KAMPALA, Uganda | The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal (PPDA Tribunal) has cancelled the procurement process initiated by the National Information Technology Authority-Uganda (NITA-U) for a project worth approximately $2.28 million. The project, funded by the World Bank, was part of the Uganda Digital Acceleration Project Government Network (UDAP-GOVNET) aimed at enhancing Uganda’s digital infrastructure through the supply of 1,000 desktops and 1,000 laptops.

NITA-U embarked on an open international competitive bidding process to procure 2,000 devices, drawing bids from 11 companies, including Gulf Africa Limited and Netcon Technologies India Private Limited. Netcon was declared the best-evaluated bidder, quoted at $1,139,952 and $1,143,252 for the desktops and laptops, respectively, excluding VAT.

Gulf Africa Limited, however, contested the evaluation process after its bid was disqualified for not meeting the minimum contract value criteria. The applicant claimed inconsistencies in how the due diligence was applied and raised concerns over the technical requirements stipulated in the bid, including factory-installed software and branding specifications. Dissatisfied with NITA-U’s response to its initial complaint, Gulf Africa Limited escalated the matter to the PPDA Tribunal.

The PPDA Tribunal’s review focused on whether it had jurisdiction over a procurement regulated by the World Bank’s procurement guidelines. NITA-U argued that the project’s funding and oversight by the World Bank limited local jurisdiction, citing the requirement for adherence to the Bank’s confidentiality clauses. However, the Tribunal found that the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act did apply to the case, emphasizing that no substantial conflict existed between Uganda’s legal obligations under international agreements and the Act itself.

Despite multiple requests, NITA-U failed to produce key procurement documents for review, citing World Bank-imposed confidentiality. This refusal, according to the Tribunal, hindered its ability to perform an objective merits review. The Tribunal highlighted that transparency and access to relevant documents are essential for adjudicating procurement disputes fairly and maintaining public confidence.

In light of NITA-U’s non-compliance and the absence of the necessary documentation, the Tribunal concluded that it was unable to review the procurement process effectively. Consequently, it ruled to cancel the entire procurement, leaving NITA-U with the option to re-tender the process if it chooses to proceed.