Republic of the Philippines

Department of Health
REGIONAL OFFICE II
Maharlika Highway, Carig, Tuguegarao City

844-6585, 844-8737, 846-7261 & 846-7230

E-mail address: chdcvdoh@yahoo.com
TeleFax No. 304-6523 & 304-6734

MR. DAVID U. MATAMMU

Proprietor
Damatech Printing Services/Enterprises
98 Caritan Centro
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
Dear Mr. Matammu,
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 28 September 2015 asking for
clarifications on the procurement of this Office of the revised Manual of Operation
of the NTP posted on the Philgeps website with reference number 2015-315.
First, you inquired on the resolutions made by the Bids and Awards
Committee as to its effect particularly on who are notified or apprised of the content
of the said resolutions. Considering the public disclosure policy on Government
transactions, resolutions and other BAC related documents are made available to all
participating bidders and the other interested parties. The Department of Health
Regional Office No. II adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all
its transactions involving public interest, subject to reasonable conditions prescribed
by law. Thus, contrary to your assumption, BAC resolution no. 07 series of 2014 is
made available and accessible to all interested persons.
Second, you have mentioned in your letter that the Procurement office of this
agency is not aware of what to do when confronted with mismatching specifications
on the canvass and the sample provided. Moreover, you have asserted that it is
their job to guide end-users to write the correct specification to be fair to everyone.
We wish to emphasize that the staff of the Procurement Unit of this Office
underwent sufficient training and therefore are well equipped in carrying out their
stringent functions and responsibilities. It may be recalled that in your letter dated
September 08, 2015, you have mentioned that you were assisted by Ms. Iquin and
Ms. Tamayo on your query regarding the sample manual which was provided to you.
We believe that our staff in the procurement office has provided you and other
participating bidders with the equal opportunity to make your quotation based on
the specification and conditions provided in the request for quotation.
Third, you raised the issue on the Award of contract even if allegedly the
written specifications were superior than the actual sample. You also mentioned
that very few suppliers have access to the sample. We assure you that the DOH BAC
has complied with all the requirements of the procurement law and its revised IRR in

all its procurement activities. We hasten to stress that in small-value procurement of

goods where request for quotations (RFQs) are floated to suppliers of known
qualification, the award of contract shall be made to the lowest quotation which
complies with the specifications and other terms and conditions stated in
the RFQ. As one of the suppliers who was given an RFQ, you were given the same
opportunity to peruse not only the specifications but also other conditions of the
contract. Part of the general conditions in the RFQ was for the supplier was to
coordinate with the procurement staff for the sample of the manual which shall be
the basis of your quotation. The sample manual was shown to all suppliers who
were given RFQs for the basis of their quotation aside from the specifications and
other conditions of the RFQ. Hence, the agency complied with the essential element
of government procurement that all bidders or prospective suppliers must be on
equal footing. Each bidder/supplier was able to bid on the same thing.
Fourth, you asserted that you were the winning supplier of the same manual
last year. You also mentioned of BAC resolution no. 07 series of 2014 which was
issued by the BAC in relation to the previous transaction involving the reproduction
of the manual. You contended that the said resolution was your basis in quoting a
high price on the reproduction of the manual. We see no conflict between the said
resolution and our letter dated 18 September 2015 which was addressed to you in
relation to your clarifications on the subjected procurement of the office. The
resolution of the BAC addressed the effect of the verbal agreement between the
end-user and the supplier on what has been indicated in the job-request for the
manual. The BAC resolved that such verbal agreement does not have binding effect
to effectuate revisions on the job-request. We uphold to this standing policy of the
BAC. Our letter dated 18 September 2015 does not contravene such policy
promulgated by the BAC. The specifications and other conditions stated in the RFQ
provide that the suppliers must base their quotation on the sample provided. The
justifications made by the end-user were in conformity with the conditions stated in
the RFQ. The manual of procedure went through a process of revision which were
undertaken to meet the needs of the agency. In this connection, all goods which
shall be delivered by the prospective supplier shall be in accordance with the
requirements of the RFQ and the Purchase Order, and shall be subject to rejection if
such goods are nonconforming. The sample Manual of Operations was provided by
the DOH Central Office and is the same manual which shall be followed all
throughout the regional offices of the DOH. In this case, deviation from the design
and lay out on the said manual cannot be allowed.
The BAC has addressed the matter on apparently conflicting specifications in
the RFQ and the sample provided by the end-user. Please take note that the
specifications provided in the RFQ are not the sole basis in the giving quotations on
a particular procurement activity. General conditions indicated in the RFQs must
also be complied.
We assure you that the BAC has observed and continue to observe the
policies of transparency, competitiveness and accountability in all its procurement
projects.
We hope that we have provided adequate explanations on your clarifications.
Thank you.

Very truly yours,

MYRIAM C. TABIAN, MD, MPH

BAC- Chairperson