[2025] UGPPDPAAT 19

[2025] UGPPDPAAT 19

The Tribunal found that the Respondents erred in law by disqualifying the Applicant's bid for non-submission of registered joint venture powers of attorney, as such eligibility documents, if valid at the bid submission deadline, should have been requested through clarification in accordance with the procurement...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] UGPPDPAAT 19
Parties
Applicant: GIBB (Pty) Limited, in joint venture with ACMIRS Consulting Limited; Respondent: Ministry of Works and Transport; Respondent: Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) Project
Court
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Application No. 16 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Application / Decision
Outcome
application_allowed
Judges
Gimara SC, Chairperson, Nerima, Panel Member, Nuwagira, Kalumba, Cyrus Titus Aomu, Penal Member
Legal Topics
Public Procurement Review, Bid Evaluation Criteria, Eligibility Documents, Clarification Procedure
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Public Procurement Review Bid Evaluation Criteria Eligibility Documents Clarification Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GIBB (Pty) Limited, in joint venture with ACMIRS Consulting Limited

Applicant

Ministry of Works and Transport

Respondent

Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) Project

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review Application / Decision

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents erred in law and fact when they disqualified the Applicant's proposal for non-submission of registered joint venture powers of attorney.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents erred in law and fact when they disqualified the Applicant's proposal for non-submission of a tax clearance certificate for ACMIRS Consulting Limited.
  3. 3 What remedies are available to the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondents erred in law by disqualifying the Applicant's bid for non-submission of registered joint venture powers of attorney, as such eligibility documents, if valid at the bid submission deadline, should have been requested through clarification in accordance with the procurement regulations. The Tribunal also determined that there was no mandatory requirement in the bidding documents for submission of tax clearance certificates at the time of bid submission; eligibility declarations in the technical proposal sufficed. The Respondents' failure to apply the correct criteria at the preliminary examination stage constituted a breach of the applicable...

Court Disposition

application_allowed

Orders

  • The Notice Following Evaluation of Consultancy Services dated June 2, 2025 is set aside.
  • The Respondents are ordered to re-evaluate the proposals in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the request for proposals, and the law.