Wakilii

CSM Technologies Private Limited and Another v National Information Technology Authority Uganda [2025] UGPPDPAAT 14

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 before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
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 Respondent erred in failing to provide a debrief and in failing to make and communicate a decision on the Applicant's complaint within the prescribed time. However, the Tribunal struck out the Applicant's grounds relating to the CMMi certification criterion and the technical evaluation as time-barred under World Bank Procurement Regulations. The Tribunal found no non-consideration of value for money, as price alone does not determine the most advantageous proposal. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed

Facts

The Respondent, National Information Technology Authority Uganda, issued a Request for Proposals for the upgrade of a data exchange platform under World Bank financing. Five bidders submitted proposals. Following technical evaluation, the Applicant and Impiger Technologies were found responsive, scoring 61.75% and 74.75% respectively. After financial evaluation, Impiger was notified as the successful bidder with a combined score of 94.42% at USD 8,362,068.52, while the Applicant ranked second with 87.83% at USD 6,806,977.58. The Applicant requested a debrief on March 6, 2025, and filed a procurement complaint on March 10, 2025, challenging the technical evaluation, the CMMi certification criterion, and alleging non-consideration of value for money. The Respondent failed to provide a debrief or respond to the complaint within the prescribed time, citing World Bank prior review. The Applicant filed this application on April 10, 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent erred when it did not provide the Applicant with a debrief?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred when it did not make and communicate a decision on the Applicant's complaint within the prescribed time?
  3. Whether the grounds relating to the technical evaluation of the bids are time-barred?
  4. Whether the evaluation of the Applicant's technical proposal was subjective, restrictive, unfair and non-transparent?
  5. Whether the proposal of the Successful Bidder was responsive to the evaluation criteria?
  6. Whether there was non-consideration of value for money in the impugned procurement?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated April 11, 2025 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Debriefing — Obligation to Provide
A procuring entity has an obligation to provide a debriefing to an unsuccessful bidder even when the request is made outside the prescribed three business days, and the obligation exists irrespective of whether the bidder subsequently files a complaint, as the right to a debrief is rooted in the principle of transparency.
Public Procurement — Complaint Resolution — Timelines
Where a procurement is subject to World Bank Procurement Regulations, the Accounting Officer must resolve and communicate a decision on a procurement complaint within fifteen business days from receipt, and this timeline prevails over the ten-day period prescribed in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act by virtue of section 4(2) of that Act.
Public Procurement — World Bank Prior Review — Accounting Officer's Duty
The requirement for World Bank confirmation of satisfactory resolution of a complaint does not relieve the Accounting Officer of the duty to resolve the complaint and communicate a decision within the prescribed time; the World Bank confirms the resolution after it has been made, not before.
Public Procurement — Complaints — Time Limits for Challenging Bidding Documents
A complaint challenging the terms of a Request for Proposals document must be submitted to the Borrower at least ten business days prior to the deadline for submission of bids; a bidder who submits a bid using the impugned bidding document and signs a Letter of Proposal stating no reservations cannot subsequently challenge the criteria in the bidding document after bid submission.
Public Procurement — Two-Envelope Process — Time Limits for Challenging Technical Evaluation
In a two-envelope procurement process, a bidder who is aggrieved by the results of the technical evaluation must make a procurement-related complaint within ten business days from the date of communication of the technical evaluation results; complaints made after this period are time-barred.
Public Procurement — Value for Money — Price Not Sole Determinant
Value for money in public procurement means the effective, efficient, and economic use of resources, requiring evaluation of relevant costs and benefits, risks, non-price attributes, and life-cycle costs as appropriate; price alone does not necessarily represent value for money and is not the sole determining factor in awarding a contract.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Restrictive Application
While a bidder who has submitted a bid cannot challenge the criteria in the bidding document after bid submission, they may challenge the outcome of the process if a disputed evaluation criterion is applied in an unlawful manner, such as a restrictive application without considering similar alternatives.

Legislation cited (29)

Cases cited (7)

  • Doshnut Uganda Limited v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 47 of 2024)
  • Technology Associates Limited in Consortium with Comviva Technologies Limited v Post Bank Uganda Limited (Application No. 6 of 2022)
  • GAT Consults Limited and Lee Construction Limited (JV) v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority and Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 6 of 2021)
  • Bromcom Computers Ple v United Learning Trust and another [2022] EWHC 3262 (TCC)
  • M and B Engineers Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority and Another (Civil Appeal No. 0316 of 2021)
  • K-Solutions Limited v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 30 of 2023)
  • CFAO Motors Uganda Limited v National Forestry Authority (Application No. 16 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

CSM Technologies Private Limited and Another v National Information Technology Authority Uganda 2025 UGPPDPAAT 14 (6 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.