HEAD OFFICE INTEGRATED SOLUTION FOR CLOSED ...

Manila, Philippines

BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE – HEAD OFFICE

INTEGRATED SOLUTION FOR CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM OR VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM THROUGH A SYSTEMS INTEGRATOR AT BSP HEAD OFFICE, QUEZON CITY, BSP DAVAO, CEBU AND LA UNION REGIONAL OFFICES, AND BSP BAGUIO AND PALAWAN BRANCH OFFICES

MINUTES OF PRE-BID CONFERENCE NO. 2020-070 28 October 2020

Present were:

Bids and Awards Committee – Head Office (BAC-HO): Regular Members Ms. Bella S. Santos - Chairperson Atty. Rhio D. Fuentes-Nuylan - Vice-Chairperson Ms. Ma. Regina R. Fajardo - Member Provisional Member Mr. Eduardo D. Evangelista, Jr. - Member (Technical) Atty. Danilo L. Natividad, Jr. - Member (End-user)/ Acting Deputy Director,

SSD End-User Representatives: Mr. Rodrigo I. Espina, Jr. - Manager, SSD Mr. June P. Galang - Manager, SSD Mr. Rhaymark C. Angeles - Admin. Services Officer III, SSD Procurement Office (PrO): Mr. Marbello L. Ebron - Manager Ms. Rojie Lynn Q. Martizano - Bank Officer IV BAC Secretariat: Ms. Maricris T. Anzaldo - Bank Officer IV Ms. Eugelyn Joy E. Aninang - Procurement Services Assistant Prospective Bidders

(Without Bidding Documents): Mr. Dave Corpuz - Actionlabs IT Services Phils., Corp. (Actionlabs) Mr. Gilzael Vida - Annex Digital Inc. (Annex Digital) Mr. Orson Vena Cruz - Annex Digital Mr. Rainer Buenafer - Astrid Defense Inc. (Astrid) Ms. Aireen Embuscado - Cylix Technologies Inc. (Cylix) Ms. Joan Villarin - Facilities Protection, Inc. (FPI) Mr. Ronald Beloy - Indra Philippines Inc. (Indra) Atty. Glenn De Guzman - iWave Advanced Research Group Inc. (iWave) Mr. Carlito Olondriz - iWave

of 12 Minutes of Pre-bid Conference No. 2020-070 dated 28 October 2020 SSD –Integrated Solution for Closed Circuit Television System or Video Surveillance System through a Systems Integrator at BSP Head Office, Quezon City, BSP Davao, Cebu and La Union Regional Offices, and BSP Baguio and Palawan Branch Offices, as per BSP Terms of Reference, ABC: Php320,000,000.00, VAT inclusive

Ms. Rosario Caballero - Main Hardware Inc. (MHI) Mr. Homer Cordero - Remax International Inc. (Remax) Mr. Miko Santos - Trends and Technologies Inc.(Trends) Ms. Rose Hernandez - Trends

The pre-bid conference for –

Complete Project Name

One (1) lot Supply, Delivery, Installation and Commissioning of Integrated Solution for Closed Circuit Television System or Video Surveillance System through a Systems Integrator at BSP Head Office, Quezon City, BSP Davao, Cebu and La Union Regional Offices, and BSP Baguio and Palawan Branch Offices, as per BSP Terms of Reference

Approved Budget for Contract (ABC)

Php320,000,000.00, VAT inclusive

under BAC-HO-GS No. 2020-0640 dated 22 September 2020, was conducted online through videoconferencing/teleconferencing facility (Microsoft Teams) of the BSP, called to order at 08:00 A.M., and presided by Ms. Bella S. Santos, Chairperson, BAC-HO.

