Scribd
Upload
108 views2 pages

NPO-BAC Misconduct in Bidding Process

The case involves Marietta Maglaya de Guzman as the petitioner against the Office of the Ombudsman and Bestforms, Inc. regarding the disqualification of Bestforms from public bidding for printing services. The Ombudsman found the members of the National Printing Office Bids & Awards Committee guilty of grave misconduct for failing to comply with procurement regulations under RA 9184. The ruling emphasized the BAC's gross negligence in adhering to legal requirements, undermining transparency and accountability in government contracts.

Uploaded by

Legal Office
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views2 pages

NPO-BAC Misconduct in Bidding Process

The case involves Marietta Maglaya de Guzman as the petitioner against the Office of the Ombudsman and Bestforms, Inc. regarding the disqualification of Bestforms from public bidding for printing services. The Ombudsman found the members of the National Printing Office Bids & Awards Committee guilty of grave misconduct for failing to comply with procurement regulations under RA 9184. The ruling emphasized the BAC's gross negligence in adhering to legal requirements, undermining transparency and accountability in government contracts.

Uploaded by

Legal Office
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

MARIETTA MAGLAYA DE GUZMAN, Petitioner

vs.
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND BESTFORMS, IN CORPORATED,
Respondents
G.R. No. 229256

Facts:

National Printing Office Bids & Awards Committee (NPO-BAC) conducted competitive
public bidding for the printing of accountable forms of the Land Transportation Office
(LTO). Private respondent Bestforms, Inc. and Readyform, Inc. (RFI) secured the
awards in the said public biddings.

Thereafter, Bestforms, Inc. was disqualified to participate in any bidding conducted by


the NPO and its ongoing printing transactions were likewise cancelled.

Subsequently, Bestforms, Inc. instituted an administrative complaint against the NPO


officer-in-charge, and the members of the NPO-BAC before the Office of the
Ombudsman, alleging that the NPO officers and RFI knowingly and willfully conspired,
colluded, and connived with each other to manipulate the award of the printing
contracts to the latter.

The Ombudsman found the BAC members guilty of grave misconduct and ordered them
dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits

According to the Ombudsman, the NPO-BAC failed to show that it: a) conducted a pre-
procurement conference prior to the biddings pursuant to Section 20 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations Part A (IRR-A) of RA 9184; b) sent written
invitations to the Commission on Audit (COA) and to two (2) observers to attend the
biddings in accordance with Section 13.1 of the IRR-A; c) advertised the Invitation to
Apply for Eligibility to Bid (IAEB) in a newspaper of general nationwide circulation for
the period mandated by the law.

Issue:

Whether or not the BAC members are liable for grave misconduct for the failure of the
NPO-BAC to comply with the requirements under RA 9184 for limited-source bidding
and negotiated procurement.

Ruling:

The NPO-BAC failed to comply with the procedural requirements for limited source
bidding and negotiated procurement.
In the IRR-A of RA 9184 specifically directs that, for purposes of a negotiated
procurement based on a take-over of contract, the procuring entity must negotiate first
with the second and third lowest calculated bidders, and in the event that the
negotiations fail, the procuring entity is precluded from directly awarding the
contract.
The members of the BAC grossly disregarded the law and were manifestly remiss in
their duties in strictly observing the directives of RA 9184. Such gross disregard of
the law is so blatant and palpable that the same amounts to a willful intent
to subvert the clear policy of the law for transparency and accountability in
government contracts.

You might also like