cso/ngo module in the philgeps - asian development bank€¦ · civil society can be seen as that...

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

The views expressed herein are those of the consultant and do not necessarily represent those of ADB’s members, Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

Project Number: 42537 June 2012

CSO/NGO Module in the PhilGEPS (Financed by PATA 7244-PHI: Strengthening the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System Prepared by Transparency and Accountability Network Philippines

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. ADB encourages printing or copying information exclusively for personal and noncommercial use with proper acknowledgement of ADB. Users are restricted from reselling, redistributing, or creating derivative works for commercial purposes without the express, written consent of ADB.

of 13

CSO/NGO Module in the PhilGEPS User definition and requirements 1. Introduction The participation of non-state actors in monitoring public procurement has been in place prior to Republic Act 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA) of 2003. The Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991 for example require non-government organizations (NGOs) to be voting members of the pre-qualification bids and awards committee (PBAC), a local special body in the local government units (LGUs) that procures for that LGU (provinces, cities, and municipalities).1 The GPRA shifted the role of NGOs from being members to observers that are mandated to submit reports to the head of procuring entity (HOPE) as well as to other offices.2 Aside from the observer role of NGOs, the IRR of the GPRA also recognized NGOs as possible service providers under negotiated procurement (Sec. 53.11). The government also identified under Administrative Order No. 17 series of 2011 the development of monitoring tools within PhilGEPS for CSOs as a means to improve procurement services. Defining civil society organizations/non-government organizations (CSOs/NGOs) Civil society can be seen as that space between the state, family, and market where a mélange of autonomous organizations are formed by people with common interests. The Asian Development Bank defines civil society to “refers to groups distinct from the government and the private sector who operate around shared interests, purposes, and values. Civil society organizations (CSOs) encompass a wide range of organizations, including nongovernment organizations (NGOs); community-based organizations (CBOs); and people’s organizations (POs), mass organizations, professional associations, labor unions, private research institutes and universities, foundations, and social movements.”3 In the Philippines, the more common terms like NGOs, people’s organizations (POs), sectoral organizations, and CBOs are all examples of CSOs. For this report, the term CSO/NGO will be used to capture the nuance between: first that CSOs cover a wide range of autonomous organizations outside the state, market, and families which includes NGOs; and second, the legal or those that Philippine laws recognize as NGOs, which are important stakeholders in government operations. The “users” for a proposed CSO/NGO module in the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) would refer to all types of CSOs with a special attention given to NGOs’ needs in participating, monitoring and/or observing public procurement. Under Philippine laws, these NGOs are those that are non-stock, 1 Aside from the LGC, there is also the Presidential Decree No. 1594 and Executive Orders No. 262 and 40 series of 2000 and 2001 respectively. 2 Some of the reasons cited for the shift include the need to give full independence to the NGOs, shield them from harassment, and also to reduce concerns about “familiarity” of NGOs to the PBAC or BAC members. 3 ADB, http://www.adb.org/site/ngos/overview.

of 13

non-profit voluntary organizations/domestic corporations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or a cooperative registered with the Cooperative Development Authorities (CDA) that are committed to socio-economic development.4 This report will be divided into the following parts:

1. Proposed objectives of a CSO/NGO module 2. User requirements/definition 3. Issues and concerns 4. Conclusion and recommendation

