Wakilii

Dentons Advocates v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited [2025] UGPPDPAAT 50

Tribunal · 2025 Application Partly Allowed 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
Best Evaluated Bidder Notice set aside; matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation within 10 working days; administrative review fees to be refunded to Applicant

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 scoring a non-staff member as key staff without assessing whether the arrangement constituted a valid sub-contracting arrangement under the Request for Proposals, and unlawfully permitted the best evaluated bidder to resubmit its financial proposal after evaluation to correct a VAT calculation error. The Tribunal set aside the Best Evaluated Bidder Notice and ordered re-evaluation of all bids in accordance with the law and the Request for Proposals.

Outcome

Best Evaluated Bidder Notice set aside; matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation within 10 working days; administrative review fees to be refunded to Applicant

Facts

Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited invited bids from eight shortlisted legal firms for legal representation in arbitration proceedings against Umeme Ltd using the Quality and Cost-Based Selection method. Six firms submitted proposals. Following technical and financial evaluation, Ligomarc Advocates was declared the best evaluated bidder with a combined score of 91.69 at a contract price of UGX 13,026,968,538.77. Dentons Advocates, ranked second with a combined score of 90.80, was disqualified at the financial evaluation stage. Dentons Advocates requested the evaluation report and detailed scoring sheets, which the Respondent declined to provide. Dentons Advocates then lodged an administrative review complaint on October 2, 2025, challenging the alteration of Ligomarc Advocates' contract price from UGX 13,446,767,816 to UGX 13,026,968,538, the inclusion of Kenneth Akampurira (Managing Partner of Amber Advocates) as key staff in Ligomarc Advocates' proposal, failure to provide the evaluation report, and inconsistent application of evaluation criteria. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint on October 7, 2025. Dentons Advocates then filed this application before the Tribunal on October 20, 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in law when he did not avail the Applicant with the evaluation report, the detailed scoring sheets, evaluators' comments, and any reports prepared by the evaluation committee?
  2. Whether the Applicant's application for administrative review to the Respondent's Accounting Officer was lodged outside the prescribed statutory timeframe?
  3. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer's decision dated October 7, 2025, and the handling of the administrative review complaint were procedurally compliant?
  4. Whether the Respondent erred when it scored Mr. Kenneth Akampurira as part of the Best Evaluated Bidder's key staff?
  5. Whether the Respondent unlawfully altered the Best Evaluated Bidder's financial proposal?
  6. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is allowed in part.
  • The Best Evaluated Bidder Notice dated September 22, 2025, is set aside.
  • The Respondent is ordered to re-evaluate the bids in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the Request for Proposals, and the law.
  • The re-evaluation shall be conducted within 10 working days from the date of this decision.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated October 21, 2025, is vacated.
  • The Respondent shall refund the Administrative Review Fees paid by the Applicant.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Disclosure of Evaluation Reports — Statutory Requirements
Under section 89(4) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 4(5) of the Administrative Review Regulations, a procuring entity is required to provide a report indicating the reasons for rejection of a bidder and the stage at which the bidder was rejected, but is not required to provide the entire evaluation committee report, detailed scoring sheets, evaluators' comments, or any reports prepared by the evaluation committee.
Public Procurement — Confidentiality — Protection of Evaluation Documents
Confidentiality is a cardinal principle of public procurement under section 50 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The integrity of the procurement process and the principle of competition cannot be ensured if confidential documents are shared with competing bidders.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Time Limits — Commencement of Time
The starting point for computation of the ten working days within which to lodge an administrative review complaint is either the point at which the applicant became aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint, or the point at which the applicant ought to have become aware of those circumstances. Where a complaint is based on information contained in the best evaluated bidder notice, time begins to run from the date of that notice, not from an earlier date when partial information was disclosed at bid opening.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Fragmented or Piecemeal Challenges
The law does not permit administrative reviews to be conducted in a fragmented or piecemeal manner in respect of grounds which ought to have formed the basis of a timely single complaint. However, where a bidder challenges alleged acts that came to light only after the issue of the best evaluated bidder notice, and the challenges extend to both the technical and financial evaluation stages, the complaint is not fragmented but addresses the entire evaluation process as it culminated in the best evaluated bidder notice.
Public Procurement — Accounting Officer's Decision — Independence and Procedural Compliance
An Accounting Officer may appoint an administrative review committee to investigate a complaint and report to him or her, and may accept the report and adopt it as his or her decision. What matters is that the Accounting Officer must direct his or her mind to the matter. It is immaterial who drafts the decision so long as the decision is drafted at the direction of the Accounting Officer and is subsequently owned by him or her.
Public Procurement — Key Staff — Sub-Contracting Arrangements — Evaluation Requirements
A law firm may propose a non-employee or non-partner as key staff under a sub-contracting arrangement in a consultancy procurement. However, the Evaluation Committee has a duty to assess whether the documents submitted by the bidder demonstrate an actual or intended sub-contracting arrangement within the meaning of the Request for Proposals before scoring such a person as key staff. Failure to conduct this assessment constitutes an abdication of responsibility and vitiates the evaluation.
Public Procurement — Financial Proposals — Correction of Errors — Limits on Post-Submission Adjustments
Under regulation 68(8) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Procurement of Consultancy Services) Regulations, any proposal found to contain an arithmetic error must be disqualified, and no post-submission correction is allowed. While regulation 70(5)(c) permits correction of non-material non-conformities such as application of a wrong VAT rate, a procuring entity may not invite a bidder to resubmit its financial proposal after evaluation to reflect a corrected amount, as this effectively allows submission of a fresh proposal contrary to mandatory procedures.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (9)

  • Vcon Construction (U) Ltd v Uganda Development Bank (Tribunal Application No. 22 of 2021)
  • Gat Consults Limited v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Tribunal Application No. 30 of 2021)
  • Technology Associates Limited in Consortium with Comviva Technologies Limited v Post Bank Uganda Limited (Application No. 6 of 2022)
  • VCON Construction (U) Ltd v Uganda Development Bank
  • Kakooba Matooke Traders Co-operative Limited v Mbarara City Council and Another (Application No. 34 of 2025)
  • CSM Technologies Private Limited and Another v National Information Technology Authority Uganda (Application No. 11 of 2025)
  • Rexco Limited v Katakwi District Local Government (Application No. 29 of 2023)
  • Globe World Engineering (U) Limited v Jinja City Council (Application No. 11 of 2021)
  • Yoya Technologies and 2 Ors JV and Aisino Corporation v Uganda Revenue Authority (Applications No. 30 and 31 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dentons Advocates v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited 2025 UGPPDPAAT 50 (10 November 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.