Wakilii

Nam Terminal Consults Limited v Mbale District Local Government (Application 16 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 24 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following dismissal of administrative review complaint by Accounting Officer
Decision
Application dismissed; procurement disqualification upheld on bid security grounds despite procedural errors by Accounting Officer and evaluation panel

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 erred in dismissing the administrative review complaint for non-payment of fees without first guiding the applicant on the prescribed fees and payment method. The Respondent also erred in disqualifying the bid for non-submission of NSSF certificate without requesting clarification, and for rejecting the bid validity period which was adopted by reference. However, the Applicant's bid was properly disqualified for submitting insufficient bid security (UGX 4,000,000 instead of UGX 4,500,000), as the Applicant failed to prove it was misled. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement disqualification upheld on bid security grounds despite procedural errors by Accounting Officer and evaluation panel

Facts

Mbale District Local Government tendered for construction of an OPD at Lwaboba Health Centre III. Four bidders submitted bids on March 1, 2024. On March 21, 2024, the Respondent issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder naming Namugabwe General Construction Company Ltd as successful at UGX 353,877,543. The Applicant's bid was disqualified for three reasons: failure to attach NSSF certificate, failure to specify 120-day bid validity period in bid submission sheet, and submission of bid security of UGX 4,000,000 instead of UGX 4,500,000. The Applicant filed an administrative review complaint on March 25, 2024 without paying prescribed fees. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint on March 27, 2024 for non-payment of fees. The Applicant then filed this application with the Tribunal on April 4, 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer erred when he dismissed the Applicant's complaint due to non-payment of administrative review fees?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the Applicant's bid on the basis that the bidder did not attach evidence of certificate for the payment of NSSF contributions for the company workers?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the Applicant's bid on the basis that the bidder did not specify the bid validity period of 120 working days in the bid submission sheet?
  4. Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the Applicant's bid on the basis that the Applicant submitted a Bid security of UGX. 4,000,000/= instead of UGX. 4,500,000/=?

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated April 4, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Duty of Accounting Officer to Guide on Review Fees
An Accounting Officer is duty-bound to advise a complainant on the prescribed administrative review fees and where to pay the said fees upon receipt of a complaint, and should not dismiss a complaint for non-payment of fees without first providing such guidance.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Late Payment of Fees Not Fatal
Late payment of administrative review fees is not necessarily fatal, and even actual non-payment of fees has been held not to be fatal, so long as the proper fees can be assessed and paid.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Non-Submission of Eligibility Documents
Non-submission of an eligibility document such as proof of fulfilment of social security obligations is not fatal because the procuring and disposing entity is obligated to request a bidder to submit the said document through clarification under regulation 25 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Bid Validity Period Adopted by Reference
Where a bid submission sheet states that the bid shall be valid until the date specified in the bidding document by reference to a specific clause, this constitutes sufficient affirmation of bid validity and a procuring entity errs when it prioritizes form over substance by disqualifying the bid for not stating the exact date.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Bid Security — Burden of Proof on Bidder Alleging Misleading Document
The burden of proof is on a bidder to prove an allegation that it was issued with a misleading bidding document, and where a bidder alleges it received documents by email before officially purchasing the bidding document, such documents are not official and not binding on the procuring entity absent corroborating evidence of proper issuance.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Bid Evaluation — Non-Responsive Bid Security
A bid which is not substantially responsive to the minimum requirement for bid security shall be rejected at the detailed evaluation stage under regulation 19(4) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Vision Scientific & Engineering Limited v Makerere University (Applications No. 26 and 27 of 2022)
  • Frida B. Kwikiriza v Buliisa District Local Government (Application No. 28 of 2022)
  • Apple Properties v Uganda Human Rights Commission (Application No. 1 of 2023)
  • Samanga Elcomplus JV v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Application No. 17 of 2021)
  • Vcon Construction Ltd v Uganda Development Bank (Application No. 22 of 2021)
  • Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing and Midwifery (Application No. 17 of 2021)
  • Juan Carlos Surace Ltd v Masindi District Local Government (Application No. 12 of 2024)
  • Orungo Market Vendors Association v Amuria District Local Government (Application No. 41 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nam Terminal Consults Limited v Mbale District Local Government (Application 16 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 24 (22 April 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.