ppda-uganda

name	ppda-uganda
description	Use when a Uganda public procurement follows PPDA rules for consultancy, supplies, works, or non-consultancy services; use donor-framework skills when the solicitation explicitly makes donor rules controlling.
metadata	{"portable":true,"compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]}

Uganda PPDA Procurement Framework

Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, [phone].

Use When

• Use this skill when the solicitation follows Uganda PPDA procurement rules.
• Load it before drafting when you need form, scoring, threshold, or compliance guidance.

Do Not Use When

• The task only needs sector-domain framing without procurement mechanics.
• A different procurement framework clearly applies.

Required Inputs

Artefact	Source/provider	Required?	Missing-input behaviour
The solicitation package, especially instructions, forms, and evaluation criteria.	Buyer solicitation, ToR, or approved brief	Required	Stop the affected claim, request or verify the input, and label the resulting gap.
Any known selection method and technical threshold.	Buyer, verified sector source, or discovery	Required	Stop the affected claim, request or verify the input, and label the resulting gap.
The target proposal sections that must comply with the framework.	Buyer, verified sector source, or discovery	Conditional	Stop the affected claim, request or verify the input, and label the resulting gap.

Workflow

1. Confirm that PPDA procurement applies from explicit cues in the solicitation.
2. Read this skill and the local references to understand forms, scoring, procedures, and constraints.
3. Map those requirements into the numbered proposal section skills before drafting.
4. Draft to maximize technical quality without creating compliance risk.
5. Check the final output against thresholds, form placement, and submission rules.

Stop condition: Stop when proposer identity, controlling framework, mandatory form, sector fit, current rule, or load-bearing evidence remains unresolved.

Recovery: Record the gap and owner, seek clarification or current evidence, and return only the separable proposal content that remains supportable.

Quality Standards

• Treat PPDA instructions as hard constraints, not optional style guidance.
• Keep terminology, form names, and evaluation assumptions aligned to the actual solicitation.
• Optimize for evaluator behavior where the framework supports it.

Anti-Patterns

• Do not rely on generic public-procurement assumptions when the PPDA materials give exact instructions.
• Do not ignore eligibility checks, pass/fail gates, or form requirements.
• Do not mix PPDA assumptions with World Bank, AfDB, or UN rules.
• Treating a neighbouring sector or framework as interchangeable. Fix: identify the controlling rule and primary outcome.
• Adding terminology without changing a delivery choice. Fix: link each term to method, risk, output, or evaluation criterion.
• Presenting an unverified current rule or statistic as settled. Fix: cite and date the source or mark it not assessed.
• Ignoring a missing mandatory input. Fix: stop the affected claim and assign an evidence owner.
• Letting sector or identity framing contradict methodology, staffing, schedule, or price. Fix: reconcile all affected sections before release.

Outputs

Artefact	Consumer	Acceptance condition
A PPDA-compliant drafting and scoring approach for the relevant proposal sections.	Proposal lead, section writer, and evaluator-readiness reviewer	Applied consistently, traceable to the selected source, and free of unsupported identity, framework, or sector claims.

Evidence Produced

Evidence	Consumer	Acceptance condition
Routing and source record	Proposal lead and reviewer	Selected identity, framework, sector, source, date, and material gaps are recorded.
Decision record	Section writer and delivery lead	Each material choice has rationale, owner, evidence, and a review or stop condition.
Conformance check	Release reviewer	Mandatory forms, identity rules, sector logic, and unresolved checks are explicitly assessed.

Capability Contract

This skill may read supplied profiles, solicitations, ToRs, approved references, and proposal drafts and may prepare routing guidance or draft content within the authorised workspace. Review is read-only by default. It must not invent credentials, certify compliance, submit a bid, accept terms, publish, disclose confidential information, or change source records without explicit authority.

Degraded Mode

If the solicitation, profile, current procurement source, sector evidence, network, or reviewer is unavailable, provide the narrowest useful qualified routing or draft. Mark the missing check not assessed, omit unsupported credentials, thresholds, dates, or compliance claims, and identify the evidence owner. An unassessed requirement is never a pass.

Decision Rules

Decision	Action	Failure/risk avoided
PPDA evaluation route	Use the solicitation's method, mandatory documents, evaluation stages, forms, and approvals; flag any ambiguity for clarification.	Administrative rejection or incorrect scoring response
Conflicting solicitation and background guidance	Follow the solicitation while recording the conflict for formal clarification.	Non-responsive interpretation
Missing mandatory evidence	Stop the affected claim or form, record the owner and deadline, and continue only with independent supported content.	Fabricated evidence or silent omission
Submission, certification, or contractual commitment	Obtain explicit authority and preserve approval evidence before acting.	Unauthorised external commitment

Worked Example

A solicitation requires ppda evaluation route, but one controlling input is missing. The proposal team applies this rule: Use the solicitation's method, mandatory documents, evaluation stages, forms, and approvals; flag any ambiguity for clarification. It records the gap and owner, withholds the affected assurance, and proceeds only with content that can be verified. This avoids administrative rejection or incorrect scoring response.

References

• Proposal skill router — orchestration, profile, reasoning, and release gates.

• Local references/ files for the PPDA Act, forms, procedures, and evaluation mechanics.
• ../SKILL.md to combine framework and sector context.

This skill provides the evaluation methodology, scoring rules, form structures, and procedural requirements that govern all public procurement in Uganda under the PPDA Act (Cap 205). Read this before writing any section of a Uganda government-funded proposal.

