File a complaint under PPR 2008 Rule 98.

PPR 2008 Rule 98 establishes the formal complaint mechanism for any aggrieved bidder. You can complain when you believe the procuring entity has misapplied evaluation criteria, wrongly rejected your eligibility, overlooked a competitor’s substantial deviation, or violated a procedural rule (e.g. opening bids before the official time, sharing bid information with one bidder). Public Procurement Rules 2008 Rule 98

Complaint is for procedural / substantive errors — not for disagreement with a legitimate evaluation outcome. If you quoted higher than L1 and L1’s bid was substantively responsive, that’s not grounds for complaint.

Complaint rights are limited to the “aggrieved bidder” — a firm that participated in the tender process and was adversely affected by the procuring entity’s decision. Specifically:

• Firm whose bid was rejected at any stage
• Firm that competed but lost to L1 / winning bidder
• Firm whose pre-qualification was rejected
• Firm that submitted a clarification request that went unanswered

Non-participating firms and general public can’t file under Rule 98 — they can use other mechanisms (Information Commission, ACC referral) but not the procurement-specific complaint route.

Step 1 — Internal complaint.Within 7 days of the award decision (or the procedural action you’re complaining about), file a written complaint to the procuring entity’s Tender Evaluation Committee. The Committee has 20 days to respond.

Step 2 — Review Panel.If you’re unsatisfied with the Committee’s response, within 10 days of receiving it, file with the Review Panel — an independent body constituted under PPR 2008. The Review Panel has 35 days to issue a decision.

Step 3 — Court. If still unsatisfied, you can approach the High Court Division of the Supreme Court for judicial review.

A well-formed complaint letter includes:

1. Tender reference number — exactly as published in the tender notice
2. Procuring entity full name and the specific office handling the procurement
3. Factual basis — the specific clause of PPR 2008 / ITB you allege was violated, with the relevant extract quoted
4. Supporting evidence — copy of the award decision letter, your bid documents, the offending evaluation page if available
5. Relief sought — re-evaluation, award reversal, fresh tender, monetary relief — whatever is appropriate
6. Signed by authorised signatory with company seal

Honest realistic outcomes by stage:

• Internal Tender Evaluation Committee: ~20- 30% relief rate. Same procuring entity — has incentive to uphold their own decision. Use this stage to formalise the complaint trail.
• Review Panel: ~40-50% success rate for substantive violations (procedural rule breach, substantially-responsive bid wrongly rejected). Independent body, more willing to overturn.
• High Court: rare but decisive. Used for constitutional violations, debarment challenges, or where Review Panel overlooked the merit. Time consuming (1-2 years) and expensive.

For most contractors: complete Step 1 to formalise the issue, escalate to Review Panel only if substantive merit and significant value at stake.