ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 01-5-03-SC.December 11, 2001]
RE: PURCHASE OF 1,500 COMPUTER UNITS AND PERIPHERALS
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 11 2001.
A.M. No. 01-5-03-SC (Re: Purchase of 1,500 Computer Units and Peripherals.)
"The court Resolved to NOTE (a) the Memorandum dated 23 November 2001 of the Committee on Bids re Progress Report on Procurement of Computers which reads as follows:
Chronology of events
1. As per Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc promulgated on September 18, 2001, the award for the supply of 1,500 units of personal computers and peripherals was awarded to Fujitsu Philippines, Inc. (FPI).
2. In a letter dated September 20, 2001, the Committee on Bids required FPI to post a performance bond equivalent to 10 percent of its bid or a surety bond equivalent to 30 percent of its bid, within seven days from its receipt of said letter.
3. In aletter dated September 24, 2001, FPI requested an extension of seven days to post the required bonds because:
a. Since the submission of its proposal, "the price validity of [FPI's] proposals have already expired."
b. The dollar exchange rate had already changed since FPI submitted its bid.
c. FPI still had to consult with its foreign principals to arrive at a final decision on the prices and models it would offer.
4. In a letter to Atty. Luzviminda D. Puno, Clerk of Court, En Banc, dated September 24, 2001, Columbia Computer International Corp. (CCI) protested the award to FPI.CCI was the resulting first-rated bidder for the subject procurement as per the bidding conducted by the Committee on Bids.
5. In a letter to Atty. Puno dated September 25, 2001, CCI requested the Court to strictly implement the two-envelope system adopted for the bidding where CCI emerged as the first-rated bidder.
6. In a meeting between the Committee on Bids and representatives of FPI on September 24, 2001, FPI was granted an extension up to October 12, 2001 to post the required bond.No further extension would be granted.In the same meeting, the Committee resolved as follows:
a. FPI will not be allowed to increase its bid price.Specifications may be upgraded should the original specifications in the FPI proposal be no longer available.
b. The Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator shall provide FPI the list of the addresses, with street location, of the recipient courts.
c. Advance notices shall be sent to the Clerks of Court of the recipient courts regarding the delivery dates of the equipment.
d. Inspection Teams will be activated to be composed of representatives of the Management Information Systems Office (MISO), the Property Division, the Internal Audit Division and the Commission on Audit resident auditors (if available).Two teams will initially be informed.The teams will install the necessary additional software, inspect/test the equipment, place property seals, etc. at FPI's warehouse before deployment to the recipient courts.
e. Delivery is targeted to be completed 115 working days (consisting of 45 days' lead time and 70 days for delivery) from FPI's receipt of the Purchase Order.Deliveries shall be done in batches but the Supreme Court will be given priority due to the urgent need of the offices.The inspection teams will submit progress reports to the Computerization Committee, copy furnished the Committee on Bids.
f. The Committee on bids furnished FPI with the Terms and Conditions of the purchase for its guidance and information.
7. In a letter dated October 10, 2001, FPI requested assistance from the Committee on Bids for the release by the Government Service Insurance System of its Performance bond.In its meeting on October 12, 2001, the Committee resolved to so assist FPI.
8. FPI submitted its Performance Bond on October 17, 2001.
9. In a letter dated October 17, 2001, FPI submitted its revised specifications for the computers.The specifications mentioned that the computers will be provided with the software MS Works Suite 2001.The Supreme Court specifications required MS Word 2000.
10. In a letter dated October 17, 2001, CCI advised the Committee that MS Works Suite 2001 is different from MS Word 2000.Additionally, CCI claimed that the price difference between its bid and FPI's bid is equivalent to the difference between MS Works Suite 2001 and MS Word 2000 for the 1,500 units of computers.
11. In a letter dated October 23, 2001, FPI provided the Committee with a letter from Microsoft Philippines stating that Microsoft Works Suite 2001 includes Microsoft Word 2000 and requested permission for FPI to provide Microsoft Works Suite 2001 instead of Word 2000.
12. In a letter dated October 24, 2001, the MISO forwarded to the Committee the same letter from Microsoft Philippines mentioned above with the note that MISO has not able to obtain a copy of Works Suite 2001 for testing as the product "can only be acquired on 'order' basis and would take some time to deliver."
13. In a letter dated October 24, 2001, CCI reiterated its protests against the award to FPI and insisted that the award should have been given to CCI instead of FPI.
