|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
Procurement award set aside for perfunctory staff evaluation and unlawful post-evaluation price adjustment; re-evaluation ordered.
Public procurement — Administrative review — Timeliness of complaint — Disclosure obligations — Confidentiality of evaluation documents — Evaluation procedure — Key staff/sub-contracting — Permissibility and limits of post-evaluation price corrections and negotiations — Remedy: setting aside BEB notice and re-evaluation.
|
10 November 2025 |
|
Applicant’s disqualification after lawful due diligence upheld; tribunal dismissed procurement challenge despite late Accounting Officer decision.
* Public procurement — Administrative review — Accounting Officer must decide within ten days; late decision is null and enables application to Tribunal under section 115. * Procurement evaluation — Due diligence and verification — Procuring entity may verify bid claims with project owners; such verification is within evaluation scope. * Evaluation criteria — No use of extraneous criteria; due diligence must relate to bidding criteria. * Prequalification — Shortlisting does not guarantee automatic pass at subsequent evaluation/post-qualification. * Award — Contract may be awarded to another bidder where a previously recommended bidder is lawfully disqualified.
|
3 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
Failure to request an omitted but valid Power of Attorney rendered the disqualification unlawful; re-evaluation ordered.
* Public Procurement – Evaluation Regulations – Regulation 17(6): duty to request omitted eligibility documents that existed and were valid at bid submission.
* Eligibility documents – Power of Attorney – curability of omission through clarification rather than automatic disqualification.
* Administrative review – procedural fairness – re-evaluation and refund of review fees as remedies for failure to seek missing documents.
|
28 October 2025 |
|
A procurement tribunal upheld disqualification where mandatory JV, POA and audited‑accounts documents were materially absent in sensitive election printing contracts.
* Public procurement – administrative review – nature of a complaint under s.106; validity of an Accounting Officer’s response and effect of non-payment of review fees. * Tender evaluation – administrative compliance – distinction between subcontractor and joint venture/intended joint venture; mandatory submission of joint venture agreement, powers of attorney and audited accounts. * Evaluation procedure – Technical Compliance Selection (TCS) – preliminary stage non-responsiveness and material deviation in procurement of sensitive election materials. * Remedies – dismissal of application; vacatur of suspension order; each party to bear own costs.
|
23 October 2025 |
|
Application challenging market revenue award dismissed as time‑barred for failure to comply with PPDA complaint timelines.
* Public procurement — statutory timelines for complaints (sections 106 and 115 PPDA Act) — complaint must be lodged within ten working days of awareness. * Administrative review — a written complaint to the Accounting Officer triggers a ten‑day response obligation under section 106(7). * Limitation and estoppel — approbation and reprobation; bidders are estopped from later challenging bid terms they accepted. * Procedural fairness — prohibition of piecemeal litigation in procurement challenges.
|
20 October 2025 |
|
The applicant’s procurement review was struck out for being filed outside statutory timelines despite the respondent’s delayed decision.
* Public procurement – Complaints and timelines – applicability of PPDA Act timelines to first-envelope (technical) evaluation complaints in two-envelope procurements.
* World Bank Procurement Regulations – Annex III and Section V – interplay with national complaint procedures and prior review.
* Jurisdiction – Tribunal’s inability to extend statutory timelines; time-barred applications are struck out without merits review.
* Debriefing and evaluation – allegations of inadequate debrief and arbitrary scoring not considered due to incompetence of application.
|
13 October 2025 |
|
Tribunal found re-evaluation complied with law and RFP, dismissed the applicant's challenge, and vacated the suspension order.
* Public Procurement – Administrative review – Accounting Officer must decide within 10 days (s.106(7)) – decision issued late is null and Tribunal gains jurisdiction under s.106(8) and s.115(1)(a). * Public Procurement – Compliance with Tribunal orders – re-evaluation within ten working days. * Procurement evaluation – scope of evaluators' technical discretion – Tribunal will not substitute its judgment absent manifest error or departure from RFP. * Evaluation criteria – relevance, size, complexity and adequacy of experts – proper application and limits of post-submission evidence. |
10 October 2025 |
|
Tribunal ruled separate individual powers of attorney naming one signatory satisfy joint-POA requirement and ordered re-evaluation.