2. Proposed objectives of a CSO/NGO module in the PhilGEPS Consistent with the GPRA’s declared policies, the CSOs/NGOs in the PhilGEPS should be created to increase transparency, accountability, and public monitoring of public procurement. Specifically, it should help in ensuring transparency in the process, improve the integrity of the process and competition, and serve also as an accountability mechanism. Consequently, the module would have features that allow access to procurement information required by law to be posted publicly, follow the procurement activities online, access as an observer documents posted by bidders, post observers report as a feedback to the HOPE and other relevant government agencies, and an ability to contribute in the exchange and sharing of information for policy improvements. 3. User requirements/definition The Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN) in 2009 commissioned the La Salle Institute of Governance (LSIG) to develop a deployment matching software for CSO monitors in public procurement. The software matches the government’s bidding activities with observer’s interest and schedule that generates for the government a list of CSOs to invite and to the CSOs a list of procurement relevant to their advocacies, interest, and availability. The software module was pilot tested but was not continued for lack of funding support for further development. For the proposed CSO/NGO module in the PhilGEPS, the following suggestions come from the experience of TAN in developing the software, interview with an e-governance expert, a focus group discussion with CSOs that have observed public procurement, meetings with PhilGEPS, CSO observers report templates used, and desk researches on electronic procurement.5

4 The Government Procurement Policy Board’s “Guidelines on Non-Government Organization Participation in Public Procurement” define NGOs as “A Non-Governmental Organization or NGO refers to a non-stock, non- profit domestic corporation duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or a cooperative duly registered with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) committed to the task of socio-economic development and established primarily for providing goods and services to the public.” Annex “A” of GPPB Resolution No. 12- 2007, dated 29 June 2007. 5 Mr. Sherwin Ona of the DLSU College of Computer Science which lead the team that developed the deployment matching software in 2009 was interviewed. The FGD participants included TAN, the

of 13

This section is mainly divided into two parts: the information requirements during registration in the PhilGEPS and those that CSOs would like to have access to; and the different functions that such a module should have. This will cover information needed for the registration of CSOs in the PhilGEPS, the information that CSOs see as important to have access to in public procurement, and the different functionalities that help CSOs’ work in monitoring public procurement. A. On information requirements/definition Access to information is still an obstacle for many CSOs who wish to monitor the procurement activities of government agencies. For them, if more procurement information are posted in the PhilGEPS, then access to information posted by buyers and suppliers would be one of the main reasons why they would register in a CSO/NGO module. They imagine the module helping them in observing specific procurement, as well as to monitor the performance of government agencies using procurement information. All the information though should be open to the public with a CSO/NGO module providing value-adding tools to better monitor a government agency. CSO/NGO module registration Organizations that wish to register in the CSO/NGO module can be further categorized to three (3) main types: NGOs, POs, and CBOs. Associations of professional individuals/groups, corporate foundations, private research centers, and the like can be classified as NGOs with many of these possessing SEC registration. These NGOs often operate at the national, local, and even international levels providing specific services including support to POs and CBOs. People’s organizations on the other hand are often sectoral in nature and operate at the local level. These POs are often accredited/registered with LGUs and NGAs in the implementation of programs and projects or to represent their sector in special bodies. At the community level, there are also loosely organized groups of individuals advancing their interests and recognized by barangays. Table 1. Minimum registration requirement for different types of CSOs

Categories of CSOs Minimum registration requirement* NGOs SEC or CDA POs NGAs or with LGUs CBOs LGUs

* Can be a required field in the module During the registration process in the CSO/NGO module, the corresponding proof of registration based on the table above can be required to complete their registration in PhilGEPS. The different CSOs will have to indicate their corresponding registration numbers or possibly attach a scanned copy of their certificate of registration with government agencies.

Ateneo School of Government’s G-Watch, the Institute for Political and Electoral Reforms (IPER), and the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP).

of 13

Aside from those required above, the regular organizational profile requirements can be part of the registration process. These information includes the name of the organization, name of the authorized representative and head of agency, mailing address, telephone number, email address, and if available the website of the agency. Further sub-categorization can include an indication whether they operate at the national, regional, or within a specific LGU only. A brief description of the CSO can also be a field during the registration in the module. The CSOs indicated also that the registration process should include a process by which CSOs can identify the agencies and type of procurement that they would like to focus on. The CSOs can also indicate their schedule and availability to observe procurement activities. From this registration alone, the public agency would be able to generate a list of CSOs that they can invite to observe their procurement. CSO access to PhilGEPS information For CSOs, there are important documents they need to be able to effectively observe and monitor a public procurement. These are obtained either through the BAC of the procuring entity, desk research (e.g. newspapers, websites of procuring entity, PhilGEPS, other websites), field research (i.e. SEC or online for supplier/s information), or those shared by other sources. Some of the key documents that CSOs already try to obtain are the following:

