Court clears PPDA on Karuma

Jul 18, 2013

The dust over the tumultuous procurement process for the 600MW Karuma Hydro Power project developer continues to settle after the High Court dismissed the case filed by Salini SpA against the Attorney General and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA).

By Billy Rwothungeyo

The dust over the tumultuous procurement process for the 600MW Karuma Hydro Power project developer continues to settle after the High Court dismissed the case filed by Salini SpA against the Attorney General and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA).

Background


Salini SpA last year petitioned court, citing the abuse of PPDA rules in the procurement of a contractor for the Karuma project.

Consequently, the High Court ruled that the evaluation report and the post evaluation process be cancelled and ordered that all pre-qualified bids be re-evaluated.

In December 2012, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development contracts committee constituted a new evaluation committee to conduct the re-evaluation.

The re-evaluation process was completed in January and the ministry wrote to the bidders who had failed the technical evaluation stage notifying them of the results, among these was Salini SpA.

The evaluation committee did not evaluate any of the bids of the un-prequalified firms, prompting Salini SpA to again run to court challenging the action.

Arguments

In their argument, Salini SpA said the evaluation committee’s failure to evaluate her bid was in contempt of the court order.

The firm further complained of the PPDA’s lack of involvement in the re-evaluation process.

The firm based this argument on the fact that PPDA did not appoint members of the evaluation committee nor did the Authority provide any guidance to the energy ministry at the meetings convened to discuss the implementation of the court order.

In their defense, the Attorney General (AG) said the order extracted by Salini SpA contravenes the rules on extraction of Court Orders in Order 21 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and therefore should be expunged from the court record.

The AG further argued that they complied with the court order by constituting a new evaluation committee and re-evaluating all prequalified bids.

Meanwhile, the PPDA argued that whereas court ordered the Authority to be “more involved” in the procurement process, court did not define the extent of this involvement.

PPDA also reasoned that it had to strike a balance between complying with the order of court on one hand and maintaining independence as a regulator on the other hand.

The authority made it clear that it complied with the ruling of Court by keenly monitoring the re-evaluation process, attending meetings and offering guidance to ensure that the PPDA laws were not flouted again.

Court’s ruling


In its ruling, the court agreed with the submission that PPDA had only been advised to be more involved in the process which had been mishandled. In this, the Court expected the Authority’s involvement to be within the law.

Based on the affidavit of Cornelia Sabiiti, the PPDA executive director, and submissions of the authority lawyers, court was convinced that the monitoring role that PPDA played was sufficient for purposes of ensuring that the process was within the confines of the PPDA Act.

Court found that Salini SpA had not established any conduct that was contemptuous of the court ruling. Court therefore dismissed Salini’s application with costs.

After a long and protracted impasse into the bidding process of Karuma hydro power project, the Government finally awarded contract to China’s Sinohydro Corporation last month.
extent of this involvement.

PPDA also reasoned that it had to strike a balance between complying with the order of court on one hand and maintaining independence as a regulator on the other hand.

The authority made it clear that it complied with the ruling of Court by keenly monitoring the re-evaluation process, attending meetings and offering guidance to ensure that the PPDA laws were not flouted again.
 

 

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});