Procurement law – administrative review timelines – competence and time-bar – Notice Following Technical Evaluation establishes awareness date; Procurement documents – validity of eligibility criteria – Joint Power of Attorney requirement validly introduced; Contract formation – form versus substance – separate individual powers of attorney naming same signatory constitute substantial compliance; Evaluation procedure – Evaluation Committee must act collectively and not fetter discretion; Remedies – set aside evaluation notice and order re-evaluation. |
3 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
A late administrative‑review decision is null; evaluation misapplied NSSF requirement, but applicant lacked required three‑year worker‑management experience.
Public procurement — administrative review — statutory ten‑day rule — late communication of Accounting Officer’s decision renders it a nullity; Evaluation criteria — eligibility requirements — NSSF registration and proof of managing 100 workers for past three years; Evaluation errors — introducing extra requirement that NSSF certificate itself indicate 100 workers unlawful; Evidence — bidder must prove substantive experience within specified three‑year period.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
Tribunal set aside the Accounting Officer’s unlawful re-evaluation and award, ordering fresh evaluation by a new committee within ten working days.
Public Procurement — Administrative review — locus standi of bidder; Administrative review timeline — Accounting Officer’s duty to decide within 10 days; Evaluation Committee composition — selection of chairperson under Regulation 3(1); Conflict of interest — evidentiary threshold; Separation of functions — Accounting Officer cannot usurp Evaluation Committee and Contracts Committee powers; Remedy — set aside awards and remit for fresh evaluation by new committee.
|
15 September 2025 |
|
An Accounting Officer acted ultra vires by re-evaluating bids and awarding the contract instead of the Evaluation and Contracts Committees.
Public procurement — Administrative review vs statutory evaluation — Limits of Accounting Officer’s power; ultra vires re-evaluation and award; role and advisory nature of Administrative Review Committee; irregular appointment of Evaluation Committee chair — materiality test; conflict of interest allegations — requirement for fresh evaluation; remedy — set aside award and remit to newly constituted Evaluation Committee.
|
12 September 2025 |
|
Applicant lacked locus standi to challenge the procurement because it neither purchased the bidding document nor submitted a bid.
* Public Procurement – standing (locus standi) – who may institute administrative review – bidder definition and requirements to challenge procurement.
* Administrative review – formal complaint requirements – distinction between a letter of allegation and a statutory administrative review complaint.
* Interim measures – suspension orders – vacatur where applicant lacks locus standi.
* Procedural compliance – purchase of bidding documents and submission of bids as preconditions to contest procurement.
|
9 September 2025 |
|
Procurement challenge struck out as time‑barred for failure to comply with mandatory statutory appeal deadlines.
* Public Procurement – administrative review and appeals – mandatory statutory timelines (sections 106, 115 PPDPA) – Tribunal has no power to extend time; late applications are incompetent.
* Procurement procedure – transparency and alleged forged tax clearance – substantive merits not considered where application is time‑barred.
* Relief – application struck out; suspension order vacated; each party bears own costs.
|
3 September 2025 |
|
Failure to suspend procurement and decide an administrative complaint invalidated subsequent award notices.
* Public procurement – administrative review – duty to suspend procurement on receipt of complaint – sections 106(5), 106(6) PPDA Act and regulation 5 Administrative Review Regulations 2023.
* Public procurement – duty to investigate and communicate a decision within ten days – sections 106(7), 106(8), 28(1)(j) PPDA Act and regulation 8 Administrative Review Regulations 2023.
* Locus standi – bidder status where intention to participate shown by purchase of bidding document – section 2 and section 115 PPDA Act.
* Relief – setting aside Best Evaluated Bidder notices and remittal for statutory investigation; decline to determine merits to avoid pre-emption.
|
2 September 2025 |
| August 2025 |
|
|
A bidder whose bid validity expired lacks locus to challenge the procurement; application struck out and suspension vacated.
Public procurement – bid validity as a matter of law; locus standi – bidder ceases to be a bidder when bid validity expires; procedural competence – expired bid renders application incompetent; inability to reclassify participant as "person whose rights are adversely affected" to gain standing; Tribunal declines to decide substantive merits where procedural incompetence exists.
|
29 August 2025 |
|
Failure to meet mandatory statutory deadlines for procurement appeals renders an application incompetent, regardless of its merits.
Procurement law – administrative review – statutory deadlines – jurisdiction – whether the Tribunal has discretion to extend filing timelines – effect of non-compliance with procurement time limits – limitation periods strict and inflexible under procurement statutes – application struck out as time-barred.
|
27 August 2025 |
|
A procurement application is incompetent if the bidder fails to first seek written administrative review and lets bid validity lapse.