• Minutes of the BAC meetings; • Bid notice abstract; • Bid Bulletin/s; • Post qualification summary report; • Annual Procurement Plan (APP) and Project Procurement Management

Plan (PPMP); • Opened proposal; • Notice of Award; and • Contracts

Specifically, CSOs gather detailed information from the above documents to effectively assess the procurement. The information gathered are recorded in an observer’s report that are submitted to the Head of Procuring Entity (HOPE), and other government agencies like the GPPB and Ombudsman. The table below shows some of the information gathered by CSOs for their observer’s report: Table 2: Information gathered by CSOs for observer’s report Detailed information Procurement profile 1. Name of procuring entity

2. Project name 3. Purpose 4. ABC 5. PhilGEPS Reference number 6. PhilGEPS Posting date 7. Type of procurement 8. Method of procurement

of 13

Pre-procurement 9. Funding source 10. Specifications 11. Project plan information (e.g. target schedule, objectives, expected outputs

and outcome, etc.) 12. Criteria for eligibility screening, evaluation, and post-qualifications

Pre-bid conference 13. Bidders that attended 14. Bidders that bought bid documents 15. List of documents to be submitted 16. Submission requirements (i.e. date, time, place, manner, etc.)

Submission of bids 17. Bidders that submitted bids 18. Whether the submitted bids complied with the requirements for

submission Opening of bids 19. Name of bidder whose bids where opened

20. BAC decisions on each opened bid (pass/fail on requirements) Bid evaluation 21. Name of bidder and amount of bid

22. Reasons for disqualifications 23. Name of bidder that intends to file a motion for reconsideration

Post-qualification 24. Proof of validation of the requirements (i.e. licenses and permits, competence, experience, equipment, testing, financial capacity, bid security, etc.)

25. Reasons for disqualification Awarding of contract 26. Compliance with requirements for awarding (i.e. BAC resolution, notice

of award, posting of performance security) 27. Name of winning bidder and reason 28. Contract implementation details (i.e. cost estimates, target dates/schedule,

quantities, etc.) Within PhilGEPS, there are information that are openly available to the public without the need to log-in. The abstract of bids posted already contain all the basic procurement information needed by CSOs while the award notices contain the basic information on the winning bidder, important dates associated with the procurement activity, contract amount, and dates of implementation. More information can be accessed once registered in the PhilGEPS system. Attached documents to bid and award notices can be downloaded after log-in, more query functions can also be performed to better locate a particular procurement, and an auditor accounts allows access to a detailed tracking report (DTR) of a particular procurement. The DTR contains the history of all the activities registered with the procurement in the system including their dates, statistics, names of suppliers that participated, postings, and attachments. B. On functionalities The CSOs identified the following three functionalities that they would like to see in a CSO/NGO module in the PhilGEPS. • Matching and notification – this would allow the CSO to focus on the agency

and procurement that they would like to monitor and be notified of the activities.

• Exporting and searching the database - involves an ability to query the database of agencies (buyers), their procurement and its activities, and the suppliers, and to export the results for CSOs researches and reports.

of 13

• Feedback – CSOs would also like to be attach/generate/send their observer’s report in the system.

