loader image
Skip to main content

Propose Amendments to R.A. No. 9184

Propose Amendments to R.A. No. 9184

by Jessie Salvador -
Number of replies: 2

Amending R.A. No. 9184 will be a priority when the Congress resumes session. Which section or sections do you think should be amended and why? Are there sections that should be inserted or added as well? Feel free to share.

In reply to Jessie Salvador

Re: Propose Amendments to R.A. No. 9184

by Elloisa Perez -
Good evening sir,

1. Is it possible to consider the limit of extensions of contract both for goods and infrastructure under Competitive Bidding?

2. Why does the extension of contract not much elaborated in Goods and Services under Competitive Bidding instead Amendment to Order? Is an Amendment to Order a simple letter stating the relevant facts regarding the changes or is it the same with the Addendum to the Contract Agreement?

Thank you in advance sir.
In reply to Elloisa Perez

Re: Propose Amendments to R.A. No. 9184

by Jessie Salvador -
  1. There were recent guidelines about contract extensions. Please check the GPPB Resolution No. 06-2022 prescribing the guidelines for renewal of regular and recurring services.
  2. Extension of contract is equivalent to entering into another contract without going through the procurement process, particularly public bidding. (See Capalla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 201112, 13 June 2012). This is more of an exception than the rule that is why this is not encouraged. (See Caltex Ph. v. Delgado Bros., 96 Phil. 368, 375) Amendment to order is also limited so as not to be abused. This is to avoid entering into a contract (after bidding) for specific goods and then substantially amending the contents thereafter. This practice is unfair and forbidden. In Agan v. PIATCO, 402 SCRA 612, 654, the contract with substantial amendment was declared void.