OPM ordered to re-evaluate office procurement bids

______________

The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) Appeals Tribunal has ordered the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) to conduct a fresh evaluation of bids for emergency procurement of office space after discovering flaws in the earlier process.

The ruling stems from a complaint lodged by Twed Property Development Ltd, contesting the award of the contract to King Ceasor Augustus Mulenga. When Twed Property Development Ltd complained to the accounting officer, he (accounting officer) instead cancelled the procurement process, prompting Twed Property Development Ltd to appeal to the tribunal.

The ruling of the tribunal sets aside the accounting officer’s decision cancelling the procurement process.

“Having found that the cancellation of the procurement and the awarded bid price were illegal, the tribunal shall remit back to the respondent (OPM) for re-evaluation of the bids in a manner not inconsistent with this ruling, the bidding documents and the law,” the members of the tribunal ruled.

The tribunal members include chairperson Francis Gimara, Nelson Nerima, Geoffrey Nuwagira, Paul Kalumba, Charity Kyarisiima, Keto Kayemba and Eng. Cyrus Titus Aomu.

The tribunal faulted the OPM over altering the unit rate of the best evaluated bidder in favour of Mulenga, defeating the interest of Twed Property Development Ltd. They noted that Mulenga offered a unit price of shillings 112,380.9 per square metre, but was offered a contract award at a unit price of shillings 84,637 per square metre per month, which was illegal.

Twed Property Development had offered a unit price of shillings 108,854 per square metre per month. They also ruled that the conduct of re-negotiations based on the report of the chief government valuer before approval by the contracts committee was illegal. The tribunal directed the OPM to re-evaluate the bids within 10 working days from November 21 last year, when the ruling was delivered.

Twed Property Development Ltd has since written to the OPM to extend the bid validity since it has yet to heed the tribunal’s ruling. The bid validity expired on December 18 last year. Efforts to get a comment from the accounting officer at the OPM proved futile.

Genesis

On May 26 last year, OPM issued a bid notice for the emergency procurement of office space under procurement Reference No. OPM/NCONS/24-25/00437 using the open domestic bidding method of procurement.

Consequently, the OPM issued bidding documents to Twed Property Development Ltd, King Ceasor Augustus Mulenga and Speke Hotel (1996) Ltd.

However, it only received bids from Twed Property Development Ltd and Mulenga on June 10, last year.

On October 7 last year, OPM returned Mulenga as the best evaluated bidder after completing the evaluation process.

The notice indicated that Mulenga had emerged as the best evaluated bidder at a monthly contract price of sh290.6m, totalling to sh3.48b annually for 3,433.68 square metres of lettable space and 100 parking slots (inclusive of taxes).

This was based on the chief government valuer’s assessment translating into sh84,637 per square metre per month.

The notice further indicated that the bid of Twed Property Development was unsuccessful at the financial evaluation stage because the chief government valuer had valued its property at sh408m per month, totalling to sh4.89b per annum for 3,750.93 square metres of lettable space and 100 parking slots (inclusive of taxes), totalling to sh108,854 per square metre per month.

Dissatisfied with the procurement process, Twed Property Development lodged an administrative review complaint with the OPM’s accounting officer on October 20 last year.

Twed Property Development accused the OPM of substitution of the best evaluated bidder’s read-out price, erroneous reliance on the chief government valuer’s opinion and material technical and noncompliance with the requirement for at least 3,500m of lettable office space.

In a letter dated October 30 last year, one Rose Alenga, on behalf of the OPM permanent secretary, informed Twed Property Development that its complaint was found to be valid.

Consequently, the notice of the best evaluated bidder was nullified on account of a material deviation from the technical requirement of at least 3,500 square meters.

The procurement process was also annulled.

Also dissatisfied with the annulment of the procurement process, Twed Property Development lodged an appeal to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal seeking a review of the said decision.

Twed Property Development accused the accounting officer of unlawful annulment of the procurement outside the grounds permitted by section 81 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 14(3)(a)(c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Procuring and Disposing Entities) Regulations, 2023.

Twed Property Development Ltd also accused the OPM of replacing the bidder’s submitted offer prices with the chief government valuer’s estimate as the determinative bid price.

A similar version of this article was published in the New Vision print edition of January 5, 2026.