Ayala Land plea for more time to challenge SM rejected

Pasay City has rejected a request from Ayala Land Inc. to give it 60 more working days to challenge SM Land Inc.’s 300-hectare reclamation project proposal, making it “next to impossible” for the former to meet the deadline to submit a viable counter-proposal on Monday.

In a press briefing Thursday, ALI chief operating officer Bobby Dy said his company was “surprised and quite disappointed” with this development, especially as recent public-private partnership (PPP) projects being undertaken by the Aquino administration had allowed several extensions of the bidding process to attract as many qualified bidders as possible.

For its part, SM Land—which now has the upper hand in the pursuit of its P54.5-billion unsolicited proposal to reclaim 300 hectares with 153 hectares going to the Pasay City government—said it had no comment on the matter.

“We’re reviewing all options at this point,” Dy said, when asked whether going to court was an option.

Asking for reconsideration from the Pasay City local government unit (LGU) is likewise an option, Dy said, adding that ALI felt its request was “reasonable” and that Pasay will benefit from having as many qualified bidders as possible.

ALI admitted, however, that it sees little leeway to match SM Land’s unsolicited proposal by the deadline on Monday.

“This is a 300-hectare reclamation project. We are a developer. We do a lot of projects and even something as simple as building a house takes more than 30 days to come up with a design and cost estimate. So coming up with a well-thought out proposal within the next four-five days would be, I guess, next to impossible,” Dy said.

In a letter dated Oct. 29 to ALI, Pasay City legal officer Severo Madrona Jr. said the invitation to submit a counter-proposal—published last Oct. 1—had expressly required submission on or before Nov. 4, 2013 following a 30-day period of submission of comparative proposals.

Madrona said the procedure was guided by a legal opinion from the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) recognizing the discretion of a local government unit to implement joint venture projects pursuant to its own determination of the appropriate rules.

Following the DILG opinion, the city government said it had adhered to the guidelines set by the National Economic Development Authority in dealing with an earlier unsolicited project involving a 60-hectare reclamation project.

“As pointed out by SM Land in its comment (to ALI’s request), we cannot just change the rules in mid-stream to favor a party. Thus, much to our regret, we cannot grant your request for extension of time to submit counter-proposal without exposing ourselves to charges of violating or bending the rules to favor your company,” Madrona said.

Because ALI had no presence in the Manila Bay area, Dy said ALI had not heard of Pasay City’s reclamation plan until mid-October when the invitation for competing proposals was published.

On the requirement that the challenger must have experience with a reclamation project involving at least 120 hectares, Pasay City said this was intended to ensure that the proponent would have “sufficient relevant experience” to undertake the project.

Citing documents submitted, the LGU said SM Land had completed a project of such magnitude—the 141-hectare Central Business Park 1 Island A (referring to the Mall of Asia complex which was a joint venture with the Philippine Reclamation Authority).

If it would be given more time to come up with a viable counter proposal, ALI can choose to team up with another party with relevant reclamation experience. It said it  had started such discussions.