Wakilii

Twed Property Development Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority [2025] UGPPDPAAT 31

Tribunal · 2025 Application Partly Allowed — Contract Award Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of administrative review decision concerning procurement award
Decision
Contract award set aside and matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation including mandatory post-qualification of Best Evaluated Bidder

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's failure to conduct post-qualification evaluation on the Best Evaluated Bidder before contract award was a material omission that vitiated the award. While the Administrative Review Committee was entitled to conduct a site visit to investigate the Applicant's complaint, it erred by considering parking slots at off-site premises not offered in the bid. The contract award and Best Evaluated Bidder Notice were set aside, and the matter remitted for re-evaluation in accordance with the bidding document and applicable regulations.

Outcome

Contract award set aside and matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation including mandatory post-qualification of Best Evaluated Bidder

Facts

Uganda Revenue Authority initiated procurement for office space rental in Kampala CBD using open domestic bidding. Three bidders submitted bids; one was eliminated at preliminary evaluation. After detailed evaluation, URA declared Speke Hotel 1996 Ltd as Best Evaluated Bidder at UGX 18,756,194,400 for three years. Twed Property Development Ltd, the unsuccessful bidder, filed an administrative review complaint alleging the Best Evaluated Bidder lacked sufficient parking slots as required by the bidding document, claiming 440 slots were already allocated to Total Energies EP Uganda and approved building plans showed only 199 basement parking slots. The Administrative Review Committee conducted a site visit and found 1,049 parking slots including off-site locations. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint. Twed then appealed to the Tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer erred when he relied on findings of the Administrative Review Committee, which were outside the evaluation report?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred when it awarded the contract to Speke Hotel (1996) Ltd as the Best Evaluated Bidder?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is allowed in part.
  • The Administrative Review decision of the Respondent's Accounting Officer, dated May 29, 2025, is set aside.
  • The contract award to Speke Hotel (1996) Ltd is set aside.
  • The Best Evaluated Bidder Notice, dated May 14, 2025, is set aside.
  • The Respondent is ordered to re-evaluate the bids in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the Bidding Document, and the law.
  • The re-evaluation shall be conducted within 10 working days from the date of this decision.
  • The Respondent shall refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
  • The Tribunal's Suspension Order dated June 10, 2025, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Review — Scope of Investigation — Site Verification
When investigating a procurement complaint, an Accounting Officer has discretion to consider information and evidence contained in the complaint, information provided by entity staff, and any other relevant information including site visits to verify allegations made by a complainant.
Administrative Review — Limits of Review Committee Authority
An Administrative Review Committee errs when it considers premises not offered in a bidder's bid submission, even where those premises are discovered during a site visit conducted to investigate a complaint.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Prohibition Against Amendment
The introduction of new conditions or criteria at evaluation stage amounts to an illicit amendment to the evaluation criteria stated in the bidding document and is prohibited by law.
Public Procurement — Post-Qualification — Mandatory Requirement
An Evaluation Committee must undertake post-qualification evaluation on the Best Evaluated Bidder before submission to the Contracts Committee for contract award. Post-qualification cannot be conducted after contract award. Failure to undertake post-qualification where prescribed is a material omission which vitiates the contract award.
Public Procurement — Post-Qualification Distinguished from Due Diligence
Post-qualification evaluation of a bidder's capacity and resources to execute a contract is distinct from due diligence activities such as technical inspection, obtaining guidance from the Chief Government Valuer, and confirming authenticity of ownership documents. Due diligence is discretionary and may be conducted at any time, while post-qualification is a mandatory evaluation requirement.
Appeals Tribunal — Merits Review Jurisdiction — Scope of Review
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal is a merits review body with wide powers to set aside the original decision and substitute it with a new decision. The Tribunal has authority to consider both the lawfulness of the procurement decision and the facts going to the exercise of discretion, whether raised by the applicant or not, provided all interested parties are given an opportunity to be heard.
Public Procurement — Futuristic Requirements — Time of Compliance
Where a bidding document requires a bidder to demarcate and designate parking spaces for the procuring entity, such requirement is futuristic and can only be implemented after contract signing and during contract performance, not at the time of bid submission.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (6)

  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 12 of 2021)
  • Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters SACCO (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)
  • Elite Chemicals Limited v Uganda Coffee Development Authority (Application No. 7 of 2021)
  • Precise Engineering Services Limited v UETCL (Application No. 43 of 2022)
  • Gold Star Insurance Company Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 04 of 2024)
  • Vision Scientific & Engineering Limited v Makerere University & Palin Corporation Limited (Application No. 37 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Twed Property Development Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority 2025 UGPPDPAAT 31 (30 June 2025)
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.