Asst. Provincial Agriculturist Dr. Larry Pamugas denies owning the lights and sound firm involved in providing services to the Provincial Government of Bohol (PGBh).
In a telephone interview on Saturday, April 10, 2021, Dr. Pamugas said that he does not own the firm mentioned in the post of staunch provincial administration critic Willy Ramasola.
In a post on Friday, April 9, 2021, Ramasola alleged that the lights and sound company, Ompoi Disco Mobile, based in Alburquerque, is owned by Dr. Pamugas.
The allegation insinuates that there is conflict of interest in the choice of Ompoi Disco Mobile, as the firm is allegedly owned by Dr. Pamugas who is also a member of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC).
The document, which is a Notice to Proceed, posted by Ramasola indicates that the owner of Ompoi Disco Mobile is a certain Daisybell Ansalan Pamugas.
Ramasola also posted a copy of the Purchase Order where the end user indicated is the PGBh’s Center for Culture and the Arts Development (CCAD).
The total cost of the contract between the PGBh and Ompoi Disco Mobile is P129,600.
It was not indicated in the Purchase Order which events the pieces of equipment rented from the said lights and sound firm were used.
PAMUGAS’ SIDE
Dr. Pamugas is one of the members of BAC of the PGBh, which is led by Provincial Legal Officer Nilo Ahat.
He told the Tribune that his sister-in-law owns a lights and sound rental firm named Decibel.
He added that Ompoi is owned by a distant relative, however, he cannot determine the relationship level, whether or not the relationship is already beyond third degree.
The Bohol Tribune reached out to Ahat to get his comments on the issue.
Ahat said that he is going to take a hard good look on the issue by scrutinizing the documents related to the matter raised by Ramasola.
Off hand, Ahat said that it is the job of the Technical Working Group (TWG) that determines whether a bidder is eligible or not. The BAC only determines whether or not the bidder has submitted the complete documents.
Normally, Ahat said, the eligibility of a bidder is determined during the post qualification procedure which is performed by the TWG.
OPINION
In an opinion of the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) dated October 12, 2015, it said in relation to a bidding involving the Occidental Mindoro State College (OMSC),“Whether a bidder is prohibited to participate in a bidding opportunity if one of its corporate officers is the sibling of a board member of the procuring entity, and whether the concerned board member can execute a notarized Letter of Intent to abstain from voting or participating in the deliberation for the award of contract. Section 47 of the revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9184 automatically disqualifies a bidder from participating in the procurement activities of a Procuring Entity when such bidder is related by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree to the Head of the Procuring Entity (HOPE), members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), the Technical Working Group (TWG), and the BAC Secretariat, the head of the Project Management Office (PMO), or the end-user unit, and the project consultants, if any. For purposes of State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), the HOPE pertains to its governing board, which is the Board of Trustees. “
“[T]he disqualification of bidders pursuant to Section 47 of the IRR of RA 9184 is based merely on the existing relationship between the bidder and the aforementioned procurement official. xxx. Hence, notwithstanding the inhibition made by the officers or employees concerned, the cause-and-effect link between relationship and disqualification is not severed by the supposed corrective measure,” the opinion adds.
Furthermore, it continues, “[T]he concerned bidder is automatically disqualified to submit a bid and to participate in any procurement contracts of OMSC since one of its officers, the Corporate Secretary, is related to one of the members of the Board of Trustees of OMSC by consanguinity within the third civil degree. The voluntary inhibition and non-participation of the identified Board of Trustee in the deliberation of the Board does not remove his blood relationship with one of the Directors of a would be bidder.”