Wakilii

Mbale United Trucks and Pick Ups Drive Association (Application No 31 of 31)

Tribunal · [2021] UGPPDPAAT 11 · 2021 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 PPDA Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Procurement process cancelled; Respondent at liberty to re-tender

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 it had jurisdiction to review the procurement decision because the purported cancellation occurred after the contracts committee had awarded the contract on 9 November 2021, rendering the committee functus officio. The Accounting Officer's failure to decide the administrative review within the statutory ten-day period was a fatal breach. Both the Applicant and the Best Evaluated Bidder were found not qualified for award under the impugned procurement due to material non-compliance with bidding requirements and procedural irregularities. The entire procurement process was cancelled.

Outcome

Procurement process cancelled; Respondent at liberty to re-tender

Facts

On 27 August 2021, Mbale City Council advertised for open bidding for collection of revenue from vehicles/trucks loading and offloading for financial year 2021-2022. The Applicant and other bidders submitted bids on 24 August 2021. On 9 November 2021, the Respondent displayed a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder naming Mbale City Tippers Drivers & Owners SACCO as the successful bidder. The Applicant's bid was rejected for alleged poor performance and indebtedness of over UGX 200 million in a previous contract. The Applicant filed an application for administrative review with the Accounting Officer on 16 November 2021. The Accounting Officer did not furnish a decision within the statutory ten-day period. On 29 November 2021, the Respondent resolved to cancel the procurement and re-advertise. The Applicant applied to the Tribunal on 30 November 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal is clothed with jurisdiction to review matters raised by the instant Application?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it disqualified the bid of the Applicant?
  3. What remedies are available to the Parties?

Orders

  • Application partially allowed.
  • Decisions of the contracts committee and Accounting Officer dated 29 November 2021 set aside.
  • Procurement for collection of revenue from vehicles/trucks loading and offloading in Mbale City under Reference Number MBAL856/SRVCS/21-22/00009 cancelled.
  • Respondent may re-tender the procurement process if it so wishes.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated 3 December 2021 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Jurisdiction of PPDA Appeals Tribunal — Cancellation of Procurement After Award
A procuring and disposing entity may only cancel a procurement process at any time before a contract is awarded to the best-evaluated bidder. Once a contracts committee has made an award decision, it becomes functus officio and cannot subsequently cancel the entire procurement process. A purported cancellation after award is ultra vires and does not oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review the procurement.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Timelines
An Accounting Officer must resolve an application for administrative review and communicate a decision within ten working days of receipt of the complaint. A decision communicated outside the statutory timeframe is a blatant breach of the law. Non-compliance with provisions of the procurement statute is fatal and such dilatory conduct must not be condoned.
Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Substantial Compliance
A substantially compliant and responsive bid is one that conforms to all the instructions, requirements, terms and conditions of the bid documents without material deviation or omission. Where a bid is not substantially compliant and responsive, it shall be rejected and may not subsequently be made compliant by correction of the material deviation or omission.
Public Procurement — Due Diligence — Scope and Timing
A procuring and disposing entity has discretion to carry out a due diligence test on a bidder at any time before award of contract to verify information submitted and confirm the bidder's capacity to perform. The due diligence exercise should be relevant to the bid and should not extend to extraneous or remote matters which have no proximity to the evaluation criteria. The entity's knowledge of a bidder's past non-performance and arrears in a similar contract is lawful and relevant to the evaluation.
Public Procurement — Fair Hearing — Due Diligence Findings
Findings of a due diligence exercise on the best evaluated bidder must be shared with the affected bidder in respect of their right to a fair hearing. The affected bidder must be given an opportunity to rebut or challenge the contents of the due diligence report in accordance with the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, accountability and fairness.
Public Procurement — Fraudulent Practice — Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation of facts in order to influence a procurement or disposal process constitutes a fraudulent practice. A procuring and disposing entity may, after appropriate investigations, reject a proposal for award where it is satisfied that the bidder is engaged in fraudulent practice. The attachment of reference letters showing satisfactory performance while aware that actual performance was unsatisfactory amounts to misrepresentation.
Public Procurement — Bidding Documents — Discriminatory Criteria
Drafting of bidding criteria that favours newly registered entities to the detriment of existing bidders acts to minimise competition and impedes the achievement of value for money. Such discriminatory criteria are contrary to the principles of non-discrimination in public procurement.

Legislation cited (28)

Cases cited (6)

  • Dott Services Ltd v PPDA & UNRA (Application No. 3 of 2017)
  • Galleria in Africa v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company [2018] UGSC 19
  • Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters' SACCO (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)
  • Old Kampala Students Association v Old Kampala Senior Secondary School & PPDA (Application No. 7 of 2017)
  • Elite Chemicals Ltd v Uganda Coffee Development Authority (Application No. 8 of 2021)
  • Coil Limited v PPDA & UNRA (Application No. 3 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mbale United Trucks and Pick Ups Drive Association (Application No 31 of 31) 2021 UGPPDPAAT 11 (16 December 2021)
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.