Open data

A PhilGEPS award is at least 50× the median of the same office's awards in the same business category and year. Compares each DepEd/DOH award with the median of the same procuring office, PhilGEPS business category and year (≥15 peer awards, award ≥₱20M). Reviewers reject cases where the title explains the scale (annual or consolidated supply, major equipment, works).

Why this may be innocent: Award notices list no quantities, so a large order can explain the gap.

One supplier received at least 40% of a procuring office's PhilGEPS award value over three years. Office must have ≥₱50M, ≥30 awards and ≥5 suppliers in the window; the supplier ≥5 awards. Severity rises at 60%.

Why this may be innocent: May reflect a specialised or thin local market, not favouritism.

3+ awards from one office to one supplier within 30 days, each 85–100% of the SVP ceiling, combined above it. SVP ceiling in force on the award date: ₱500,000 (2009 IRR of RA 9184, Annex H), ₱1,000,000 (2016 Revised IRR, Annex H), ₱2,000,000 (IRR of RA 12009, Sec. 34). Splitting contracts to avoid competitive bidding is prohibited under the IRR.

Why this may be innocent: Separate requisitions or recurring needs can legitimately fall near the ceiling.

At least half of an office's yearly PhilGEPS award value was awarded in December, at least twice its usual December share. Requires ≥₱20M awarded in December, ≥30 awards that year and ≥5 years of office history; compared with the office's own median December share.

Why this may be innocent: Year-end awarding often follows budget release timing; it is not by itself improper.

One supplier won DepEd/DOH infrastructure works and drugs/medicines awards (≥₱5M each) plus many unrelated categories. Construction requires a PCAB licence and drug distribution an FDA licence; the rule surfaces suppliers active in both.

Why this may be innocent: A supplier may hold both licences; this is a prompt to check, not a finding.

A contractor with a D or F record grade on this site won DepEd/DOH infrastructure awards. Exact name match between the graded organisation and the PhilGEPS awardee. Grades summarise public DPWH project data.

Why this may be innocent: The grade is this site's summary, not a government blacklist or sanction.

PhilGEPS award shows only one bidder in an open or competitive mode. Flags procurement awards where num_bidders = 1 and mode indicates competitive bidding.

Why this may be innocent: Unusual for competitive modes; may reflect a thin market, not wrongdoing.

Winning bid is within a narrow band of the approved budget for contract (ABC). Compares award amount to ABC where both are present in PhilGEPS records.

Why this may be innocent: Award ≈ ABC can mean accurate estimates or weak competition.

A contractor wins a high share of awards in a region or agency. Aggregates awards by contractor and implementing agency over a rolling window.

Why this may be innocent: High share may reflect specialization, not collusion.

Project contract cost exceeds the 95th percentile for the same type of work. Uses DPWH/Sumbong project costs grouped by type_of_work; compares each project to the cohort p95.

Why this may be innocent: Cost above peers may reflect site conditions or classification limits.

Past target completion without published physical progress. Projects past target_end_date with null or zero progress_pct in source data.

Why this may be innocent: May be delay, suspension, or missing progress reporting in Sumbong.

A contractor holds a very large share of flood-control contract value in a district or province. Share of contract value by contractor within DEO or province; flags top share > 40% or elevated HHI.

Why this may be innocent: Concentration is a market-structure signal, not proof of favoritism.

Contract cost is at or above 99.5% of ABC from Sumbong. ContractCost / ABC ≥ 0.995 using metadata.abc and contract cost fields.

Why this may be innocent: Suggests limited price competition; verify against bid documents.

Very similar descriptions within ~100m or identical coordinates across contracts/years. Title similarity + distance or shared coordinates within municipality.

Why this may be innocent: May be phased works, components, or geocoding overlap.

Completion before start, implausible duration for cost, or future dates marked complete. Compares start, target, and actual dates from Sumbong with contract cost.

Why this may be innocent: Often data-entry errors in published GeoJSON.

Multiple similar contracts to the same contractor/DEO just under a threshold in a short window. ≥3 contracts within 120 days, each 85–100% of ₱50M threshold, similar titles.

Why this may be innocent: Pattern only; legitimate multi-lot awards exist.

Coordinates offshore or heavily reused pins vs stated location. PH bounding box and shared-coordinate clusters from lat/lon fields.

Why this may be innocent: GIS quality issue until validated on the ground.

Contractor linked to many simultaneous projects or very high total value vs peers. Active project count and total value vs peer 95th percentile.

Why this may be innocent: Capacity strain is operational risk, not fraud by itself.

Linked PhilGEPS award amount or awardee disagrees with Sumbong contract row. Compares linked award and project contractor/cost above tolerance.

Why this may be innocent: May be linkage error, JV naming, or post-award change order.