this letter. Thank you very much!

Respectfully Yours, ROWENA MAE N. MENCIAS (Counsel for FELCONTECH) Roll No. 62828; PTR No. 6334460, Kalibo, Aklan, January 4, 2019; IBP No. 1072173, Kalibo, Aklan, January 4, 2019; MCLE Compliance No. V-0015889

6