A procurement dispute involving Tisco Construction (U) Limited and Mukono Municipal Council has been thrown out by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal after the tribunal ruled that the company had lost legal standing in the bidding process.
The dispute arose from a tender for the supply of a new steel vibro roller under Procurement Reference No. MMC724/SUPLS/24-25/00073. Tisco Construction had initially emerged as the best evaluated bidder after quoting UGX 317.4 million for the supply of an XCMG-XS143J vibro roller.
However, Mukono Municipal Council later subjected the procurement to additional due diligence checks.
The council claimed that Tisco had misrepresented its experience by indicating that it had previously supplied similar equipment to institutions including the Uganda Police Force, the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, and the National Water and Sewerage Corporation.
According to the council, verification revealed that the institutions had never received the equipment from the company.
As a result, the Contracts Committee disqualified Tisco Construction and instead awarded the contract to Victoria Equipment Ltd at a higher price of UGX 367.5 million.
Tisco challenged the decision, accusing the council of procedural unfairness. The company argued that it was never given the due diligence report used to disqualify it and was denied an opportunity to defend itself before the adverse decision was taken.
It also maintained that the references to the institutions had merely been intended to show that similar machinery existed and was being used in Uganda, not that the company had directly supplied the equipment to those agencies.
The company further accused the council of changing the evaluation criteria midway through the procurement process by allegedly introducing requirements that bidders demonstrate prior supply to Ugandan government entities.
But the tribunal declined to determine the substantive complaints after finding that Tisco Construction’s bid validity had expired on October 12, 2025, and had never been lawfully extended.
The tribunal held that once the validity period expired, the company ceased to qualify as a “bidder” under procurement law and therefore lost the legal capacity to challenge the procurement outcome.
In its ruling delivered on April 30, 2026, the tribunal emphasized that bid validity is not a mere technicality but a fundamental legal requirement that determines whether a party can participate in procurement proceedings. It rejected Tisco’s argument that later correspondence with the council amounted to an extension of the bid validity period.
Consequently, the tribunal struck out the application, vacated an earlier suspension order, and directed that each party bears its own costs.
English 