Wakilii

Xinjiang Power Transmission and Transformation Limited Company and Beijing Shine Technology Company Limited Consortium v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited [2025] UGPPDPAAT 49

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Administrative review application challenging procurement decision following disqualification of bid
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 held that while the Accounting Officer's administrative review decision was issued outside the statutory ten-day period and was therefore null, the Applicant's substantive challenge to the procurement process failed. The Respondent lawfully conducted due diligence which revealed that the project owner CI-Energies had no record of the Applicant as a subcontractor on the cited project. The Tribunal found that due diligence is permitted at any time before contract signing, that evaluation criteria were properly applied, and that prequalification does not guarantee a bid will pass subsequent evaluation. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed

Facts

Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited invited bids for a 400 kV transmission line project between Masaka and Mbarara. The Applicant consortium was initially recommended as best evaluated bidder in October 2022. Following physical due diligence in Côte d'Ivoire on a project the Applicant cited as specific experience, the Respondent disqualified the Applicant. The project owner CI-Energies stated that the transmission component was not subcontracted and had no record of the Applicant as a subcontractor. A third evaluation report in June 2025 recommended TBEA Company Limited as best evaluated bidder at USD 66,253,506.57, approximately USD 13 million higher than the Applicant's bid. The Applicant challenged the disqualification, arguing it met all stated criteria and that the Respondent applied evaluation criteria not in the bidding document.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer made and communicated an administrative review decision outside the prescribed statutory period?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it disqualified the Applicant's bid for the reason stated in the best evaluated bidder notice?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it awarded the contract to TBEA Company Limited at a total contract price of US $66,253,506.47, which is approximately US $13,000,000 higher than the Applicant's bid price?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated October 15, 2025, is vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Review — Statutory Time Limits — Effect of Non-Compliance
An Accounting Officer's decision on an administrative review complaint that is made and communicated outside the statutory ten-day period prescribed by section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act is null and void and has no legal effect.
Public Procurement — Due Diligence — Scope and Timing
Under regulation 26 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Procuring and Disposing Entities) Regulations 2023, a procuring entity may undertake due diligence on a bid at any time from commencement of evaluation to before signing the contract. Due diligence should be relevant to the bid and not extend to extraneous or remote matters with no proximity to the evaluation criteria.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Verification of Bidder Information
Where a bidder relies on specific experience as a subcontractor on a project, the procuring entity is entitled to inquire with the project owner to verify whether the bidder was in fact a subcontractor. Such inquiries constitute lawful due diligence and do not amount to applying evaluation criteria not stated in the bidding document.
Public Procurement — Prequalification — Effect on Subsequent Evaluation
Prequalification is a screening process to obtain a shortlist of bidders based on minimum information required to judge suitability. A bid by a prequalified bidder remains subject to full evaluation to determine substantial responsiveness to bidding requirements. There is no legal basis for the proposition that a shortlisted provider's bid should automatically pass any criteria considered at the prequalification stage.
Public Procurement — Contract Award — Lowest Bid Not Determinative
Bid price is not the sole determinative factor in choosing the best evaluated bidder. In addition to bid price, all relevant evaluation and qualification criteria must be taken into account. The lowest bid cannot be awarded the contract if it is not substantially responsive to the bidding requirements.
Judicial Review — Tribunal Powers — Standard 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 of a procuring entity and substitute its own decision. However, the Tribunal's role is not to replace the procuring entity's judgment but to assess whether processes and decisions adhere to the law, whether the factual basis is correct, and whether there is clear error.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (4)

  • Rural Digital Media Ltd v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Application No. 29 of 2025)
  • Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters' SACCO (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)
  • Gibb (Pty) Limited, In Joint Venture with Acmirs Consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport & Standard Gauge Railways Project (Application No. 32 of 2025)
  • Victoria Insglass Limited v Kira Municipal Council (Application No. 19 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Xinjiang Power Transmission and Transformation Limited Company and Beijing Shine Technology Company Limited Consortium v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited 2025 UGPPDPAAT 49 (3 November 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.