Given its inherent role as a venue for redress of people?s grievances, Congress is where disgruntled businessmen usually go to lodge their complaints after failing to bag contracts for projects that state agencies bid out. The complainants usually demand the voiding of the bidding results on the ground, claiming they have been rigged.

Lawmakers would lend a sympathetic ear to the complainants and after being briefed about their problem and given pertinent documents, they are led to believe that there is something fishy about the deal. Sensing an opportunity to play graft-buster, they will next issue a statement to the media and/or deliver a privilege speech denouncing the ?scam.?

In fairness to our legislators, they are generally motivated by the desire to root out graft and corruption in government when they take on the task of exposing what they see as anomalies and spearheading a probe.   But in their zeal to look for the ?culprits,? they fall into the error of opening their mouth too soon, shooting first without getting all the basic facts and without hearing the side of the public officials and other parties concerned.

In many instances, the purported irregularities would turn out to be false?merely fabricated by the losing bidders in a desperate bid to grab a piece of the project or to get back at the people who spurned their bid. Unfortunately, as a consequence of the allegations?unfounded or otherwise ?raised by the sore losers, the projects are derailed. And who ultimately get hurt but the intended beneficiaries?

In this case, it is the farmers who should be benefiting.

There is a so-called P1.4-billion ?bidding scandal? at the National Irrigation Administration, involving the purchase of hydraulic excavators and other equipment intended to repair irrigation and drainage canals.  The aim is to expand the total area of rice lands to boost production and help the country attain the goal of making the country self-sufficient in the staple cereal.

  Administrator Carlos Salazar and other NIA officials can only shake their heads as some quarters are crying ?scandal? and discrediting the project as if it were another tainted transaction in the magnitude of the fertilizer fund scam.  There is actually no misdeed to speak of in the first place, the NIA chief asserts, as this project has yet to be awarded to any of the private bidders.

A check with the agency would show that the agency?s Bids and Awards Committee has not yet completed the evaluation stage of the procurement process for the equipment. Thus, it cannot even commence the post-qualification stage of the bid process, which is necessary before any award of government contract can be done?as provided under Republic Act 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

  According to the agency?s executives, some people are feeding false information to some lawmakers who are now questioning the equipment purchase. These people obviously belong to the groups that failed to qualify for the final stages of the bidding. They have mounted an offensive to cast aspersions on the qualified bidders from which the NIA is about to choose the winning one, to make it appear that this loser has been unduly elbowed out of competition despite its supposedly impressive credentials.

  Records show that seven companies submitted letters of intent to the NIA for the supply of hydraulics excavators and truck-tractors with trailer in response to the NIA?s invitation last December. These were Maxima Machineries, Inc. Civic Merchandising Inc., Transport Equipment Corp., Wilan Merchandising Phils., Transtar Corp., International Heavy Equipment Corp. and TKC Heavy Industries Corp.

Civic, Maxima, TEC and IHEC submitted their respective bids during the opening of the bids held Jan. 19.  Wilan and Transtar backed out from the bidding while TKC did not submit either a bid or a letter of withdrawal.

The NIA-BAC found Civic and TEC to have complied with the eligibility requirements for the bidding.  However, Maxima and IHEC were found to be ineligible for the bidding because of their failure to comply with certain documentary requirements such as the registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Maxima submitted an expired business permit while IHEC gave an expired tax clearance. The BAC reconsidered its position on Maxima?s failure to submit a valid business permit after the firm presented a certification from the Quezon City business permit and licensing office, which stated that its mayor?s permit for 2008 was valid and effective up to the last day of payment of taxes and fees on Jan 20. Subsequently, Maxima and IEC filed a motion for reconsideration but the BAC reached a decision turning down these appeals within the seven-day period prescribed under the implementing rules ad regulations of RA 9184.

As required under the law, the BAC returned the bids of Maxima and IHEC unopened. But instead of filing a protest within the seven day period, Maxima took a different route by filing a case against NIA, its BAC and Civic before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court.

  Regarding Maxima?s claim that the BAC imposed stringent rules on the bidders, particularly in requiring them to have at least 25 years of experience as dealer of heavy equipment, NIA officials emphasize that this involves a hefty amount. The agency is just being prudent by ascertaining that the winning bidder is chosen from among the A-l companies with extensive and credible record in this line of business.

  On the alleged overpricing of the purchase, the NIA claims this has no leg to stand on since the cost estimates submitted by the qualified bidders were actually below the Approved Budget for the Contract set by the NIA while that of the disqualified bidder was not.

  The NIA is also being faulted for supposedly accommodating, instead of rejecting outright, the two qualified bidders?TEC and Civic? despite questions concerning their financial capabilities. This is another ?non-issue,? according to Administrator Salazar, because the post-qualification assessment has yet to be conducted by the BAC and it has yet to wrap up the bidding process on account of the legal action taken by Maxima.

  Assuming that TEC and Civic fail to pass the final assessment of their financial standing, the NIA administrator says that the BAC will have to declare a failure of bidding and go back to square one, which means holding another public bidding. But what saddens the NIA officials is that, with the bidding process now on hold due to the court action by one of the disqualified bidders, the agency?s irrigation projects are similarly on hold, thus imperiling the government?s food production and security program.

f_maragay@yahoo.com