Wakilii

JB United Civil Engineering and Building Contractors Limited v Adjumani District Local Government (Application 7 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGPPDPAAT 11 · 2023 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
Matter remitted for lawful re-evaluation of bids by properly constituted evaluation committee within ten working days

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 committed procedural irregularities in the procurement process by failing to include all bidders in the Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder with reasons for rejection, failing to deliver copies of the notice to all bidders, and failing to copy all bidders on the arithmetic correction request. The purported administrative review decisions and re-evaluation were nullities for being rendered outside the statutory timeline and without proper authority. The Tribunal ordered a lawful re-evaluation of bids within ten working days.

Outcome

Matter remitted for lawful re-evaluation of bids by properly constituted evaluation committee within ten working days

Facts

Adjumani District Local Government initiated procurement for rehabilitation of Kulukulu-Zoka Road. Eight bidders submitted bids. BLD Consults (U) Limited was declared Best Evaluated Bidder at UGX 2,231,214,560. The Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder omitted the Applicant's name and reasons for disqualification. Jubilee Real Estates Limited filed administrative review on February 9, 2023, challenging the Quality Assurance Management Plan requirement. The Accounting Officer rendered decisions on February 20 and 27, 2023, ordering re-evaluation. The Applicant filed administrative review on February 13, 2023, challenging non-inclusion in the notice, lack of communication to bidders, and award to higher bidder. The Accounting Officer rejected the Applicant's complaint on February 23, 2023. The Applicant then filed this application with the Tribunal on March 3, 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the format of the application is competent?
  2. Whether the application is moot?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred when it omitted to indicate the stage and reasons for which the Applicant's bid was disqualified?
  4. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it did not send a copy of the Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder to the Applicant?
  5. Whether the Respondent erred when it requested a clarification of an arithmetic error in the bid price of BLD Consults (U) Limited?
  6. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it omitted to notify other bidders of the arithmetic correction to the bid of BLD Consults (U) Limited?

Orders

  • Application allowed in part.
  • Purported re-evaluation report dated February 22, 2023 set aside.
  • Respondent directed to constitute an evaluation committee to re-evaluate the bids in a manner consistent with the law, the bidding document and the decision of the Tribunal.
  • Re-evaluation to be conducted within ten working days from the date of this decision.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated March 7, 2023 vacated.
  • Respondent to refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Timeline for Decision
An Accounting Officer must make and communicate an administrative review decision within ten days from the date of receipt of the application under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, and a decision rendered outside this statutory timeline is a nullity.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review Committee — Powers and Limitations
Under regulation 139 of the Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006, the role of an Administrative Review Committee is to review the complaint and submit its recommendation to the Accounting Officer; the committee has no power to conduct a re-evaluation of bids.
Public Procurement — Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder — Content Requirements
Where the bidding document requires the notice of best evaluated bidder to provide unsuccessful bidders with information on the reasons for the failure of their bids, failure to comply with this requirement constitutes an irregularity even if not mandated by the applicable regulations.
Public Procurement — Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder — Communication Requirements
Where the bidding document requires delivery of a copy of the notice of best evaluated bidder to all bidders who participated in the bidding process and publication on the PPDA Authority website, failure to comply constitutes an error even if the notice was displayed on the entity's notice board as required by regulation 85 of the Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006.
Public Procurement — Arithmetic Corrections — Notification Requirements
Regulation 74 of the Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 imposes an obligation to copy all requests for clarifications, including arithmetic corrections, to all bidders for information purposes only and to note them in the evaluation report.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Committee — Appointment Authority
The power to approve and appoint an evaluation committee is vested in the Contracts Committee under regulation 17(1)(b) of the Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 and sections 28(1)(b) and 32(a) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act; the Accounting Officer has no power to approve such nomination.
Tribunal Procedure — Form Over Substance — Competence of Application
Non-conformity with a prescribed form does not render a document void where regard is made to considering the substance rather than the form under section 43 of the Interpretation Act; a tribunal should consider the substance of an application if it sets out the complaint and remedies sought.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mixjet Flight Support Fze v Uganda National Airlines Company Limited (Application No. 4 of 2023)
  • Apple Properties Ltd v Uganda Human Rights Commission (Application No. 1 of 2023)
  • Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters' SACCO (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

JB United Civil Engineering and Building Contractors Limited v Adjumani District Local Government (Application 7 of 2023) 2023 UGPPDPAAT 11 (27 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.