Court denies TRO of RCDG in IBT issue
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has denied the application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a special civil action case filed by the joint venture of RCDG Construction Corporation and R.U. Aquino Construction and Development Corporation against Mayor Celso Lobregat and the City’s Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) relative to the Integrated Bus Terminal project.
In a 7-page decision penned by RTC Branch 17 Judge Tibing Asaali, the Court said that after due consideration of the arguments and contentions of the parties, it has decided that the prayer and or application of a TRO filed by the joint venture is not meritorius. “The TRO prayed for should be dismissed/ set aside.”
The case stemmed from the decision of the city government to cancel the notice of award it issued to the joint venture RCDG Construction and R.U. Aquino Construction, earlier declared to be the winning bidder for the P180 million IBT project.
Citing recommendations from the City Legal Office, Mayor Lobregat in his notice to cancel the award last August 10, stressed that the contractor did not submit important documents/ statements of all its on-going and completed government and private contracts within the relevant period, where applicable, including contracts awarded but not yet started if any, as required under the “Guidelines for the Procurement and Implementation of Contracts for Design and Build Infrastructure Projects”.
During the Court hearing last Friday, October 2, the city government reiterated that there was misrepresentation made by the petitioner-joint venture to the IBT project citing the Basilan, Zamboanga del Norte and Navy projects.
In its petition before the RTC, the joint venture argued that the city’s decision to recall and cancel the award “was done after the notice of award had already been issued to the joint venture”.
The city claimed that the “right to review the joint venture’s qualification at any stage of the procurement process, is exercised if it has reasonable ground to believe that a misrepresentation has been made or that there has been a change in the prospective bidder’s capability to undertake the projects from the time it submitted its eligibility requirements”.
The city likewise stated that the bidder who committed misrepresentation or an eligible bidder whose capability to undertake the project has been changed from the time it submitted its eligibility requirements, the same shall be considered ineligible and disqualified, hence shall be disqualified from obtaining a contract.
It was also stressed that had the Joint Venture included all its ongoing projects in its technical documents, the BAC could have checked the performance of the contractor on the three questioned projects. “The BAC as mandated could have disqualified the RCDG during its post qualification conducted on January 25-31, 2009 as these ongoing Naval projects show a reported negated slippage of at least 15 percent or substandard quality or work or unsatisfactory performance of his obligations.”
During the hearing, Atty. Manuel Mariano, representing the BAC also volunteered that Dimson Manila, the second lowest bidder has already been disqualified and that with its disqualification the petition for TRO becomes moot and academic.
“This being so, there is nothing to restrain because what was prayed for by the petitioner in this case restraining the technical working group from conducting the post qualification proceedings and form awarding the contract to Dimson was already concluded,” the Court said. (Sheila Covarrubias)