This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Public bidding, as a method of government procurement, is governed by the principles of transparency, competitiveness, simplicity, and accountability.[21] By its very nature and characteristic, a competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition and in order to avoid or preclude suspicion of favoritism and anomalies in the execution of public contracts.[22] Except only in cases in which alternative methods of procurement are allowed, all government procurement shall be done by competitive bidding.[23] | |||||
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Also, in Commission on Audit v. Link Worth International, Inc.,[53] the Court affirmed the respective decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals annulling the award of a procurement contract to a bidder whose technical proposal varied from the bid specifications. It appears that during the post-qualification stage, the Bids and Awards Committee of the Commission on Audit considered some factors in the verification and validation of the winning bidder's proposal which were extraneous to and not included in the bid documents.[54] Thus, the Court emphasized that the function of post-qualification is to verify, inspect and test whether the technical specifications of the goods offered comply with the requirements of the contract and the bidding documents. It does not give occasion for the procuring entity to arbitrarily exercise its discretion and brush aside the very requirements it specified as vital components of the goods it bids out.[55] | |||||