I. The Invitation to Bid and pertinent documents were presented:

A. Checklist of Requirements for Bidders (Checklist)

1. Eligibility and Technical Requirements Envelope (Envelope No. 1) 2. Financial Proposal Envelope (Envelope No. 2) 3. Documents Required from the Lowest Calculated Bidder (LCB) (Envelope No. 3)

B. Bid Data Sheet C. Special Conditions of Contract D. Terms of Reference (TOR)

II. Clarifications:

Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification Checklist: Envelope No. 1 Item No. 1./E-DOC1. Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) Platinum Membership

Emphasis Mr. Ebron reminded that documents under Annex “A” must be current and valid on the date of the submission and opening of bids. Among the prospective bidders present, Astrid mentioned that its application for current Tax Clearance Certificate and PhilGEPS membership is ongoing.


Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification Item No. 2./E-DOC2. Statement of the Bidder of all its Ongoing Government and Private Contracts

Emphasis Mr. Ebron emphasized the prescribed forms under this requirement: • Statement Form No. 1 – for

contracts not covered by Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

• Statement Form No. 2 – for contracts covered by NDA

iWave representative inquired if supporting documents are required to be attached.

It was clarified that supporting documents need not be attached.

Item No. 3./E-DOC3. Statement of the Bidder’s Single Largest Completed Contract (SLCC) similar to the contract to be bid

MHI representative informed that they are planning to participate with a partner as they do not have a similar contract amounting to at least 50% of the ABC, and inquired if the BSP can consider extending the deadline for submission of bids.

The request was noted and shall be considered. Changes in the schedule, if any, shall be issued through a bid bulletin.

FPI representative informed that they also do not have a similar contract amounting to at least 50% of the ABC, and inquired if the BSP can consider the following:

a. accepting multiple contracts with an aggregate amount of at least 50% of the ABC, or

b. Accept a contract on “security screening equipment” but with integration

Actionlabs, Annex Digital, Cyclix, Indra, iWave, Remax, and Trends informed that they can comply with the SLCC requirement, while Astrid seconded the requests of MHI and FPI as they are also awaiting updates from their principal/partner. Ms. Santos mentioned that since majority of the bidders can comply with the requirement, the BSP will not issue revisions therein. As for FPI’s second suggestion, the end-user replied that security screening equipment cannot be considered as “similar” to the subject project.

Item No. 4./E-DOC4. Computation of Net Financial Contracting Capacity (NFCC); or Committed Line of

Emphasis Mr. Ebron emphasized that, should bidders opt to submit a CLC, said document should indicate that it is specifically for the subject project. He also reminded if bidding as a


Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification Credit (CLC) Joint Venture (JV), the partner who

will submit the NFCC shall likewise submit the Statement of All Ongoing Contracts (Item No. 2 of the Checklist) and Audited Financial Statements.

Item No. 6/E-DOC6. Original Bid Security

Emphasis Mr. Ebron discussed the acceptable forms of bid security. It was clarified that submission of unnotarized Bid Securing Declaration (BSD) is allowed, subject to submission by the Lowest Calculated Bidder of the notarized BSD, or any other prescribed form under Section 27.2 of the 2016 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9184 under Envelope No. 3.

Item No. 7/E-DOC7. Omnibus Sworn Statement (OSS) of the bidder

Emphasis Mr. Ebron mentioned that the prospective bidders may submit an unnotarized OSS on bidding date, provided that a notarized OSS shall be submitted after award but before payment.

Item No. 8/E-DOC8. Requirement for Foreign Bidders

Astrid representative inquired if the BSP has a list of acceptable “relevant government offices”.

Ms. Santos replied that the submittal may come from any applicable government agency of the foreign bidder’s country. It was also mentioned that bidders may opt to provide a copy of legislation allowing foreign bidders to participate in their government procurement.

Item No. 9./E-DOC9. Proof of Appointment of Bidder’s Authorized Representative/s

Reminder The prospective bidders were advised to use the prescribed form and were reminded that all required information should be present in their submittal. Also, PrO clarified that the word “initial” refers to a short version of the signature of the bidder’s authorized representative.

