Wakilii

Chint Meters and Electrical Uganda Company Limited v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited and 2 Others [2025] UGPPDPAAT 29

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision following dismissal of complaint by accounting officer
Decision
Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed

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 Applicant's disqualification was lawful. The Applicant failed to submit required samples of metal oxide varistor, polycarbonate meter boxes and circuit breakers at bid submission as mandated by the bidding documents. This constituted a material deviation that could not be cured by clarification. The Evaluation Committee acted within its mandate under Regulation 5 of the PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023 by disqualifying the non-compliant bid. The Committee was not required to seek clarification under Regulation 6 where the omission was material and would unfairly advantage the Applicant. The best evaluated bidders met local participation requirements.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed

Facts

Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited initiated a procurement for supply of smart energy meters under four lots. The Applicant submitted bids but was disqualified for failing to submit required samples of metal oxide varistor, polycarbonate meter boxes and circuit breakers as mandated by ITB 18.3 of the bidding documents. The bidding documents required submission of one sample for single phase and one for three phase direct connect energy meters, which were to be complete solutions including the meter and accessories pre-wired in meter boxes. The Applicant submitted only the meters without the required accessories. Two other bidders were declared best evaluated bidders for the four lots. The Applicant lodged an administrative review complaint which was dismissed by the Accounting Officer on April 3, 2025. The Applicant then filed this application with the Tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Evaluation Committee acted in breach of Regulation 5 of PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023 when it erroneously concluded that the Applicant did not submit the samples required under the bidding solicitation documents?
  2. Whether the Evaluation Committee acted in breach of Regulation 6 of PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023 when it failed to seek clarification and additional information from the Applicant in regard to submission of samples for metal oxide varistor, polycarbonate meter boxes and circuit breakers?
  3. Whether the Evaluation Committee acted in breach of Regulation 5 of PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023, the PPDA Guideline 12/2024 and ITB 35.1 when it declared bidders who did not meet the strict technical, capacity and local participation and reservation requirements as the Best Evaluated Bidders for Lots 1 and 3, and Lots 2 and 4?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Decision of the Accounting Officer dated April 2, 2025 upheld.
  • 1st Respondent at liberty to proceed with the procurement process to its logical conclusion.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated April 17, 2025 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Prohibition on Amendment During Evaluation
An Evaluation Committee shall not, during an evaluation, make any amendment including any addition to the evaluation criteria stated in the bidding document, and shall not use any other criteria other than the criteria specified in the bidding document.
Public Procurement — Material Deviation — Failure to Submit Mandatory Samples
Failure to submit mandatory samples as required by bidding documents constitutes a material deviation that substantially affects the quality of supplies to be procured and the ability of the bidder to perform the contract, warranting automatic disqualification.
Public Procurement — Clarifications — Limits on Evaluation Committee's Power
An Evaluation Committee may seek clarifications only regarding minor, non-material issues that do not alter the substance of the bid. A request for clarification or documentation that if complied with would substantially alter anything that forms a deciding factor in the evaluation of a bid is expressly prohibited.
Public Procurement — Clarifications — Material Deviations Cannot Be Cured
Where a bidding document requires submission of mandatory samples and provides that failure to comply will lead to automatic disqualification, allowing a bidder to submit samples post-deadline would confer an unfair advantage, substantially alter the competitive equilibrium, and contravene procurement law and procedures.
Public Procurement — Interpretation of Bidding Documents — Reasonably Diligent Bidder Standard
Where a bidder describes goods in its price schedule as a 'complete solution' and the bidding documents require samples of such goods, a reasonably diligent bidder would interpret the requirement to submit samples as including both the meter and necessary accessories, not the meter alone.
Public Procurement — Clarifications by Procuring Entity — Effect on Bidding Requirements
Responses to bidder requests for clarification are not meant to amend a bidding document by introducing new information. A clarification that merely responds to queries regarding the number of samples required does not modify the original scope of the requirement or amend the evaluation criteria.
Public Procurement — Margin of Preference — Application Only Where Specified
Where a bidding document states that a margin of preference shall apply only if specified in the evaluation methodology and criteria, and no such specification is made, the Evaluation Committee has no basis to apply a margin of preference and is barred from introducing criteria not stated in the bidding document.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (6)

  • Ssekikubo & 4 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2015)
  • Male H Mabirizi K Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 237 & 431 of 2019)
  • Canaansites Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority
  • Sadeem Al Kuwait General Trading & Construction Co. & Dott Services Ltd JV v Uganda Cancer Institute & PPDA (Application No. 24 of 2018)
  • My Maka Group Limited v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Application No. 09 of 2021)
  • Sajo General Stores Limited v Soroti District Local Government (Application No. 6 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chint Meters and Electrical Uganda Company Limited v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited and 2 Others 2025 UGPPDPAAT 29 (12 May 2025)
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.