Laoag ₱91.2M vehicle bid faces legal row

The dispute centers on the BAC’s decision to disqualify NAMCO based on alleged violations of Republic Act No. 12009, or the New Government Procurement Act, and Section 89 of the Local Government Code, which prohibits certain business interests involving local government officials.

NAMCO disputed the grounds, arguing that the BAC misapplied the laws and prevented the opening of what it claimed was the lowest bid for the project.

The procurement covers the supply and delivery of 80 vans for social services and development programs in the city’s barangays, with an approved budget for the contract of ₱91.2 million.

NAMCO said it submitted a bid worth ₱83.98 million, around ₱7.18 million lower than the reported winning bid of MCX International Inc. at ₱91.16 million.

The company argued that its disqualification based on the ownership of a government official was improper, saying Section 89 of the Local Government Code does not apply because a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan does not exercise direct control over the city’s procurement activities. It also maintained that none of its owners influenced the project’s planning or funding.

The BAC, however, said NAMCO was disqualified on two separate grounds.

The committee said the company failed to comply with the beneficial ownership disclosure requirement under RA 12009, noting that NAMCO’s certification allegedly identified only one beneficial owner despite other shareholders listed in corporate records.

The BAC also cited Johanson T. Chua, NAMCO president and an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte, as a beneficial owner whose position should have been disclosed.

The committee further invoked Section 89 of the Local Government Code, arguing that the provincial board has review authority over city ordinances and resolutions, including funding measures. It cited Chua’s participation in the review of a city resolution authorizing additional funds for the procurement as a basis for the disqualification.

NAMCO rejected the BAC’s interpretation, saying the provincial board’s review powers do not extend to the city’s procurement decisions, which remain under the authority of the BAC.

The company also questioned the procurement specifications, particularly the required engine displacement range of 2,400 to 2,800 cubic centimeters, which it claimed restricted competition and was “tailor-fitted.”

The BAC denied the allegation, saying the city has the authority to set technical specifications within government guidelines and that several vehicle models met the requirements.

NAMCO also questioned the eligibility of the winning bidder, alleging that it failed to meet some technical requirements and lacked sufficient local service support.

The BAC rejected the claims, saying the winning bidder complied with the required specifications and provided certifications covering warranty, maintenance services, insurance, registration, and spare parts availability.

The company further argued that the city could have saved around ₱7.18 million if its bid had been considered. The BAC maintained that since NAMCO had already been declared ineligible, its financial proposal could no longer be evaluated.

The committee also questioned NAMCO’s procedure in challenging the disqualification, saying the company should have first filed a motion for reconsideration before the BAC instead of directly sending a letter to the mayor.

According to the BAC, the failure to follow the required process caused the disqualification decision to become final.

Both parties continue to maintain opposing positions, with NAMCO alleging that the BAC improperly prevented the evaluation of its bid, while the committee insists that the disqualification was supported by procurement rules. The matter remains unresolved pending action from the appropriate authorities or courts.