Astrid representative, who may bid under a JV

Ms. Santos clarified that if the JV is already formed, the JV can submit


Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification agreement, inquired if all their appointed representatives shall be required to sign in all the pertinent documents.

one proof of appointment; however, if the JV is yet to be formed, all partners must submit the required document. She also mentioned that bidders may submit their own format, however reminded that the submittal should include the specimen signature/s of all the authorized representatives. Ms. Santos also reminded the bidders to be careful in the wordings of the document, specifically if multiple representatives are authorized to sign singly or jointly. If the document does not specify, the BSP shall assume that all representatives are required to sign jointly.

Astrid representative inquired if the company/firm’s board resolution is required to be submitted.

Ms. Santos clarified that the company/firm’s board resolution is not required to be submitted. Remax representative requested that the clarification be issued through a bid bulletin. Ms. Santos replied that issuance of said clarification through a bid bulletin is not necessary, as no revisions were made in the BSP’s requirement.

Item No. 11./E-DOC11. Duly accomplished and signed BSP-supplied Evaluation Matrix (BSPSEM)

Clarification PrO clarified that the BSPSEM has 13 pages. It was also emphasized that bidders shall indicate their actual offer under Column 2 (i.e., indicating “same”, “similar”, etc. shall be considered as not acceptable) and indicate there in the respective document/reference under Column 3 of the BSPSEM form.


Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification Astrid representative inquired on the submittal if the required specification is not included in the product brochure.

PrO replied that the prospective bidders may refer to Item No. 12 of the Checklist.

MHI representative requested for a soft copy of the BSPSEM for easy accomplishment.

The end-user granted the request. Ms. Santos reminded the prospective bidders not to revise any detail in the BSPSEM.

(Page 7 of 13, Item (d)(1)) Annex Digital representative inquired on the specification “1/8” CMOS Sensor”.

SSD clarified that the specification shall be revised into “1/2.8” CMOS Sensor”.

(Page 8 of 13, Item 5(a)(1)) Annex Digital representative inquired if the BSP can include Windows platform on the requirement, “The NVR [Network Video Recorder] shall be a Linux embedded unit xxx”.

SSD clarified that the specification shall be revised into “xxx Linux/Windows xxx”.

(Page 8 of 13, Item 5(a)(2) and (3)) Annex Digital representative commented that the required SATA ports and storage capacity are contradicting with those stated in the Bid Cost Sheet (BCS).

SSD mentioned that the BCS reflects the minimum requirements for hard disk drives based on in-house calculations. It was clarified, however, that bidders are given the option to provide additional hard disk drives, depending on their offered NVR, to be able to meet the required recording at 1 megapixel resolution and thirty (30) frames per second as stated in the TOR.

Item No. 13/E-DOC13. Notarized certification from the bidder stating the following:

a. That it has an authorized technical support center/office in

Astrid representative mentioned that its proposed principal/partner is a foreign entity without a technical support center/office in Metro Manila. It was inquired if BSP will accept a

SSD clarified that the bidder should already submit its technical support center/office in Metro Manila on bidding date, (e.g., it should already have an existing partner). In addition, it was clarified that the


Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification Metro Manila with spare parts, equipment, tools and factory trained technicians who are competent and qualified to provide maintenance services; and

b. That it has been in operation for at least fifteen (15) years

commitment from the bidder stating that it will establish a technical support center/office in Metro Manila upon award of contract for the subject requirement.

requirement for being in operation for at least fifteen (15) years is for both the bidder and the technical support center/office.

iWave representative commented that bidders having partners with regards to technical support center/office is a form of subcontracting, which is not allowed under the Procurement Law.

The BAC clarified that it would not be considered as subcontracting as the requirement is for an authorized technical support center/office.

Item No. 14/E-DOC14. List of at least two (2) reference sites of successfully implemented similar completed contract from Y2017 to present

Astrid representative inquired if the BSP is amenable to revising the required period to “from Y2015 to present” to be consistent with the SLCC requirement.