Matching and notification In 2009, a Deployment Matching Software was developed and pilot tested by TAN as an independent platform to match CSOs’ preferences in monitoring procurement and the available procurement information (see figure below). The main objective of the software is to assist in improving the deployment of CSOs as observers while at the same time helping public agencies readily generate a list observers that they can invite. The software was developed independent of the PhilGEPS with the software notifying CSOs of procurement activities inputted in the system. For the CSO/NGO module in PhilGEPS, the CSOs see the value of having a similar matching and notification functionality that would benefit both the public agencies and the CSOs in terms of increasing participation. The registration process for the CSOs would involve CSOs identifying their focus agency, ABC, location, type of procurement, and availability. The CSO/NGO module would then return to the CSOs through email notification any procurement activity that matches their preference. For the buyers (government agencies), this functionality would allow them to check (or generate) a list of CSOs with knowledge, expertise, and time vis-à-vis the procurement. This functionality would notify CSOs through email or an inbox in the system of an activity match in the CSOs preference. Once CSOs have decided to monitor a particular procurement, the CSO/NGO module would also notify them of procurement activities like pre-bid conferences, opening of bids, post-qualification, and awarding, among others.

TAN’s Deployment Matching Software model (Powerpoint presentation, March 13, 2009)

of 13

Database query and Exporting data Visitors to the PhilGEPS can query the open opportunities and awards posted using keywords and/or by indicating the location, type, and date of posting. The directory of suppliers can only be accessed if the user is logged-in. Attached documents to bid notices and awards are also only available once registered. For CSOs, a more open framework in accessing information is preferred (i.e. without the need to register). If registration is required, such a CSO/NGO module should have value-adding functions that can help ease querying the database like more query options and the ability to export the results. Off hand, the CSO/NGO module should allow access to and query of registered suppliers in the PhilGEPS. Access to the attached documents and DTR of each procurement should also be included in the CSO/NGO module. Presently, the government requires that all opportunities, notices, awards, and contracts be posted in PhilGEPS.6 If complied with, the CSO/NGO module should allow access to these documents and if included, notices like bid bulletins, supplementary bids, and contract’s program of works and cost estimates. In the future, a more comprehensive electronic procurement system should allow CSOs to access APPs and PPMPs, BAC minutes, requirements submitted by suppliers, and opened proposals. Feedback CSOs record their observation in a report and submit this to the HOPE and if needed to the GPPB and the Ombudsman. The CSO/NGO module should be a tool that can help CSOs access information for this report and submit the same. The observer’s report can be uploaded as an attached document to a particular procurement. It can serve as an input to the BAC and HOPE before a contract is awarded/approved. It is also helpful to CSOs if the module can serve as a platform for CSOs to better coordinate procurement monitoring work by allowing each access to a history of procurement observation work conducted by each CSO. This platform can also generate insights on the most common procurement observation and help improve procurement processes. The next section presents how the CSO/NGO module and its possible features can assist CSOs in monitoring procurement through the observer’s report. C. Observer’s report The following are sections of template observer’s report being developed by the Government Procurement Policy Board-Technical Support Office (GPPB-TSO) and TAN for a Procurement Observers Guide under a World Bank project.7 The tables contain the information that CSOs currently need to observe public procurement. The 6 Administrative Order 17, series of 2011. 7 “Improving the Quality and Responsiveness of Public Spending in Poor Communities through Localized Procurement Reform”, Grant No. TF 093563.

of 13

CSO/NGO module feature refers to functions that are desirable8 to have to easily fill-up the observer’s report. Although it is possible to have an observer’s report template in the system that is automatically filled-up by the system, for now the recommendation vis-à-vis the observer’s report, is for PhilGEPS to allow and aid access to information needed in accomplishing this report.

From the table above it is important for CSOs to be able to query the PhilGEPS database based on the name of the procuring entity, the name of the project, purpose, ABC, the PhilGEPS reference number, date of posting, type of procurement, and the method of procurement.

Access to the PPMP or APP of the agency if available in the PhilGEPS would help the CSOs determine whether the procurement is consistent with the development plans (i.e. for LGUs) and approved budget of the agency. It will inform the observer of any changes made especially in the method of procurement while the BAC minutes would provide information about the reasons for the changes.

