The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Appeals Tribunal has overturned a multi-billion-shilling contract award issued by Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL).
It did so after finding major flaws in the evaluation of bids for legal representation in arbitration proceedings against Umeme Limited.
In its ruling, the Tribunal cancelled the Best Evaluated Bidder Notice issued to Ligomarc Advocates on September 22, 2025. It directed UETCL to conduct a fresh re-evaluation of all bids within 10 working days.
The decision followed a complaint lodged by Dentons Advocates (formerly Kyagaba & Otatiina Advocates).
The firm challenged the integrity of the entire procurement process.
Dentons accused UETCL of irregular scoring and misrepresentation by the winning bidder of key staff. They also highlighted unlawful alteration of financial figures after bid opening.
The central issue in the case was the inclusion of Kenneth Akampurira, the Managing Partner of Amber Solicitors & Advocates, as key staff in Ligomarc’s technical proposal.
The Tribunal found that Akampurira was not an employee or partner of Ligomarc Advocates. He was only connected to the firm through an unsigned Memorandum of Understanding.
This arrangement, the Tribunal held, did not meet the requirements of the Request for Proposals. It did not constitute a valid subcontracting agreement.
The evaluation committee was faulted for failing to verify whether the key personnel listed by Ligomarc genuinely belonged to the firm. This lapse, the Tribunal described as a perfunctory and inadequate assessment.
The Tribunal also faulted UETCL for altering Ligomarc’s financial proposal after bid opening.
While the firm’s price read at the financial opening was UGX 13.446 billion, the Best Evaluated Bidder Notice reflected a lower figure of UGX 13.026 billion.
Letters to My Younger Self: Robinah Siima — “Success Is Quieter, But Richer”UETCL claimed the adjustment was a correction of VAT calculations. However, the Tribunal ruled that the revision did not fall within the permissible arithmetic corrections allowed under procurement law.
Instead, UETCL had unlawfully permitted the bidder to revise its price during negotiations. This practice is expressly prohibited in public procurement unless it relates solely to correcting numerical errors.
Although some of Dentons’ claims were dismissed, such as the allegation that UETCL unlawfully withheld the full evaluation report, the Tribunal agreed that certain irregularities had material effects.
The issues surrounding key staff scoring and post-submission price alteration notably affected the procurement outcome.
As a result, the award to Ligomarc Advocates could not stand.
In its final orders, the Tribunal directed UETCL to carry out a complete re-evaluation of all bids. This must be done in compliance with the law and the Request for Proposals.
It also instructed the agency to refund Dentons Advocates the UGX 5 million fee paid during the administrative review process. Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs.
The ruling underscores the need for strict adherence to evaluation criteria and procurement rules.
This is especially crucial in high-value assignments involving complex legal work.
It also serves as a reminder to procuring entities. Key personnel listed in proposals must be verifiably attached to the bidding firm, and post-submission adjustments to financial proposals remain tightly restricted under the PPDA framework.