Procurement law – PPDA Act – locus standi – written administrative review prerequisite – expiry of bid validity – jurisdiction – review of procurement decisions – compliance with tender challenge procedures.
|
26 August 2025 |
|
The Tribunal struck out a procurement complaint for failing to exhaust administrative review procedures required by law.
Public procurement law – Competence of Tribunal application – Administrative review procedure – Jurisdiction – Electronic Government Procurement (e-GP) – Bid submission error – Exhaustion of remedies – Locus standi.
|
19 August 2025 |
|
Procurement cancellation post-contract award was unlawful and evaluation based on undisclosed criteria invalid; re-evaluation ordered.
Public Procurement – Cancellation of procurement process – Jurisdiction of Tribunal after contract award – Unlawful amendment of evaluation criteria – Validity of tax clearance certificate – Administrative review timelines.
|
18 August 2025 |
|
An application to review a procurement decision was struck out as time-barred due to failure to comply with strict statutory timelines.
Procurement law – Administrative review – Statutory time limits – Jurisdiction – The consequence of delay in filing review applications – Finality of Accounting Officer's decisions – No estoppel against statutory deadlines.
|
12 August 2025 |
| July 2025 |
|
|
Procurement review must be filed within mandatory statutory deadlines or it is struck out as incompetent.
Public procurement – administrative review – limitation periods – statutory deadlines under procurement law – tribunal jurisdiction – late filing – jurisdictional bar on applications filed out of time – non-extension of statutory deadlines.
|
23 July 2025 |
|
Tribunal sets aside disqualification decision; requires re-evaluation of consulting bids for failing joint venture documentation.
Public Procurement – Disqualification of consultancy services bid – Requirement for joint venture powers of attorney – Tax clearance certificate validity.
|
17 July 2025 |
|
Application struck out as time‑barred because administrative review decision was made outside statutory timelines.
Public Procurement — Administrative review timelines — Accounting Officer must decide within 10 days; where decision is made late it is void — Applicant must file to Tribunal within 10 days from expiry — Timelines mandatory; Tribunal has no power to extend time — Late application incompetent and struck out.
|
14 July 2025 |
|
Tribunal approved the applicant's withdrawal of a procurement challenge, ordered each party to bear own costs, and vacated suspension order.
Public procurement – Withdrawal of application before Tribunal – Approval of withdrawal under regulation 16(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations, 2016 – Costs – Vacation of interim orders following withdrawal.
|
3 July 2025 |
| June 2025 |
|
|
Failure to conduct mandatory post-qualification invalidates a public procurement award, requiring re-evaluation compliant with procurement law.
Public procurement – bid evaluation – post-qualification requirement – administrative review – obligations of evaluation and review committees – material irregularity and setting aside of contract award
|
30 June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
Failure to submit mandatory bid samples constitutes a material deviation justifying disqualification in public procurement processes.
Public procurement – evaluation criteria – material deviation in bid submissions – failure to provide mandatory samples – standard for bid clarifications – local participation and reservation requirements – administrative review of procurement decisions.
|
12 May 2025 |
|
|
6 May 2025 |
| April 2025 |
|
Public procurement—insurance services—bid evaluation—clarification from regulator—minimum premium rates—classification of assets—evaluation criteria—due diligence—transparency—illicit amendment—re-evaluation ordered—contract award set aside.
|
15 April 2025 |
| March 2025 |
|
|
|
28 March 2025 |
|
|
27 March 2025 |
|
|
21 March 2025 |
|
|
13 March 2025 |
|
|
12 March 2025 |
|
|
4 March 2025 |
| January 2025 |
|
|
|
28 January 2025 |
|
|
27 January 2025 |
|
|
24 January 2025 |
|
|
15 January 2025 |
|
|
14 January 2025 |
|
|
9 January 2025 |
| December 2024 |
|
|
|
23 December 2024 |
|
|
19 December 2024 |
|
|
18 December 2024 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
|
13 November 2024 |
Procurement law—bid validity—locus standi—administrative review—public procurement compliance—evidential burden—tribunal jurisdiction—application struck out
|
5 November 2024 |
|
|
4 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
|
1 October 2024 |
| September 2024 |
|
|
|
27 September 2024 |
|
|
24 September 2024 |
|
|
23 September 2024 |