SSD maintained the requirement and explained that projects completed in Y2015 may no longer be present considering technology advancement. In addition, the pertinent contact persons involved in the contract may no longer be employed under the client.

Astrid representative inquired if the reference sites should also amount to at least 50% of the ABC.

Ms. Santos replied in the negative.

Annex Digital representative inquired on contracts under NDA.

Ms. Santos replied that the BSP should be able to validate the reference sites. As such, the proposed clients should be open to said validation.

Item No. 16/E-DOC16. Notarized list of at least ten (10) similar completed contracts from Y2017 to present, regardless of amount, and complete with the following details: a. name of client and

address; b. name of the project;

and; c. name of contact

person, number and

Trends representative inquired on the difference between the requirements under Item No. 14 and 16 of the Checklist.

SSD clarified that Item No. 14 is a sample/showcase of what the bidder has already done. On the other hand, Item No. 16 is being required to ensure that the bidder is a credible systems integrator. As such, SSD widened the scope under Item No. 16, (i.e., including integrations on “consulting, technology implementation and operations involving financial services or


Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification email address.

The projects may include consulting, technology implementation and operations involving financial services or public administration.

public administration”). It was clarified that the reference sites under Item No. 14 may be included in the list of projects under Item No. 16.

Trends representative inquired if the term “similar” should therefore be deleted under Item No. 16.

SSD clarified that the requirement is still for similar projects, and as such, the term shall not be deleted. SSD further clarified that the projects under Item Nos. 3 and 14 should be strictly within the definition of a similar contract, as described under Item No. 3. Projects under Item No. 16, however, need only be similar in terms of integration, thus, the wider scope.

MHI representative asked for confirmation that building management systems with FDAS is acceptable under Item No. 14 as the same is included in the definition of a similar contract under Item No. 3.

SSD replied in the affirmative, with clarification that said project should involve integration with a command center.

Astrid representative commented that not all bidders have projects involving financial services.

Ms. Santos clarified that Item No. 16 merely states financial services as an option, as the requirement states that the projects may include consulting, technology implementation and operations involving financial services or public administration.

Checklist: Envelope No. 2 Item No. 1/F-DOC1. Financial Bid Form

Reminder Mr. Ebron reminded the prospective bidders to ensure that the bid amount in figures is the same as the bid amount in words.

Emphasis Mr. Ebron emphasized the items under “Important Notice” in Page 2 of the Financial Bid Form.

Annex Digital Ms. Santos clarified that the


Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification representative inquired if their offer should also be within the indicated total amount per location.

indicated amount per location is only indicative. As such, the bid offered per location need not be lower than said amounts. Only the total bid should not exceed the total ABC.

Item No. 2/F-DOC2. Bid Cost Sheet Summary and Breakdown of Cost per Area

Reminder The prospective bidders were reminded not to revise any detail in the forms.

Item No. 3/F-DOC3. Indicative Maintenance Cost for the next five (5) years for the major components

Clarification It was clarified that the Indicative Maintenance Cost is not part of the project contract price. However, the maintenance cost for the next five (5) years after the warranty period should not exceed 10% of the acquisition cost per component.

TOR Integration FPI representative

commented that the TOR does not specify the need for integration.

SSD clarified that the seven (7) sites should be integrated into the command center. It was also stated that the details regarding the required integration are indicated in the TOR.

Other Requirement/s Submission of Bids Inquiry by the BAC on the

preferred mode of bid submission (i.e., manual or electronic)

The following prospective bidders informed their preference to submit bids manually:

Annex Digital Cylix FPI iWave MHI Remax Trends

Indra informed that it shall submit its bid electronically, while Astrid and Actionlabs stated that they are yet to decide on the manner of bid submission.