8 Some if not many of the information needed in the report are not provided by the buyers and sellers and are not yet part of those gathered by the system.

CSO/NGO Module feature/s

Procuring Entity: Project Name: Purpose: ABC: PhilGEPS Reference Number and Posting Date:

• Query the database based on buyer name, procurement title, ABC, PhilGEPS reference number, and date of posting

Type of procurement: [ ] Goods and Services [ ] Infrastructure [ ] Information Technology [ ] Consulting Method of procurement: [ ] Public Bidding [ ] Shopping [ ] Negotiated [ ] Direct Contracting [ ] Limited Source [ ] Repeat Order

• Query the database based on the type of procurement and method of procurement

CSO/NGO Module feature/s

Stage of Procurement (1) Pre-Procurement

Funding Source: Are the specifications clear and generic? Are the project plans complete? Are the criteria for eligibility screening, evaluation, and post-qualification clear?

• Access to APP and PPMP

• BAC Minutes

of 13

The BAC minutes and DTR would be able to provide information about the bidders as well as the history of any notice issued under the procurement. It will help CSOs identify the bidders that are participating/buying/accessing bidding documents and conduct additional research. Access to these documents would also provide insights into possible irregularities in the bidding documents (e.g. tailor-fitting, appropriateness of method of procurement, etc.). The information accessed can help in conducting field research (i.e. SEC and DTI papers, BIR, etc.).

CSO/NGO Module feature

(2) Pre-Bid Conference Date:

Bidders Present Bought Bid Docs

• Access to detailed tracking report

• Access to BAC minutes

• Access and query the database of suppliers

• Access to bid notices


(3) Submission of Bids Date:

Name of Bidder Submitted Bids Passed / Complying Yes No Yes No

• Access to detailed tracking reports


• Access to bid bulletins



(4) Opening of Bids

Name of Bidder Passed Failed





(5) Bid Evaluation

Intent to file Motion for

Reconsideration

Name of Bidder

Bid Amount

Reason(s) for Disqualification

Yes No

• Access to opened proposals/bid




of 13

If BAC minutes are posted online as well, this would help CSOs understand why bidders are disqualified/failed during the opening and evaluation of bids. CSOs can conduct additional background checks on the bidders including possible misrepresentation and conflict of interests.


(6) Post-Qualification

Requirements Validated Reason(s) for Disqualification Bidder: Licenses & Permits Competence Experience Equipment Product Testing Bid Security NFCC

• Access to opened proposals/bid



• Access to post-qualification summary report


Access to the supplier’s information in the PhilGEPS, post-qualification report, and DTR can help CSOs determine whether the procurement followed the right process and calendar. It will also help in conducting an independent post-qualification of the winning bidder and determine any conflicts of interest, possible collusion, and incorrect declaration of capacity (e.g. equipment, financial, etc.). Access to contracts will also help CSOs who wish to conduct contract implementation monitoring.


(7) Awarding of Contract

Requirements Submitted BAC Resolution Recommending Award Abstract of Bids Program of Works and Cost Estimates Posting of Performance Security Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable

• Access and query notice of awards

• Access to contracts • Access and query the

database of suppliers • Access to detailed

tracking report

of 13

4. Issues and concerns The following are the issues and concerns raised regarding a CSO/NGO module in the PhilGEPS:

1. Institutionalizing access to information – political changes affect access to information and whether registered or not in the PhilGEPS, the political dispensation of the government affect compliance of agencies to posting information. CSOs stress the need to institutionalize access to information and if a CSO/NGO module in the PhilGEPS is implemented, a mechanism that will institutionalize access should be put in place at the start of its implementation. One of those identified is the passage of a Freedom of Information Act, another is a similar legal mechanism that would ensure CSOs access to procurement information in the PhilGEPS. A more open data framework is preferred by CSOs with the module providing additional value-adding functions like notifications and report generation.

