Wakilii

Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan v Uganda National Bureau of Standards and 2 Others (Application 9 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 10 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of administrative decision following re-evaluation of emergency procurement bids
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 dismissed the application challenging the re-evaluation of emergency procurement bids. The Tribunal held that the applicant had locus standi and that the application was not barred by illegality despite unlawful access to one bid submission sheet. The bids of both consortia were found responsive to the bidding document. Where a consortium submits a bid, there is no requirement for each member to submit separate accreditation certificates if one member holds valid accreditation. A bid submission sheet signed by an authorised representative of one joint venture party binds all parties where they are jointly and severally liable. The Entity conducted the re-evaluation in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier decision, though outside the prescribed timeline, which did not prejudice the applicant.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed

Facts

The Tribunal had previously set aside the award of contract to Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan in emergency procurement for pre-export verification of conformity to standards for used motor vehicles and directed re-evaluation. Following re-evaluation, the Entity awarded contracts to all three bidders including the applicant. The applicant challenged the re-evaluation, contending that the other two bidders' bids were not eligible and administratively compliant because their bid submission sheets were not signed by all consortium members and they failed to submit required accreditation certificates for each consortium member. The applicant also alleged that the Entity failed to comply with the Tribunal's earlier decision. The Accounting Officer dismissed the administrative review complaint. The applicant then filed this application with the Tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Application is barred by the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio for being founded on information illegally obtained?
  3. Whether the bid of Consortium of EAA Company Ltd and East Africa Auto Technical Testing was responsive to the Bidding Document?
  4. Whether the bid of Auto Terminal Japan Limited, Pal Auto Garage Ltd, Africa Automotive Analysis Ltd JV was responsive to the Bidding Document?
  5. Whether the evaluation of the bids was conducted in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal in Application No. 31 and 32 of 2024?
  6. Whether the Entity's Accounting Officer made an administrative review decision with reasons and in accordance with natural justice?
  7. Whether the Applicant is entitled to any remedy?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Entity may continue with the procurement process to its logical conclusion.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated February 19, 2024, vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Aggrieved Bidder
A bidder who is aggrieved by the outcome of a re-evaluation of bids and who has filed a complaint before the Accounting Officer and been dissatisfied with the decision has locus standi to file an application with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal under sections 89(8) and 91I(1)(a) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.
Public Procurement — Illegally Obtained Information — Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
The doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio must be applied as an instrument of public policy and not in circumstances where it does not serve any public interest. In carrying out a merits review, the Tribunal is entitled to review all information in the possession of the procuring entity and is obliged to scrutinise all bids to ascertain compliance with the bidding document and the law, regardless of whether an applicant relied on unlawfully obtained information.
Public Procurement — Consortium Bids — Accreditation Requirements
Where a bidding document permits joint ventures or consortia and provides that all parties shall be jointly and severally liable, there is no requirement for each party to the consortium to submit a separate accreditation certificate for purposes of proving eligibility. The purpose of a joint venture or consortium is to pool or combine resources, qualifications, and capabilities for purposes of meeting the requirements of a procurement.
Public Procurement — Joint Venture Bids — Bid Submission Sheet Signature
A bid submission sheet duly signed by an authorised representative of a party to a joint venture is valid and binding on all members of the joint venture where the parties are jointly and severally liable. There is no requirement in a bidding document that the bid submission sheet must be signed by all parties to a joint venture unless such requirement is expressly stated.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Timelines — Prejudice
Timelines provided for conducting evaluations are to ensure efficient and expeditious evaluation of bids. Failure to complete evaluation within a prescribed time is not necessarily fatal to the procurement where the applicant has not demonstrated how it is prejudiced by the delayed conclusion of evaluation.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (4)

  • Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
  • Dynaco Limited and Pearl Engineering Company Limited JV v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 42 of 2022)
  • Preg-Tech Communications Limited v Uganda Police Force (Application No. 32 of 2021)
  • Consolidated Application No. 31 and 32 of 2023

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan v Uganda National Bureau of Standards and 2 Others (Application 9 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 10 (11 March 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.