NPO, firm in acts of falsification?

This refers to the article titled “Losing bidders protest ballot supply contract” (Inquirer, 10/24/12).

Section 53.5 of Republic Act 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) and GPPB (Government Procurement Policy Board) Resolution No. 18-2007 state that government agencies acting as a servicing agency should possess the equipment needed to do the job it receives, thus it cannot subcontract out a job. In fact, Section 4.6 of GPPB Resolution No. 05-2010, provides that the National Printing Office (NPO) is prohibited from subcontracting any job it receives from procuring entities.

Assuming NPO may subcontract, still Section 23.5.1.3. of RA 9184 requires bidders to have completed “… a single contract that is similar to the contract to be bid, and whose value… must be at least twenty five percent (25 percent) of the ABC.” Thus for the P784-million Commission on Elections contract, bidders, to qualify, must have completed contracts in the amount of P195 million.

If, as Smartmatic alleges, Holy Family had not completed contract(s) amounting to P195 million, which is required for it to qualify as a bidder for the P784-million Comelec job, then the NPO director, to support his agency’s claim that Holy Family qualified for the Comelec subcontract job, should prove that Holy Family had shown NPO that it had received from the Maritime Industry Authority (Marina), Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), etc. qualifying  purchase order(s) with an equivalent worth at least P195 million. This the NPO could have done by furnishing the Inquirer reporter and the complainants with copies of the contracts.

As correctly reported, the annual order of Marina for Seaman’s Record Book is about 150,000 booklets at approximately P265 each for a total of P39.750 million; that of the PPA is substantially lesser. Both agency’s orders were awarded to the NPO and not to Holy Family and this was confirmed by Marina’s deputy administrator. Thus, for the NPO to claim that Holy Family received the orders from Marina and the PPA can only mean that the NPO admits to irregularly subcontracting out its printing jobs to Holy Family in criminal violation of RA 9184 and RA 3019, for which the concerned NPO officials should be prosecuted.

If, as claimed, Holy Family perjured regarding its single largest contract(s), then the officials of both Holy Family and the NPO committed acts of falsification, for which they should also be prosecuted.

Thus, although very thoroughly researched, the Inquirer report may be entirely off the mark since under both Section 184 of the Omnibus Election Code and RA 9184, the NPO cannot lawfully conduct the subcontract bidding for the Comelec’s ballot printing contract. The act of the NPO in subcontracting out the Comelec ballot supply contract being illegal per se, cannot likewise bind the government.

Under RA 9369 and RA 9184, it is the Comelec which should bid out the ballot supply printing contract since the NPO acknowledges it cannot do the printing job. Let us hope the Comelec will not be remiss in this mandate.

—GUILLERMO L SYLIANTENG JR.,

[email protected]