14. In a letter dated October 26, 2001, FPI provided its list of revised specifications which it would supply atthe price it originally quoted in its bid submission.The revisions were an improvement from the original specifications and complied with the Supreme Court specifications except for the video card described as follows (emphasis added):
Required specification�������������� Proposed specification
Video�� 128-bit graphics���������������������� 64-bit graphics
Accelerator with 4MB������������� accelerator with 8 MB
Memory���������������������������������� memory
15. On October 29, 2001, the Committee met with representatives from FPI, CCI and Microsoft Philippines.In the said meeting, Mr. Samuel Jacoba of Microsoft confirmed that the version of Microsoft Word2000 provided with Works Suite 2001 is intended for home use only, but he committed that Microsoft Word 2002, an upgraded version of Word 2000.FPI, in the other hand, was informed that its proposal for the video card was unacceptable since the same was non-complaint with the Supreme Court's specifications.FPI informed the Committee that it would explore other options for the said component and it would communicate its position to the Committee soonest.
16. In a letter dated November 13, 2001, CCI informed the Committee that it would be able to supply computers complying with Supreme Court specifications at the price quoted by FPI.
17. No further communication having been had from FPI, the Committee in a letter dated November 14, 2001 gave FPI until November 16, 2001 to inform the Committee that it would be able to supply the required computer units as specified.
18. In a letter dated November 15, 2001, FPI informed the Committee that it would be able to provide the required computer units with Microsoft Word 2002 and a video card with 128-bit graphics accelerator and 4 MB video memory but at the increased price of P107 million instead of its original bidded price of P98 million.
Thus, far, the following issues have arisen:
1. Bundled software
Under the specifications, the winning bidder is to supply Word 2000 word processing software.FPI communicated, however, that the product is no longer marketed by the manufacturer, Microsoft.
Issue:�������������� FPI proposed to supply Windows Works Suite, which includes a version of Word 2000.Assessments by the SC-MISO, and information from a Representative of Microsoft, however indicated that the Word version Included in Works Suite does not comply with the specifications of the Supreme Court.
Resolution:����� In a meeting attended by representatives of (1) FPI, (2) Microsoft, and (3) Columbia Computers International (CCI), one of the bidders, the Microsoft representative agreed to supply FPI with Word 2002, the latest version of the program which complies with SC specifications, at a government discount.
2. Video graphics card
One of the specifications for the computers is that they should be equipped with a 128-bit graphics card.FPI informed the Committee, however, that the computers currently available in the market generally exceed the Supreme Court's original specifications, and that the computer package originally proposed by FPI is no longer manufactured.
Issue:�������������� FPI submitted a revised proposal a the price it originally submitted.The specifications of the new computer package are generally superior to the specifications of the Supreme Court except for the video graphics.While the Supreme Court requires a 128-bit video card, FPI proposes to supply computers equipped with 64-bit video cards.The Committee advised FPI representatives that it risks disqualification for non-compliance with SC specifications if it would insist on supplying the 64-bit video cards.
Resolution:����� FPI will provide a video card with 128-bit graphics accelerator and 4MB video memory, complying with the Supreme Court specifications.
3. Increase in price of FPI bid
The above-described changes made by FPI on its proposal resulted in a price of its bidded price.
Issue:�������������� From the original bit of Php 98 million, FPI now proposes to supply the computers at Php 107 million.
4. Proposal from CCI
Issue:�������������� CCI now proposes to supply the computers matching the price originally proposed by FPI and with units complying with SC specifications.
Considering the above, the Committee now request permission from the Chief Justice and/or the Supreme Court En Banc to meet with representatives from FPI and CCI to explore options for the supply of the 1,500 units of personal computers and peripherals.This will allow the committee to formulate appropriate recommendations unless the Court has other instructions.
Considering the apparent inability of Fujitsu Philippines, Inc. (FPI) to comply with its prestation relative to its awarded bid, and as requested by the Committee on Bids, the Committee is hereby authorized to forthwith ascertain or verify from Columbia Computer International Corp. (CCI) whether it is indeed willing, per its letter of 13 November 2001, to match the awarded bid of FPI and to supply the computers in accordance with the Court's specifications within the shortest possible time.The commitment of the CCI, as thus ascertained and verified, must be in writing and signed by a person duly authorized for the purpose.
The Court further Resolved to direct the Committee on Bids to submit its report on its aforementioned ascertainment or verification not later than 20 December 2001. Puno and Buena, JJ., are abroad on official business.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA
D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
