The Baguio City Council has called on the executive department to present the final development plan of the Ibaloi Heritage Park to be reviewed by the local legislative body before the project commences.
The request arose from a discussion during the city council’s regular session on August 19, 2024, where council members questioned whether the final development plan that is with the executive department aligns with the concept presented previously.
Councilor Betty Lourdes Tabanda noted that the city council had provided suggestions concerning the local, indigenous, and cultural elements of the project design. She added that the city council wanted to verify whether these suggestions had been incorporated into the final development plan.
Tabanda pointed out that the project had undergone many consultations but the final output had not yet been presented to the city council.
Councilor Mylen Victoria Yaranon pointed out discrepancies between the initial plan and the one being discussed. She mentioned certain changes such as the removal of the stage and toilets and the addition of a two-story structure. She said these details are a deviation from Arch. Keenan Camilo’s plan which proposed the conversion of the old stage into a museum and the addition of other structures but not a two-story building.
Yaranon emphasized that the city council had neither approved the final plan nor officially sanctioned the changes in the design, countering claims that the approval had already been granted. She deemed it necessary to present the final plan to the city council before moving forward with the project. She pointed out that this step had been agreed upon to prevent any future problems or misunderstandings, ensuring that the city council has the opportunity to review and approve the final design.
Atty. Rhenan Diwas, head of the City Environment and Parks Management Office (CEPMO), explained that there were initially two plans for the park’s development: one from the city’s architects and another from Arch. Keenan Camilo, a local architect from the Ibaloi community. Following the initial presentations, there were suggestions to merge and reconcile the two plans. The combined plan was later presented at an executive-legislative meeting. However, despite three attempts by Diwas to request a formal presentation before the city council, these efforts were unsuccessful due to unforeseen circumstances.
Diwas stressed that the final plan is the result of a collective decision made by the Ibaloi community through consultations, underscoring that he respects the community’s choice to include certain elements in the project. He stated that it was not his place to challenge the community’s collective decision or to impose his own ideas or designs over theirs.
Diwas expressed willingness to present the final development plan of the park to the city council for review.
Vice Mayor Faustino Olowan said it might be too late to bring up new issues or concerns about the project as significant progress had already been made. He warned that further questioning at this point could “derail” or delay the project, stressing that too much scrutiny might hinder its progress.
Yaranon clarified that she does not oppose the project and that she only wanted to ensure that facts were properly stated.
Olowan suggested a middle ground by proposing that the city council listen to the CEPMO’s presentation and ask them to submit whatever plans or documents are needed for review. Since the project had not yet fully started, he said there is still an opportunity for the city council to review and provide input without halting the project entirely.
The city government initially estimated the project cost at around P78,127,700.00. This amount served as the baseline figure.
City Administrator Bonifacio Dela Pena, chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), explained that bidders are granted a markup of 18% according to the law, noting that bids coming in that are significantly lower than the estimate (even as low as P1.00 or free of charge) are permissible and do not disqualify the bidder. According to the city administrator, this differs from previous rules under then President Fidel Ramos where 10% lower than the estimate were disqualified.
Dela Pena said the project had undergone two bidding stages. The first bidding was unsuccessful due to issues identified by the city’s technical working group. Initially, four bidders were disqualified due to eligibility concerns. Colby Construction, one of the disqualified bidders and a Baguio-based company, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was reviewed on August 14, 2024.
The company’s original bid was P71,485,290.00 which was P6.6 million lower than the city’s estimated cost. However, after re-evaluation by the BAC’s Technical Working Group (TWG), it was found that there was an overestimation of P1.44 million in the bid in terms of foreman cost. The company corrected this error and agreed to an adjusted bid of P70,043,392.50. This adjustment resulted in approximately PHP 8 million in savings for the city government.
In their re-evaluation, the TWG noted that the 1,797 calendar days for the foreman proposed by the company exceeds the actual project duration of 382 calendar days.
Dela Pena also clarified that, of the P70 million winning bid, 60 million is allocated for the development of Ibaloi Park, while the remaining 10 million is designated for the enhancement of Igorot Park.
The project was already awarded a few days ago and Mayor Benjamin Magalong already signed the Notice of Award (NOA). The contractor has 10 days to comply with requirements upon receipt of the NOA.
Tabanda sought confirmation that the procurement process for this project adhered to the principles of transparency and fairness and was strictly in accordance with the procurement law.
In response, newly appointed City Accountant Fredda Jimenez clarified the technical working group’s responsibilities are limited to evaluating bids and conducting post-qualification checks. She explained that the TWG submits their evaluation to the BAC.
Jimenez emphasized that while the TWG adheres to procurement procedures in their evaluation process, the ultimate decision rests with the BAC.
Councilor Benny Bomogao questioned the role of the TWG and argued that their role should only involve validating the statements and documents provided by contractors without altering the bid amount of terms. He emphasized that asking a contractor to reduce their bid amount after submission may violate the No Contact Policy before the Notice of Award.
Bomogao further referenced Section 34 of the procurement rules which states that the post-qualification process should be a straightforward pass/fail assessment based on the bid’s compliance with requirements
“You cannot alter the bid. Even the BAC cannot request the bidder to reduce the amount of their bid,” Bomogao stated.
In response, Jimenez clarified that during the post-evaluation, the TWG’s role is limited to verifying financial statements and legal documents without modifying bid amounts. She explained that the TWG had identified that the contractor’s proposed manpower days were excessive and that this information had been passed to the BAC members who are responsible for making the final decision.
According to Dela Pena, if a bidder’s bid contains errors or is not well studied, it could lead to problems. He argued that if a bidder admits to mistakes, such as exceeding calendar days, it might justify disqualification. But if the bidder is willing to correct the mistake by reducing the bid amount, the bid may be accepted as long as it is advantageous to the city government, he said.
“If we disqualify bidders due to deficiencies, no bidder will ever qualify. For the record, all bidders always have some deficiencies,” Dela Pena said.
He further stressed that the BAC’s decision-making process involves collective judgment rather than just the chairman’s decision.
Bomogao asserted that allowing changes or deductions from the bid could set a “dangerous precedent.”
Given the legal and procedural concerns, Bomogao requested a review of the procurement process conducted by the BAC to ensure compliance with the Government Procurement Reform Act (Republic Act No. 9184). This motion was referred to the city council’s Committee on Laws, Human Rights, and Justice.
Olowan emphasized that the city council had already enacted an ordinance creating a project monitoring council which is tasked with overseeing and ensuring the welfare of projects being implemented by the city government. He expressed confidence that the project monitoring council would effectively address and manage the oversight of these projects.
Given that the project spans over a year or 382 calendar days, the city council members expressed concern that the funds for the project might be reverted if they are not spent within the required time frame.
Dela Pena and Diwas assured the city council that fund reversion would not be an issue and that the project would continue through 2025 and into 2026.
Diwas mentioned that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) had issued a circular that offers local government units greater flexibility in managing their funds, extending the allowable usage period for funds beyond the end of December. He said the new DBM circular significantly reduces or even eliminates the risk of fund reversion for the project. **Jordan G. Habbiling
