‘Irregularities’ in NFA-negotiated imports
The news item, “Thailand offers lower price for rice after bid,” (News, 1/28/14) only reinforced unresolved allegations that the G-to-G (government-to-government) rice imports of the National Food Authority (NFA) were glaringly overpriced as well. The report exposed the very flawed evaluation process involved to determine the lowest price deserved by long-suffering Filipino consumers. Why?
In November 2013 , at the time price offers for 500,000 metric tons of rice were made to the NFA by Vietnam ($462.25) and Thailand ($475.00) for decision, the international fob benchmark price for the variety under consideration stood at $370 and $403, respectively. Thus, strictly speaking the award to Vietnam at $462.25 is justifiable, as the NFA obviously based its evaluation on the international benchmark price for Vietnam rice, which is, historically, consistently lower than Thai rice. The NFA and the Vietnam Southern Food Corp. (Vinafoods II) could have priced the November 2013 supply contract a dollar below Thailand’s $475 and nobody would have noticed if the international price for Vietnam rice was represented or “misrepresented” to be $403 (Thailand’s).
This appears to be the scheme adopted by the NFA to justify the award, to Vinafoods II, of the 1.5 million tons single supply contract at $549.50 in December 2009. Undetected months after the consummation of the December 2008 purchase, the international price in truth for Vietnam rice did not range “from $456 to $ 459 per ton” (as Department of Agriculture officials insisted) against the $380 that the traders believed. (“No rice overprice, say agri officials,” News, 7/7/09). But published quotes from the Food and Agriculture Organization clearly noted that export prices in December 2008 were $456 and $459 (Thailand), and $323 (Vietnam). Thus, while Filipinos paid $549.50 for Vietnam rice, Cubans, the Asean and other nationals were fortunate with $445 and $427, respectively, during the same period. And no other rice importing nation came close to the Philippines’ “feat.”
Why do allegations of irregularities in G-to-G pricing and evaluation process taint and spoil the Aquino administration, already with a notable feat in streamlining the NFA?
With an estimated gross spread of $90 enjoyed by the Vietnamese in its price offer, as against the Thai’s $72, the NFA should have countered for a discount of $18 from Vinafoods II, instead of entertaining a 25 cents discount from the Thais (“Are price offers of 2 gov’ts reasonable?” Opinion, 7/12/13). What kind of panel discussions took place? Should negotiated rice procurement, regardless of who is in power, be encouraged?
—MANUEL Q. BONDAD,
