Xavier Radio Ug News 24 7
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal has allowed the case in which Dentons Advocates sued Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL) over a 13 billion legal services contract for arbitration proceedings against Umeme Ltd.
The Tribunal in its decision delivered on Friday, found irregularities in the evaluation process, including the unlawful alteration of the winning bidder’s financial proposal and improper scoring of key staff qualifications, and ordered UETCL to re-evaluate the bids within 10 working days.
The dispute began after UETCL issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder on September 22, 2025, naming Ligomarc Advocates as the successful bidder for the contract. Ligomarc Advocates had been awarded the contract at a revised price of UGX 13.026 billion, following adjustments to its financial proposal. Dentons Advocates, which had been ranked second with a combined technical and financial score of 90.80, challenged the decision, alleging that the procurement process was flawed and unfair.
Dentons Advocates raised several grounds for its complaint, including the unlawful alteration of Ligomarc Advocates’ financial proposal, misrepresentation in the composition of key staff, and inconsistent application of evaluation criteria. The firm argued that Ligomarc Advocates’ financial proposal had been adjusted from UGX 13.446 billion to UGX 13.026 billion without proper justification, claiming that the adjustment lacked any basis in the Request for Proposals or Instructions to Consultants. Dentons Advocates also contended that Ligomarc Advocates had included Kenneth Akampurira, a Managing Partner of Amber Solicitors & Advocates, as a key expert despite him not being a staff member or partner of Ligomarc. This, Dentons Advocates argued, contravened the Statement of Requirements rendering the technical scoring irregular.
In response, UETCL defended its actions, asserting that the adjustment to Ligomarc Advocates’ financial proposal was a lawful correction of a VAT computation error, permissible under the procurement regulations. The company also argued that Akampurira’s inclusion was valid under a subcontracting arrangement supported by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Ligomarc Advocates and the consultant.
UETCL maintained that the procurement process was conducted in compliance with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulations.
The Tribunal, chaired by Nelson Nerima and comprising members Geoffrey Nuwagira Kakira, Paul Kalumba, Charity Kyarisiima, Keto Kayemba, and Eng. Cyrus Titus Aomu, conducted an extensive review of the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. It also held an oral hearing on November 5, 2025, via Zoom videoconferencing, during which representatives from Dentons Advocates, UETCL, and Ligomarc Advocates presented their arguments.
In its ruling, the Tribunal has found that the evaluation committee had erred in scoring Kenneth Akampurira as part of Ligomarc Advocates’ key staff without properly assessing the subcontracting arrangement. The Tribunal noted that while the Request for Proposals allowed for subcontracting, the evaluation committee failed to determine whether the MOU between Ligomarc Advocates and Akampurira constituted an actual or intended subcontracting arrangement. This omission, the Tribunal stated, amounted to a perfunctory assessment of the bidder’s responsiveness to the Terms of Reference.
The Tribunal also determined that the adjustment to Ligomarc Advocates’ financial proposal was conducted without sufficient verification of the local taxes component. Ligomarc Advocates had quoted UGX 2.332 billion as local taxes, which was later reduced to UGX 1.912 billion during financial evaluation. The Tribunal noted that the evaluation committee had assumed, without verification that the entire sum quoted as local taxes consisted of VAT. This assumption, the Tribunal stated, was untested and could have affected the accuracy of the financial evaluation.
Further, the Tribunal rejected Dentons Advocates’ argument that negotiations with Ligomarc Advocates were premature and unlawful. It has instead stated that the evaluation committee is permitted to recommend negotiations with the best evaluated bidder even before the issuance of a Best Evaluated Bidder Notice, as long as the bidder has been identified as the best evaluated.
However, the Tribunal found that UETCL had unlawfully allowed Ligomarc Advocates to resubmit its financial proposal during negotiations to reflect the “correct” VAT amount. This, the Tribunal stated, amounted to submission of a fresh proposal after evaluation, contrary to the procurement regulations.
As such, the Tribunal ruled that the procurement process had been compromised by procedural errors and irregularities. It ordered UETCL to re-evaluate the bids within 10 working days, ensuring that the evaluation committee conducts a thorough assessment of all bidders’ responsiveness to the criteria and statement of requirements, including the requisite experience of the law firms. The Tribunal has also set aside the Best Evaluated Bidder Notice issued on September 22, 2025, and directed UETCL to refund the administrative review fees paid by Dentons Advocates.
The Tribunal declined to award costs to any party, saying each side should bear its own expenses.
The Tribunal also reiterated the need to maintain confidentiality in procurement proceedings, cautioning against the dissemination of sensitive documents to parties unless legally required.
About Post Author
Post navigation
