SUBIC BAY FREEPORT — The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) took exception to claims that the agency’s joint venture agreement with port operator Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. (HCPTI) would ease out cargo handlers operating in this free port.
According to lawyer Randy Escolango, SBMA deputy administrator for legal affairs, the agency’s existing contracts with port operators and cargo-handling firms here will be respected.
Moreover, he added that the SBMA-HCPTI agreement is still far from being considered a done deal.
“We have to clarify that the joint venture agreement between SBMA and Harbour Centre is not a final and executory contract, since the same is still subject to challenge by any interested party who may submit a better proposal,” Escolango said.
“If any other entity would successfully make a better offer under this so-called Swiss challenge, and if Harbour Centre were not able to match this, then that other entity will probably become the partner of SBMA in this project,” he added.
Escolango issued the clarification after the Abono party-list, in a paid newspaper advertisement, asked President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to look into the SBMA-HCPTI joint venture project allegedly for its “disadvantageous nature.”
The group averred that it has received complaints from cargo-handling firms in the Subic Bay Freeport that there was no due process in the SBMA-HCPTI deal, and that the latter will monopolize operations in the Subic port.
SBMA officials, however, pointed out that the agency simply acted upon an unsolicited proposal that HCPTI submitted on November 16 last year and accepted the proposal in accordance with the “2008 Guidelines and Procedures for Entering into Joint Venture Agreements between Government and Private Entities.”
These guidelines were devised by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and promulgated by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).
“However, such acceptance in accordance with the guidelines was only for the purpose of authorizing and directing the SBMA management to initiate negotiations with HCPTI for the detailed terms, conditions and scope of the proposed joint venture,” Escolango explained.
“After concluding negotiations with HCPTI, the SBMA thereafter signed a joint venture agreement with Harbour Centre on February 24 to document the approved negotiated terms for the proposed joint venture,” he also said.
The SBMA official also pointed out that the joint venture agreement itself contained provisions that the HCPTI proposal will be advertised by the SBMA for challenge by other interested parties.
The same agreement also stated that “should HCPTI fail to match the best/better offer within 30 working days from the endorsement thereof by SBMA to HCPTI, the development, management and operation of the joint venture areas will be awarded to the bidder with such best/better offer.”
Escolango likewise gave the assurance that the rights of existing cargo handlers will be respected, as the joint venture agreement provides that HCPTI operations will be undertaken “without prejudice to existing contractual obligations entered into by SBMA affecting certain areas covered by the Joint Venture Areas.”
The document also clearly excluded “wharfs/ports and/or cargoes covered by existing agreements involving SBMA,” Escolango added.
The process of Swiss challenge is expected to take 60 days to complete under the timetable provided by the guidelines. Added to this is the fact that there is an election ban for the award of projects subjected to bidding, Escolango said.
“In fact, the joint venture proposal has yet to be advertised for submission of comparative proposals, so it is quite hard to understand why some people already allege that the proposed joint venture is disadvantageous to the government,” Escolango said.
According to lawyer Randy Escolango, SBMA deputy administrator for legal affairs, the agency’s existing contracts with port operators and cargo-handling firms here will be respected.
Moreover, he added that the SBMA-HCPTI agreement is still far from being considered a done deal.
“We have to clarify that the joint venture agreement between SBMA and Harbour Centre is not a final and executory contract, since the same is still subject to challenge by any interested party who may submit a better proposal,” Escolango said.
“If any other entity would successfully make a better offer under this so-called Swiss challenge, and if Harbour Centre were not able to match this, then that other entity will probably become the partner of SBMA in this project,” he added.
Escolango issued the clarification after the Abono party-list, in a paid newspaper advertisement, asked President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to look into the SBMA-HCPTI joint venture project allegedly for its “disadvantageous nature.”
The group averred that it has received complaints from cargo-handling firms in the Subic Bay Freeport that there was no due process in the SBMA-HCPTI deal, and that the latter will monopolize operations in the Subic port.
SBMA officials, however, pointed out that the agency simply acted upon an unsolicited proposal that HCPTI submitted on November 16 last year and accepted the proposal in accordance with the “2008 Guidelines and Procedures for Entering into Joint Venture Agreements between Government and Private Entities.”
These guidelines were devised by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and promulgated by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).
“However, such acceptance in accordance with the guidelines was only for the purpose of authorizing and directing the SBMA management to initiate negotiations with HCPTI for the detailed terms, conditions and scope of the proposed joint venture,” Escolango explained.
“After concluding negotiations with HCPTI, the SBMA thereafter signed a joint venture agreement with Harbour Centre on February 24 to document the approved negotiated terms for the proposed joint venture,” he also said.
The SBMA official also pointed out that the joint venture agreement itself contained provisions that the HCPTI proposal will be advertised by the SBMA for challenge by other interested parties.
The same agreement also stated that “should HCPTI fail to match the best/better offer within 30 working days from the endorsement thereof by SBMA to HCPTI, the development, management and operation of the joint venture areas will be awarded to the bidder with such best/better offer.”
Escolango likewise gave the assurance that the rights of existing cargo handlers will be respected, as the joint venture agreement provides that HCPTI operations will be undertaken “without prejudice to existing contractual obligations entered into by SBMA affecting certain areas covered by the Joint Venture Areas.”
The document also clearly excluded “wharfs/ports and/or cargoes covered by existing agreements involving SBMA,” Escolango added.
The process of Swiss challenge is expected to take 60 days to complete under the timetable provided by the guidelines. Added to this is the fact that there is an election ban for the award of projects subjected to bidding, Escolango said.
“In fact, the joint venture proposal has yet to be advertised for submission of comparative proposals, so it is quite hard to understand why some people already allege that the proposed joint venture is disadvantageous to the government,” Escolango said.