Reminders on the modes of submission of bids

Manual Submission of Bids PrO emphasized that the prospective bidders shall submit


Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification two (2) sets (original & photocopy) of Envelope No. 1 and Envelope No. 2. It was also emphasized that the manual Financial Bid Form including all attachments (if any) shall be signed/initialed/e-signed by the bidder or bidder’s authorized representative/s on each and every page and that failure to do so shall be a ground for rejection of the bid.

Electronic Submission of Bids

The following were emphasized: 1. Bidders shall submit Envelope

No. 1 and Envelope No. 2 in separate zipped folders with different passwords (i.e. one password for Envelope No. 1 and another password for Envelope No. 2).

2. Passwords shall be known only to the bidder or its duly authorized representative/s and shall not be disclosed to any BSP Personnel before the opening of bids.

3. Bids which are not in compressed or zipped folder (use 7-zip compression tool) and those without electronic key or passwords shall be considered unsealed bid submission and not complying with the two factor security procedure, and hence, shall be rejected during the opening of bids.

4. The Electronic Financial Bid Form including all attachments (if any) shall contain the e-signature of the bidder’s authorized representative/s on each and every page. Failure to


Item Issue Remark/Response/Clarification do so shall be a ground for rejection of the bid.

Ocular Inspection Clarification SSD clarified that bidders who purchased bidding documents may conduct site inspection in the BSP Head Office and Quezon City. As for the BSP Regional Offices/Branches, SSD will conduct a table-top discussion in the BSP Head Office, wherein the plans of said buildings will be shown. The prospective bidders were requested to advise if they will be conducting the site inspection and table-top discussion. Only two (2) representatives per bidder shall be allowed. SSD mentioned that they are available on 29 and 30 October 2020.

Remax representative inquired if the BSP will issue the building plans to the bidders.

SSD replied in the negative and clarified that bidders may examine said plans during the table-top discussion.

FPI representative inquired if the BSP requires test results with regard to COVID-19.

The BAC clarified that submission of COVID test results are not required. Further Ms. Santos informed that the prospective bidders, however shall be required to accomplish health declaration forms.

III. Other Matters:

The prospective bidders were advised to use the prescribed forms and were reminded

that all the information/provisions indicated therein should be present in their submittal, especially if the prescribed forms will be reproduced.

For the documents which require notarization, the prospective bidders were reminded to provide all the required details/information, (e.g., project name, especially those indicated in the notary public portion, e.g., government-issued ID and signature).

The prospective bidders were also reminded of the submittals needed to be signed by the authorized representative/s.

The BAC requested the prospective bidders to submit their additional questions on or before 03 November 2020.


The schedule of the submission and opening of bids for the subject requirement remains on 09 November 2020, 1:00 P.M.

A bid bulletin shall be issued containing the clarifications/revisions on the bidding documents as discussed in this pre-bid conference1.

The pre-bid conference was adjourned at 10:48 A.M.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

SGD MARICRIS T. ANZALDO

Bank Officer IV, BAC-Secretariat

SGD

CRISTY JANE A. BULAO Acting Manager, BAC-Secretariat

Approved by: SGD

BELLA S. SANTOS Chairperson

SGD

RHIO D. FUENTES-NUYLAN Vice Chairperson

SGD

MA. REGINA R. FAJARDO Member

SGD

EDUARDO D. EVANGELISTA, JR Member

SGD

DANILO L. NATIVIDAD, JR. Member (End-user)/

Acting Deputy Director, SSD

1 Pursuant to Section 22.4 of the 2016 Revised IRR of RA 9184, “xxx Decisions of the BAC amending any provision of the Bidding Documents shall be issued in writing through Supplemental/Bid Bulletin at least seven (7) calendar days before the deadline for the submission and receipt of bids”.

HEAD OFFICE INTEGRATED SOLUTION FOR CLOSED ...

Documents

Transcript of HEAD OFFICE INTEGRATED SOLUTION FOR CLOSED ...