Procurement of Construction of

Male Dormitory Building (III)

and Female Dormitory (IV)
A Case Study
in partial fulfilment for the requirements of
Civil Engineering Laws, Contracts and Ethics

by
Engr. Aurus Jodeo C. Tiam, CE, RMP, ME-1, SO

May 2019
CASE
Philippine Science High School, Cagayan Valley Campus posted the
Procurement of the Construction of Male Dormitory Building (III) and
Female Dormitory Building (IV) at PhilGEPS for public bidding with an
ABC of PhP 24, 000, 000.00 under the Design and Build Scheme. The
opening of bid was dated February 12, 2016, 9am at PSHS CVC Board
Room.
The said procurement was participated by 5 contractors namely: Exaato
Construction, Random Builders, Sharysu Builders and Marketing,
Ambaguio Builders and; RB Soriano Builders and Supplies.
Case
After the bid opening, all bidders were declared eligible bidders. The
lowest bidder was Sharysu Builders and Marketing with 9% discount,
followed by Exaato, RB Soriano, Ambaguio Builders and the highest bid
was from Random Builders.
Other contractors requested the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) for
the disqualification of Sharysu Builders and Marketing due to its
incompliance of the ITB of the Bidding documents that the plans will be
presented in a 20”x30” papers. All contractors but Sharysu used
20”x30” for their plans, while Sharysu made use of A3 paper.
These contractors are insisting that this simple instruction should be
followed or complied by all participating bidders.
Case
• The BAC of the procurement declared that Sharysu Builders and
Marketing is disqualified for non-compliance of the technical
documents of the ITB of the Bidding Documents.
14.2 All technical plans which includes drawings, grades, elevations and specifications will be
presented in a standard 20”x30” drawing sheets.

14.3 One set of plan are to be inserted inside technical documents for the original envelop,
copy 1 and copy 2 envelop
Case
• It might be clear in the ITB that Sharysu is really non-compliant to the
ITB, thus deserves to be disqualified
• Sharysu Builders and Marketing filed a motion for reconsideration of
his bid.
• The BAC reviewed the motion and declared Sharysu Builders and
Marketing as the winning bid for the procurement of the due to the
statement written in ITB Sec 14.2

WHY???
ANALYSIS
• Contractors complained for the non compliance of Sharysu Builders
and Marketing. The latter was already declaired disqualified during
bidding. But due to scrupulous study of the ITB, Sharysu was still
declared as the winning bid.
• The statement
14.2 All technical plans which includes drawings, grades, elevations and specifications will be
presented in a standard 20”x30” drawing sheets.

• This instruction made use of the word “will”

• According to Linguist, the word “will”, as used in the statement,
request or recommends to contractors to present drawings, grades,
elevations and specification in a standard 20”x30” drawing sheet
ANALYSIS
• The statement DOES NOT REQUIRE the bidders to use 20”x30”
• The proper word to require a bidder to comply is “shall”
• Sharysu Builders and Marketing were still considered as compliant to
the ITB of the Bidding Documents. Thus declared as eligible, lowest
bidder and the winner of the procurement of the construction
project.
Conclusions
• Sharysu Builders and Marketing can be considered lucky that he
found a small word can alter his situation. In the event that the ITB
stated that “Plans shall be presented in a 20”x30” sheet”, Sharysu
would have been disqualified for good
• The procuring entity also has a short coming regarding the
preparation of the ITB of the Bidding Documents. Its conclusive that
they decided to give the award to Sharysu Builders and Marketing
because they want to be consistent with the ITB they they prepared