Electoral Commission in trouble over ballot papers.

Electoral Commission in trouble over ballot papers.

The two foreign firms that were locked out of the Shs45 billion tender for printing and supplying ballot papers for next year’s general election have petitioned the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (PPDA) again.
The firms want PPDA to conduct a fresh review of the procurement deal.

South African-based Ren-Form CC Printers and UK-based Kalamazoo Secure Solutions also accuse the Electoral Commission (EC) of bias in conducting an earlier review that was ordered by the procurement tribunal.

The tribunal had also established that the companies had used the right channels of payment of fees for the administrative review, one of the grounds on which the electoral body used to disqualify them.

“Our client is dissatisfied with the decision of the accounting officer (EC) and now makes this complaint before the authority to review the decision,” the December 1, letter to PPDA by lawyers Agaba, Muhairwe Advocates, representing the two firms reads in part.

EC spokesperson Jotham Taremwa yesterday said the electoral body had been cleared of the allegations. He, however, did not specify by which body.

The row over the tender exploded in September after the two firms were not shortlisted. They petitioned the PPDA procurement Appeal’s Tribunal, citing foul play and several instances of flouting procedures by the EC, during the tendering process. They also claimed that EC had denied them a fair hearing during the handling of petitions.

The tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that handles complaints of aggrieved bidders as a result of decisions taken by PPDA, chaired by Ms Olive Zaale early last month directed the PPDA boss, Ms Cornelia Ssabiti, to accord the two firms a fair hearing. Subsequently, PPDA directed EC to conduct an administrative review of the process.

From the administrative review, the EC secretary, Mr Sam Rwakoojo, wrote back to the companies and copied PPDA in the letters saying the commission did not find merit in the claims raised.

One of the claims raised by the companies is that none of the shortlisted bidders has the prior requisite experience of printing at least 15 million ballots of similar nature.

The firms also raised the red flag that ballot samples the listed bidders provided to EC are inferior and were not subjected to a standardised benchmarked test by the Uganda National Bureau of Standards, and there is no record of minutes of such engagement.
“The entity, as requested has carried out the administrative review and find here below our findings,” Mr Rwakoojo in a November 26, communiqué said.

He explained that a preliminary examination to determine the eligibility of bidders and the administrative compliances of the bids received, a detailed evaluation to determine the commercial and technical responsiveness of the bid, and financial comparisons to compare costs of the eligible, responsive bids received and determine best evaluated bid were conducted.

The “review of the evaluation report indicated that the evaluation process was carried out in line above three states” using several criterions and therefore “could not find merit” in the claim that the best preferred bidders had failed a variety of pre-requisites for administrative compliance requirements.
According to the PPDA Act, such a matter is reverted to the PPDA for review in case the aggrieved firm remains unsatisfied with the results of the administrative review by the accounting officer of the procuring entity.

The firms’ lawyers in the petition to PPDA indicate “the EC accounting officer made a decision without availing the applicant with the documents requested for under the PPDA Act which violates the applicant’s right to a fair hearing”.
“The accounting officer wrongly found all the best evaluated bidders to have complied with a variety of the pre-requisite administrative compliance criteria, technical compliance criteria and previous experience criteria in the tender documents,” the petition reads in part.

They also indicated EC has failed to refund the companies’s Shs5 million paid as administrative fees which the tribunal ruled was paid in error.

According to the law, PPDA is supposed to conduct a fresh administrate review in 21 days.