Independent Procurement Review Panel
28 Charlotte Street, Freetown, Sierra Leone
Email: WWW.IPRP .gov.sl
The Independent Procurement Review Panel (IPRP) has concluded the matter between theProjects Fiduciary Management Unit (PFMU) Respondent, and Refers findings to the Anti- Corruption Commission(ACC) for prosecution.
The Appeal was submitted to the Independent Procurement Review Panel (IPRP) bySmart Network Solution SL, LTD and Computer Shop on diverse dates. (Appellants) by way of Appeal dated 12th and 17 February, 2025. The Appeal is against the decision of Technical Bid Evaluation Committee and Bid Report at Projects Fiduciary Management Unit (PFMU),tasked with the responsibility of procuring for specific tasks.
Based on summary of fact, Projects Fiduciary Management Unitput out a Bid advertisement on19thOctober 2024, via newspapers, inviting competitive bidders to submit their bids for the Supply, Delivery, Installation, Integration, Configuration of Active and Passive Equipment Lot 1 and Lot 2 for the Bank of Sierra Leone Data Centre NO.SL- MOFED- 328218.
The Appeal involves funds from a donor (World Bank) to the Government of Sierra Leone.
Both Appellants Smart Network Solution SL, Ltd and Computer Shop submittedtheir bids to procure and were invited to a bid opening by the procurement Committee of the Respondent for the bid opening.
Bids were opened on I9th November, 2024. Having gone through the process, both Appellants alleged that the Respondent after a while wrote to inform both plaintiffs of not being successful.
Reasons averred that their proposals did not meet requirements set forth as the most Responsive Bidders.
The Respondent noted that Smart Network Solution SL Ltdwas requested to provide reference letter for services of same nature done in the past but rather the letter of notification sent in showed they submitted a joint venture reference letter.
The Appellant Smart Solution SL Limited during interview expressed their dissatisfaction on how their reference letters were misconstrued by the Respondent.
They further reference letter submitted by Techno IT based in Liberia;as they were contracted to set up a Data Centre for the Liberia Electoral Commission and was successfully implemented.
They maintained that the threshold surpasses what the Respondent had as a cut off.
Respondent noted that the Appellant (Computer Shop) did not submit any proof of certificate for personnel which is contrary to ITB 34.4. The appellant in his submission challenged this and drew the attention to the Panel that there was no such ITB 34.4 clause in the bidding document.
During the course of investigation, all efforts proved futile in having the Respondent to respond to these allegations.
The Respondent appealed to the Panel for an extension to submit in documents and citing reasons that documents were bulky, as well as containing “sensitive information” which could not be let out.
The Panel responded quoting the relevant provisions in the Public Procurement Act of 2016 which gives the mandate to hear and determine mattersbordering on procurement irregularities.
Despite reply from the Panel’s no documents were tendered in by the Respondent as well as during the course of investigation. The Panel has noted with dismayed that the PFMU has inculcated the habit of treating the Panel with disrespect. This act of neglect undermines public trust in the public sector.
The IPRP held a day hearing providing opportunity for Appellants and Respondent to be heard on the contentious issues and of which the Respondent failed to show up. Both appellants passionately presented their cases and clarifications were made by the panelists. After extensive deliberations, the Panel decided on the following.
- The Technical and Financial aspects of the Complainant’s bids were not evaluated by the Procurement Evaluation Committee.
- The technical part of the Complainant’s bids shall be evaluated by a new committee, which must consist of representatives from inclusive monitoring stakeholders (such as the beneficiary institution, Ministry of Finance, World Bank Representative, NPPA, etc.) and must not include any member of the previous evaluation committee.
- The new evaluation committee is mandated to assess the technical bids of other bidders that have been deemed qualified to proceed to the next stage alongside the Complainant’s bids.
- The Panel observes that PFMU’s refusal to submit relevant documents and failure to appear before the Panel for interviews and hearings suggest a potential corruption undertone in the procurement process.
- Relying solely on the Ministry of Finance to rectify the process, rather than engaging the Independent Procurement Review Panel (IPRP), undermines public trust and could further foster corruption in public procurement.
- By refusing to review the process following a complaint filed by bidders, PFMU is in violation of section 64(1) of the Public Procurement Act, 2016. Bidders have the right to lodge complaints with the procuring entity for debriefing, and the procuring entity is obligated to hear these complaints, provided they are made within the specified timeframe.
- The disqualification of bidders without thorough evaluation of their bids raises concerns of possible administrative corruption concerning the management of public procurement evaluations.
- PFMU has not only failed to submit all pertinent documents related to the complaint/process but has also shown disregard for statutory provisions of the Public Procurement Act of 2016, specifically sections 20(1), 20(8) and 65(1), which establishes the Independent Procurement Review Panel and grant it authority to review procurement processes and compel all sector players to comply with whatever requests made in line with this act.
- The Projects Fiduciary Management Unit has deliberately and consistently refused to comply with the rules governing public procurement, and their continuous non-cooperation with the IPRP is regarded as an abuse of office. This matter is, therefore, referred to the Anti-Corruption Commission for further investigation under section 65(9) of the Public Procurement Act, 2016.
- Members of the Procurement and Evaluation Committee, including the Team Lead, shall further be investigated by the Anti – Corruption Commission (ACC) for abuse of office and abuse of position pursuant to sections 42(1) and section 43 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2008, as amended in 2019.
- All players whose names and personalities are unknown but took active parts in the decision making bordering on this procurement.
Section 42(1) defines the misuse of office for personal advantage as an offence.
Section 43 criminalizes the knowing abuse of position in contravention of the law, establishing penalties that may include substantial fines or imprisonment.
The Independent Procurement Review Panel is a creation of sections 20 (1) 65 (1) 20 (8) of the National Public Procurement (PPA) No.10 of 2016. The IPRP is charged with the responsibility to review complaints/ appeals from dissatisfied bidders about decision of a procuring entity.
Furthermore, the procurement process of Sierra Leone is governed by the PPA No.10 2016 and the Regulations Statutory Instrument No.15 of 2020. For further enquiries on this and other IPRP matters, please contact thePublic Relations Officer, on +232-75 166461 or via email iprpanal218@gmail.com
