The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Appeals Tribunal has ordered Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (UETCL) to conduct a fresh evaluation of bids for a high-value legal services contract tied to the Shs665 billion dispute with power distributor Umeme.
In its November 10 ruling, the six-member tribunal chaired by Nelson Nerima faulted UETCL for “erroneous and unlawful” evaluation processes that resulted in the selection of Ligomarc Advocates as the best evaluated bidder.
The directive overturns UETCL’s September 22 notice naming Ligomarc as the top firm and compels the utility to reassess all bids in strict adherence to procurement rules and the terms of the request for proposals.
The procurement is central to UETCL’s preparation for arbitration ahead of the expiry of Umeme’s 20-year electricity distribution concession in March 2025.
At the core of the dispute is the contested calculation of the concession buyout amount and a claimed debt exceeding Shs600 billion that UETCL insists Umeme must pay.
UETCL invited proposals on July 8, 2025, from six prequalified law firms—AF Mpanga Advocates, Ligomarc Advocates, Birungi, Barata & Associated Legal & Tax Consultants, Nangwala, Rezida & Company Advocates, Dentons Advocates, and ALP Advocates.
After evaluating the technical and financial submissions, UETCL on September 22 named Ligomarc as the best evaluated bidder, scoring 91.69 points with a quoted price of Shs13 billion.
Dentons Advocates, which placed second with 90.8 points, immediately challenged the decision.
On September 26, the firm requested copies of the evaluation report, scoring sheets and reasons for its non-selection. UETCL declined to release the documents, prompting a follow-up request on October 1.
After receiving no satisfactory response, Dentons filed an administrative review on October 2, alleging unlawful alteration of Ligomarc’s quoted price, refusal by UETCL to disclose evaluation documents, misrepresentation of personnel, inconsistent application of evaluation criteria and other procedural violations.
UETCL dismissed the complaint on October 7, leading Dentons to escalate the matter to the PPDA Tribunal on October 20.
The Tribunal found significant flaws in UETCL’s process. It ruled that Ligomarc was improperly awarded points for listing lawyer Kenneth Akampurira as part of its arbitration team despite evidence that he was not a staff member and had no valid subcontracting arrangement with the firm.
The Tribunal described UETCL’s acceptance of this entry as perfunctory and a failure to conduct the required verification of key personnel.
It also cited irregularities in Ligomarc’s financial proposal. While the firm’s original quotation was Shs 13.446 billion, evaluators reduced it to Shs13.026 billion without lawful justification.
The Tribunal noted that UETCL permitted Ligomarc to resubmit its financial proposal to adjust VAT—effectively allowing the firm to submit a fresh bid after evaluation had closed, a direct breach of procurement regulations.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside UETCL’s selection of Ligomarc Advocates and ordered a complete re-evaluation of all bids in accordance with the PPDA Act and associated regulations.
It remains unclear whether UETCL has begun implementing the directive.
The ruling is likely to affect UETCL’s timelines as it prepares for the arbitration process, which bears significant financial consequences for the electricity sector as the Umeme concession approaches expiry.