Wakilii

Bulmak Associates Limited v Adjumani District Local Government (Application 9 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGPPDPAAT 10 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed — Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following rejection of administrative review by Accounting Officer
Decision
Contract award set aside and matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation within 10 working days

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Tribunal held that the Accounting Officer's decision was made outside the statutory ten-day period. The Applicant's bid was administratively non-compliant because its bid validity period was shorter than required and its Bid Submission Sheet contained material deviations regarding discount declarations. The Evaluation Committee illegally corrected arithmetic errors before receiving bidder acceptances and failed to properly document the corrections. The contract award to Rocktrust Contractors (U) Ltd was set aside and the matter remitted for re-evaluation.

Outcome

Contract award set aside and matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation within 10 working days

Facts

Adjumani District Local Government initiated procurement for road upgrading works under the USMID-AF Program using Open Domestic Bidding. Ten bidders submitted bids on February 24, 2023. The Respondent declared Rocktrust Contractors (U) Ltd the best evaluated bidder with a contract price of UGX 10,340,766,747. Bulmak Associates Ltd sought administrative review on April 3, 2023, contending it had offered a 12% discount making its bid lower than Rocktrust's. The Accounting Officer rejected the complaint on April 14, 2023. Bulmak Associates Ltd filed this application on April 24, 2023. The Evaluation Committee had corrected arithmetic errors in multiple bids including both Bulmak's and Rocktrust's during the evaluation process.

Issues

  1. Whether the decision of the Respondent's Accounting Officer was made within the statutory time limit?
  2. Whether the Applicant was the lowest bidder?
  3. Whether the selection of Rocktrust (U) Ltd as the best evaluated bidder was valid?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application allowed in part.
  • Award of contract to Rocktrust Contractors (U) Ltd set aside.
  • Respondent directed to re-evaluate the bids in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the law and the bidding document.
  • Re-evaluation to be completed within 10 working days from the date of this decision.
  • Respondent to refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated April 24, 2023 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Accounting Officer's Decision on Administrative Review
Under Section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended in 2021, the Accounting Officer must make and communicate a decision on an administrative review within ten days of receipt of a complaint, and this provision supersedes Regulation 139(5) of the Local Governments Regulations 2006 which allowed fifteen working days.
Public Procurement — Preliminary Evaluation — Bid Validity Period
A bid that specifies a validity period shorter than the minimum required in the Bid Data Sheet is administratively non-compliant and must be rejected at the preliminary examination stage of evaluation on a pass or fail basis, regardless of its price competitiveness.
Public Procurement — Bid Submission Requirements — Discount Declaration
Where bidding documents require discounts to be quoted in the Bid Submission Sheet, a bidder who applies a discount in the Bill of Quantities but expressly states in the Bid Submission Sheet that discounts are not applicable (N/A) commits a material deviation that cannot be the subject of clarification or correction and the bid must be rejected.
Public Procurement — Correction of Arithmetic Errors — Procedural Requirements
An Evaluation Committee cannot legally complete an evaluation and sign an evaluation report on the same date it requests bidders to accept arithmetic corrections to their bids, as the evaluation process is still ongoing until responses are received from affected bidders.
Public Procurement — Correction of Arithmetic Errors — Documentation Requirements
When seeking clarifications on arithmetic errors, an Evaluation Committee must communicate clearly to bidders the type of errors, which specific items contain errors, and the methodology for correction of the errors to enable bidders to respond appropriately as required under the bidding documents.
Public Procurement — Financial Comparison — Prerequisite Compliance
Financial comparison can only be conducted on a bid that is eligible and administratively compliant; a bid that fails preliminary evaluation requirements should not progress to financial evaluation or correction of arithmetic errors.

Legislation cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Bulmak Associates Limited v Adjumani District Local Government (Application 9 of 2023) 2023 UGPPDPAAT 10 (16 May 2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.