Wakilii

Hub Insurance Brokers Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No 8 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGPPDPAAT 9 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of administrative decision disqualifying applicant's bid in procurement for insurance brokerage services
Decision
Application dismissed; respondent may proceed with procurement; accounting officer's decision set aside as null

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 dismissed the application. While the Accounting Officer's decision was issued outside the statutory ten-day period and declared null and void, the Tribunal found that the applicant's proposal was rightfully disqualified at the preliminary examination stage for failing to meet administrative compliance criteria. The applicant failed to submit five verifiable reference letters with corresponding contracts showing premiums of at least UGX 2.5 billion per annum, and could not demonstrate five years of similar service experience as required. The Tribunal found no irregularities in the retender process and upheld the respondent's evaluation methodology.

Outcome

Application dismissed; respondent may proceed with procurement; accounting officer's decision set aside as null

Facts

Uganda Revenue Authority conducted an open domestic bidding process for insurance brokerage services. Seven bidders submitted proposals on 27 January 2023. On 7 February 2023, URA declared Clarkson Insurance Brokers Ltd the best evaluated bidder with a score of 99.9%. Hub Insurance Brokers Limited was disqualified for failing to attach five reference letters with corresponding contracts showing premiums of at least UGX 2.5 billion per annum. Hub filed an administrative review on 20 February 2023. The Accounting Officer rejected the complaint on 3 March 2023. Hub then filed this application with the Tribunal on 9 March 2023, challenging the disqualification and evaluation process. The procurement was a retender of an earlier process that had been amended to accommodate an increase in URA staff from 2,000 to 3,500.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it failed to immediately suspend and communicate the suspension of the impugned procurement upon receipt of the Applicant's administrative review application?
  2. Whether the administrative review decision of the Accounting Officer dated 3rd March 2023 was made and communicated outside the statutory period and is therefore null and void?
  3. Whether the Respondent erroneously and unlawfully disqualified the Applicant's proposal without determining and/or disclosing if the proposal had attained the minimum score required?
  4. Whether the Respondent erroneously and unlawfully evaluated the Applicant's proposal regarding the specific experience criterion?
  5. Whether the award of a score of 99.9% to the best evaluated bidder in the impugned procurement is realistically untenable and false?
  6. Whether the impugned procurement was preceded by Procurement Reference No. URA/CONS/CSD/21-22/02091 which was unlawfully cancelled and whether there were irregularities in the retender of the procurement?
  7. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Decision of the Accounting Officer dated 3rd March 2023 declared a nullity and set aside.
  • Respondent at liberty to continue with the procurement process to its logical conclusion.
  • Suspension order dated 10th March 2023 vacated.
  • Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Suspension of Procurement Process — Automatic Operation
Upon receipt of a complaint by an accounting officer under section 89(5) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, suspension of the procurement process is mandatory, statutory, and automatic, but notification of suspension to participating bidders is commendable administrative practice and not a mandatory duty; omission to notify bidders is not fatal because the law presumes automatic suspension upon receipt of the complaint.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Time Limits
Under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended by Act 15 of 2021, the accounting officer must make and communicate a decision within ten days of receipt of a complaint, and these are calendar days not working days; a decision communicated outside this statutory period is null and void.
Public Procurement — Preliminary Examination — Administrative Compliance
Regulation 46(3)(f) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Procurement of Consultancy Services) Regulations 2014 allows the procuring entity to determine which additional documentation is necessary and must be submitted by a bidder to satisfy the preliminary examination stage of evaluation; administrative compliance criteria are separate and distinct from eligibility criteria by way of documentation required and serve distinct purposes.
Public Procurement — Evaluation — Disqualification at Preliminary Stage
Under the Quality and Cost Based Selection methodology, failure of a bid at any stage of evaluation prevents further consideration at the next stage; where a proposal is not compliant and not substantially responsive to administrative compliance criteria at the preliminary examination stage, it is rightfully disqualified without need to indicate the minimum score, as the evaluation committee is empowered to prevent consideration at the detailed evaluation stage.
Public Procurement — Challenge to Evaluation Criteria — Estoppel
A bidder who attends a pre-proposal meeting and has the opportunity to seek clarification regarding evaluation criteria but opts not to do so, and subsequently submits a proposal, is estopped from challenging the propriety of the evaluation criteria after submission; the bidder should have challenged the criteria before submission so that the procuring entity would have had time to make amendments to the bidding document.
Public Procurement — Cancellation versus Amendment — Retender
Where a procuring entity amends a bidding document to accommodate a change in technical requirements without cancelling the procurement requirement itself, and the same procurement requirement is retendered with a new statement of requirements, there is no cancellation of procurement within the meaning of section 75 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and no consequential need to change the procurement reference number.
Public Procurement — Approbation and Reprobation — Estoppel
A bidder cannot accept a Request for Proposals Document issued by way of retender, submit a proposal under it to obtain advantage, and then turn around and claim the document is void for purposes of securing some other advantage; this would be contrary to the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (11)

  • Dott Services v PPDA (Application No. 3 of 2017)
  • Engineering Solutions (U) Limited v PPDA & Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 5 of 2020)
  • Elite Chemicals Limited v Uganda Coffee Development Authority (Application No. 1 of 2022)
  • VCON Construction (U) Limited v Makerere University (Application No. 3 of 2022)
  • JV Kadac-Globaltec v Uganda Prisons Service (Application No. 4 of 2022)
  • Maxol Uganda Limited v UEGCL (Application No. 3 of 2023)
  • Kasokosoko Services Ltd v Jinja School of Nursing and Midwifery (Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • My Maka Group Limited v UNBS (Application No. 9 of 2021)
  • Technology Associates Ltd & COMVIVA Technologies Ltd v Postbank Uganda Ltd (Application No. 6 of 2022)
  • Engineering Solutions (U) Ltd v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 24 of 2021)
  • Mubende Parents School v Uganda Development Bank and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 662 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hub Insurance Brokers Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No 8 of 2023) 2023 UGPPDPAAT 9 (30 March 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.