QuestionsQuestions (PCAB BOARD Resolution NO. 194, S. 2014)
To assess an additional license fee (PhP5,000 per year or fraction thereof of non-renewal) on re-registration applicants who have existing government projects after their registration expired, in line with the requirement of valid registration for government projects.
Because the PCAB registration has a three-year validity period; even when PCAB accepts re-registration applications up to three months before expiration, some contractors still fail to file on time.
PCAB synchronized the expiration of government registration with the expiration date of the contractor’s license.
When a contractor applies for re-registration after the expiration of its registration but has existing government projects at the time the registration had already expired.
PhP5,000 per year or a fraction thereof of non-renewal.
It is tantamount to undertaking construction without a valid license, which is subject to an Additional License Fee of PhP5,000 per year or fraction thereof of non-renewal.
It states that registration to participate in government projects is a requirement under the Revised Guidelines and under R.A. No. 9184.
“Similarly” all re-registration applicants with existing projects after the expiration of their registration.
The Additional License Fee is charged for each year of non-renewal, and if the non-renewal period is less than a full year, a proportionate charge is still assessed corresponding to the fraction of the year.
After a period of fifteen (15) days from publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
Because the resolution explicitly provides that it becomes effective only after 15 days from publication; this ties into administrative/issuance effectivity rules requiring publication for general applicability.
PCAB allows re-registration applications up to three months prior to expiration, implying contractors had a window to renew but some still continued projects without renewing.
To encourage timely renewal by aligning registration expiry with license expiry so contractors cannot claim convenience of separate timelines.
A contractor might argue that the fee is punitive or burdensome if the contractor had ongoing work started before expiration, and may question notice, reasonableness, or proportionality—issues students can analyze under administrative law principles.
It focuses on the contractor’s conduct after the registration expired—having existing government projects—regardless of when the contractor files the re-registration application.
It shows the Board adopted the resolution on 13 May 2014, and it was filed on 20 June 2014; students can study how adoption and filing relate to administrative records and issuance processing.
Ramon F. Allado (Chairman), Farouk M. Macarambon, Sr. (Member), and it is attested by Atty. Ann Claire C. Cabochan (Director-in-Charge) and Atty. Alejandria G. Gomez (Board Secretary).
Whether the contractor had existing government projects at the time after registration had expired (i.e., during the period of non-renewal), because the fee is assessed when there are existing projects after expiration.