2. Availability of information – many of the procurement documents that are

required to be publicly available are not posted in the PhilGEPS. Procurement information is available from different sources and many of the government agencies (i.e. NGAs, cities, SUCs) also have their own websites where procurement activities and documents are posted. Compliance to PhilGEPS posting is still an issue with many of the notices of awards still not posted. The government is currently exerting efforts to increase compliance and until such time that more information becomes available in the PhilGEPS, a CSO/NGO module might be scarcely used for the purposes that CSOs want it to be.

3. Evolving PhilGEPS’ knowledge management capacity – CSOs expressed the

need for PhilGEPS to continue evolving from being a repository of procurement information to one that improves procurement processes using ICT. Currently, there is still a need to evolve the intuitiveness of the different functions in the PhilGEPS so that it can facilitate efficiency of access. For CSOs, if more information are posted in the PhilGEPS, this would not just help them in their monitoring work but also help them in generating researches that can contribute in improving procurement policies towards more transparency, accountability, efficiency, and participation.

of 13

5. Conclusion and recommendations A CSO/NGO module in the PhilGEPS has the potential of increasing CSO participation in procurement. CSOs that currently monitor procurement see the value of such a module especially if there is increased compliance and more information are posted in the system. CSOs observe the different stages of procurement and many of the information from the different stages are not yet covered by the currently deployed system.9 Concurrent with the development of the CSO/NGO module, the government needs to continually improve the capacity of its agencies in using/maximizing the system, enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement processes, increase the credibility of public procurement to suppliers, and institutionalize access to information. Similar to other IT systems, the implementation of a CSO/NGO module based on the requirements of CSOs can be accomplished incrementally. After sufficient user acceptance tests and bug fixes, PhilGEPS can roll out the different features of the CSO/NGO module based on the following:

1. All features currently available for non-registered users, registration of CSOs with menus to filter preferred agencies, type of procurement, ABC, and geographic area/s (i.e. provinces) together with the notification function for any matching procurement activity.

2. Access and query of the directory of buyers and suppliers, registered CSOs, attached documents, and PhilGEPS reports including the DTR

3. Posting of observer’s report in the PhilGEPS and exportable query results 4. User page for each CSO containing a calendar that matches their availability

with procurement activities including the notification function 5. User interface for the online fill-up of observer’s report, generation, and

submission

9 Other e-procurement systems (e.g. e-payment, e-bidding, e-bid submission, among others) are either in the testing stage or still limitedly rolled out.

ANNEX

Sample diagnostic report template

Procuring Entity: Project Name: Purpose: ABC: PhilGEPS Reference Number and Posting Date: Type of procurement: [ ] Goods and Services [ ] Infrastructure [ ] Information Technology [ ] Consulting Method of procurement: [ ] Public Bidding [ ] Shopping [ ] Negotiated [ ] Direct Contracting [ ] Limited Source [ ] Repeat Order

Stage of Procurement Observer Observations

[Cite RA 9184

provision/s]

Date

(1) Pre-Procurement

Funding Source: Are the specifications clear and generic? Are the project plans complete? Are the criteria for eligibility screening, evaluation, and post-qualification clear?

(2) Pre-Bid Conference Date:

Bidders Present Bought Bid Docs

(3) Submission of Bids Date:

Name of Bidder

Submitted Bids

Passed / Complying

Yes No Yes No

ANNEX

(4) Opening of Bids

Name of Bidder Passed Failed

(5) Bid Evaluation

Intent to file Motion for

Reconsideration

Name of Bidder

Bid Amount


Yes No

(6) Post-Qualification

Requirements

Validated


Bidder: Licenses & Permits Competence Experience Equipment Product Testing Bid Security NFCC

(7) Awarding of Contract

Requirements Submitted

BAC Resolution Recommending Award Abstract of Bids Program of Works and Cost Estimates Posting of Performance Security Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable

cso/ngo module in the philgeps - asian development bank€¦ · civil society can be seen as that...

Documents