SINCE the enactment of Republic Act (RA) 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act, all public biddings have been open, competitive and public. Although well-intentioned, this approach only enabled fly-by-night contractors and officials to dominate the system and extensively rig bids by underpricing, using substandard materials or even ghosting projects altogether.
Thus, the country’s reputable construction firms — EEI, MDC and DMCI — hesitate to participate in government biddings because the system is prone to skimming and collusion. What was promoted to be democratic and transparent became an avenue for institutionalized corruption instead.
Take Bacoor, Cavite, as an example. A recently constructed 100-square-meter (sqm) multipurpose hall there reportedly cost P9.8 million, or about P98,000 per sqm. That figure is overpriced, since private firms ordinarily peg the standard cost between P25,000 and P35,000 per sqm. The current procurement system is not working since the accreditation process does not promote the highest performance levels. History offers a compelling lesson. During Singapore’s early years, then-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew demanded that only highly vetted construction firms were recruited to implement major infrastructure projects, such as highways, power grids, railways and ports. These firms were reliable and professional, and have an excellent track record in public projects. The result? Infrastructure that contributed to Singapore’s rise as the region’s financial hub.
By contrast, the Philippines has over-democratized the public bidding process, opening the gates to “cong-tractors” and carpetbaggers. They collude and corner small- to big-ticket projects while delivering shoddy, unsafe and substandard infrastructure for a quick buck. Just try asking why renowned engineering firms do not participate in government projects.
How many flood control facilities, roads and bridges have collapsed due to such irregularities? In Isabela, the Cabagan-Santa Maria Bridge collapsed in February 2025 after an overloaded truck passed through the 990-meter bridge, which cost taxpayers P1.22 billion to construct and had been pending since 2014. Imagine P1.22 billion for less than a 1-kilometer bridge! In Baguio, Mayor Benjamin Magalong disclosed that even rock netting projects that can prevent landslides were priced at P25,000 per unit when they only cost P4,300, while solar lampposts were overpriced by P157,000 per unit, despite market prices being closer to P48,000.
With all these overpriced public works, our national debt of P7.7 trillion in 2019 surged to P16.7 trillion by 2025 and is projected to peak at P20 trillion in 2026. So far, Sen. Panfilo Lacson computed that the anomalous flood control projects reached a cumulative sum of P1.3 trillion from 2022 to 2024, causing a big hole in the nation’s coffers. Baon na tayo sa utang (We’re already buried in debt)!
The country’s public bidding system is just rigged by the same actors. There is no comprehensive, integrated database that tracks bidders’ performance history. There are no records of past failures, incomplete projects and reckless behavior. Economists call this “information asymmetry,” in which the government enters into a contract without sufficient knowledge of the party it is transacting with, resulting in inefficiencies, adverse selection and abuse.
In the Philippines, there are still a smorgasbord of bidders, with government officials complicit in selecting incompetent contractors to deliver public works projects. In developed nations like Malaysia and South Korea, however, governments adopt variations of a “round-robin” or selective contracting model for big-ticket projects, engaging only well-established and credible firms, rather than an open bidding. Hindi pwede ang “hawsiao” (phony)! The results speak for themselves. Public infrastructure in these countries is widely regarded as among the world’s engineering marvels.
RA 12009, or the New Government Procurement Act, which amended RA 9184, has expanded other modes of procurement other than competitive, open bidding. These now included limited source bidding, competitive dialogue, unsolicited offer with bid matching and direct contracting. More importantly, the new law moved away from the rigid “lowest cost bid” rule, which became an excuse to select the lowest bid but of poor quality. RA 12009 now introduced the Most Economically Advantageous and Responsive Bid, which emphasizes the bidder’s quality, sustainability, social impact, technical merit, delivery time and post-award services, alongside the price.
Still, the legal loopholes are abused by officials to exploit the bidding system in favor of their preferred contractors and connive in stealing public funds. This experience has left many Filipinos furious, dismayed and disillusioned.
The shift to selective, accredited public bidding to separate the wheat from the chaff is high time. It is urgent to establish a curated shortlist of the best contractors that will replace the chaotic free-for-all system that rewards rent-seeking over competence and performance. Until we make this shift, the rigged public bidding will continue to bleed the nation dry, and solving corruption will indeed take several lifetimes.