If the BAC can cancel the procurement project pursuant to Section 35.6, for justifiable reason other than the 4 mentioned in the Section:
a) the physical and economic conditions have significantly changed so as to render the project no longer economically, financially, or technically feasible, as determined by the end-user unit;
b) the project is no longer necessary as determined by the end-user unit;
c) the source of funds for the project has been withheld or reduced through no fault of the PE; or
d) brought about by the declaration of a State of Calamity, or implementation of community quarantine or similar restrictions.
Further, if the BAC can refund the bidding fees since the cancellation cannot be attributed to the bidders.
No. However, there are some lose ends in "d" which makes the ground, not entirely exclusive.
Although there is no express provision on the refund of bidding document fees for cases falling under Sec. 35.6, it is my humble submission that the same principle may be applied. If the bidder is not at fault to the premature termination of the process, the bidder may be entitled to the refund of bidding document fees.
Thanks sir for the input, confused lang since ang wordings ng provision is
Without prejudice to Sec. 35.1 hereof, the BAC is authorized, upon consultation with the end-user unit, to cancel or terminate the conduct of procurement activities, for any justifiable reason, such as but not limited to: xxx
Without prejudice to Sec. 35.1 hereof, the BAC is authorized, upon consultation with the end-user unit, to cancel or terminate the conduct of procurement activities, for any justifiable reason, such as but not limited to: xxx
No worries.
“Without prejudice to” simply translates into “Without affecting” the provisions of Sec.35.1.
“Without prejudice to” simply translates into “Without affecting” the provisions of Sec.35.1.
Actually Sir, it's the "Such as but not limited to:" clause, if we are only limited to those 4 options (a to d).
I apologize if I added confusion. I stand corrected. If the provision has the phrase “such as but not limited to” calls for the application of ejusdem generis, a principle in statutory construction. The enumeration is not exclusive but the condition must be of the same “class”, arising from a common ground.
So if your question is whether the 4 conditions are exclusive, the answer is: it is not. But the other condition not enumerated must be of the similar nature.
So if your question is whether the 4 conditions are exclusive, the answer is: it is not. But the other condition not enumerated must be of the similar nature.