Wakilii

Doshnut Uganda Limited v Ministry of Water and Environment [2024] UGPPDPAAT 45

Tribunal · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision disqualifying applicant from consultancy tender
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 Accounting Officer's decision on the procurement complaint was made outside the prescribed seven business days and was therefore unlawful and of no legal consequence. However, the Tribunal found that the Evaluation Committee properly evaluated the Applicant's technical proposal according to the stated criteria and applicable regulations. The Applicant scored 74%, below the 75% minimum qualifying threshold. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no basis to interfere with the evaluation.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed

Facts

The Ministry of Water and Environment issued a Request for Proposals for consulting services to design and manage a performance-based forest sector subsidy scheme under a World Bank-funded project. Twelve firms expressed interest; three were shortlisted, including the Applicant. After technical evaluation, the Applicant scored 74%, below the 75% minimum qualifying score, and was disqualified. The Applicant requested a debrief on November 13, 2024, which was provided on November 14, 2024. The Applicant filed a procurement complaint with the Accounting Officer on November 20, 2024. The Accounting Officer communicated his decision on December 3, 2024, maintaining the disqualification. The Applicant then filed this application with the Tribunal on December 5, 2024, challenging the evaluation and the timeliness of the Accounting Officer's response.

Issues

  1. Whether the Accounting Officer's response to the Applicant's procurement-related complaint was made within prescribed timelines?
  2. Whether the evaluation of the Applicant's proposal was conducted in accordance with the criteria in the request for proposals and the law?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's December 5, 2024 suspension order is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Procurement Law — Timelines for Administrative Review — World Bank-Funded Projects
In World Bank-funded procurement, the prescribed timeline for review and resolution of complaints challenging exclusion from a procurement process prior to contract award is not later than seven business days from the date of receiving the complaint. Failure by an Accounting Officer to make and communicate a decision within prescribed timeframes is a blatant breach of the law, and such a response or decision is no decision at all and is of no legal consequence.
Procurement Law — World Bank Procurement Regulations — Prior Review by Bank
Paragraph 3.4 of Annex III to the World Bank Procurement Regulations requires the Borrower to handle and resolve procurement-related complaints and prohibits proceeding to the next stage without receiving confirmation from the Bank that the complaint has been satisfactorily resolved. The confirmation by the Bank is after the Borrower's resolution, not before. The Bank does not resolve the complaint; the Accounting Officer must resolve it within the prescribed time.
Procurement Law — Judicial Review — Standard of Review
When exercising jurisdiction in administrative review of procurement decisions, the Tribunal's role is to review whether the applicable rules were complied with, whether the Request for Proposal document was complied with, whether the facts relied upon were correct, and whether there is a manifest error. The Tribunal shall not overturn a decision merely because it has formed an opinion different from that held by the procuring entity. The Tribunal cannot and should not take over the role of the Evaluation Committee.
Procurement Law — Evaluation Criteria — Consultancy Services
No evaluation criteria other than that stated in the bidding documents shall be considered. The award of marks in technical evaluation is discretionary, and there is no room for the Tribunal to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the Evaluation Committee. So long as the Evaluation Committee applies the relevant evaluation criteria stated in the Request for Proposals correctly, it is not the Tribunal's role to reassess the marks awarded.
Procurement Law — Clarifications — Modification of Proposals After Submission
Clarification of a proposal after submission is not a right. Where the Request for Proposal provides that the consultant is not permitted to alter or modify its proposal after the submission deadline, it would be a breach of the Request for Proposal document to allow the bidder to correct weaknesses in its bid. The evaluation must be conducted solely on the basis of the submitted proposal.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (3)

  • Yaweh Technical Services Ltd v Soroti District Local Government (Application No. 46 of 2024)
  • Raxio Data Centre SMC LTD v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 21 of 2024)
  • Egis Road Operations SA v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority and Others (Application No. 11 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Doshnut Uganda Limited v Ministry of Water and Environment 2024 UGPPDPAAT 45 (23 December 2024)
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.