When to Read This Skill

• The procurement is managed by a Ugandan Procuring and Disposing Entity (PDE)
• The RFP/bidding document references the PPDA Act, 2003 or PPDA Regulations
• The assignment uses Technical Compliance, Quality and Cost Based, Quality Based, Least Cost, or Fixed Budget selection
• You need to understand how PPDA evaluators score to maximise points
• The proposal must comply with PPDA standard forms and procedures

---

Selection Methods for Consultancy Services

Method	How It Works	Implication for Proposal
QCBS	Technical scored first (merit points, max 100). Financial opened only for firms passing minimum qualifying mark. Combined weighted score determines winner.	Maximise technical quality. Price matters but typically less than quality.
QBS	Only highest technical scorer's financial proposal opened. No financial weighting.	Quality is everything. Price negotiated after selection.
LCS	All firms above technical minimum ranked by lowest cost.	Meet the technical threshold comfortably, then compete aggressively on price.
FBS	Proposals exceeding budget rejected. Highest technical score among those within budget wins.	Maximise technical score while staying within the stated budget.
Single/Sole Source	Single proposal evaluated against criteria.	Justification and quality of technical proposal are critical.

---

Evaluation Methods for Supplies, Works, and Non-Consultancy Services

Method	How It Works	Form Used
Technical Compliance	Pass/fail eligibility, then R/NR technical responsiveness, then lowest price wins	Form 14
Quality and Cost Based	Pass/fail eligibility, merit-point technical scoring with minimum qualifying mark, then combined weighted tech + financial score	Form 16 (technical) + Form 15 (combined)

---

The Two-Envelope Procedure

All QCBS, QBS, LCS, and FBS procurements use two sealed envelopes:

1. Envelope 1: Technical Proposal — opened first, evaluated and scored
2. Envelope 2: Financial Proposal — remains sealed in secure storage until technical evaluation is approved by Contracts Committee; only opened for bidders scoring above the minimum technical qualifying mark

---

Three-Stage Evaluation Process

Stage 1: Preliminary Examination (Pass/Fail)

Every bid/proposal is checked for:

• Eligibility Criteria — as per bidding document (C/NC per criterion)
• Administrative Compliance Criteria — as per bidding document (C/NC per criterion)

Any "NC" on any criterion eliminates the bid entirely. There is no recovery from a preliminary examination failure.

What to ensure:

• All eligibility documents present and valid
• Correct format, signed, sealed, submitted on time
• Bid securing declaration included
• Every administrative requirement in the bidding document addressed
• Beneficial ownership declaration form completed

Stage 2: Detailed Technical Evaluation (Merit Points or R/NR)

For Technical Compliance method (Form 14): Each bid assessed as Responsive (R) or Non-Responsive (NR) against the technical specification. Non-responsive bids eliminated.

For QCBS method (Forms 16, 24): Merit point system with:

• Up to 5 main criteria (A through E), each with sub-criteria
• Maximum total score: 100
• Minimum qualifying mark stated in invitation — proposals below this are eliminated regardless of price
• Multiple evaluators score independently; the average is used
• Strengths and weaknesses of each proposal are formally documented
• Large differences between evaluators' scores must be justified

Stage 3: Financial Comparison

For Technical Compliance (Form 14):

• Lowest price among eligible, compliant, substantially responsive bids wins
• Corrections for arithmetic errors, discounts, adjustments, currency conversion, margin of preference

For QCBS (Forms 15, 26):

• Lowest evaluated price receives a financial score of 100
• All others scored: (Lowest price / Your price) x 100 = Financial Score
• Combined: Total Score = (Tech Score x Tech Weight%) + (Financial Score x Financial Weight%)
• Highest total score ranked first

---

Financial Scoring Formula (QCBS)

Financial Score = (Lowest Evaluated Price / Your Evaluated Price) x 100

Total Score = (Technical Score x Technical Weight%) + (Financial Score x Financial Weight%)

Example at 80/20 split:

• Firm A: Tech 85, Price lowest → Financial 100 → Total = (85 x 0.8) + (100 x 0.2) = 88.0
• Firm B: Tech 90, Price 20% higher → Financial 83.3 → Total = (90 x 0.8) + (83.3 x 0.2) = 88.7
• Firm B wins despite higher price, because technical quality overcame the price difference

---

Post-Qualification (where required)

The best evaluated bidder may be assessed against qualification criteria stated in the bidding document to confirm capacity and resources to execute the procurement. Outcome: qualified or not qualified.

---

Standard Procurement Timeline (Quotation Method)

Activity	Timeline
Issue of Request for Quotations	As planned
Bid closing date	As planned
Evaluation process	Within 10 working days from bid closing
Display of best evaluated bidder notice	Within 5 working days from CC award
Contract signature	After at least 10 working days from display of NOBEB + Attorney General's approval

---

Contract Management (Form 49)

After award, a Contract Management Plan is prepared covering:

For Consultancy Services:

• Contract duration, start date, completion date
• Deliverables table with expected dates
• Payment schedule (percentage-based, lump sum, or time-based)
• Linked to specific deliverables

For Supplies:

• Deliverables, guarantees (performance + advance payment), inspection, installation, warranty
• Stage payment certificates tracked

For Works:

• Guarantees, interim payments, retentions, defects liability period, performance certificate
• Taking over certificate, extension of time, liquidated damages

---

Performance Security

Uganda PPDA uses a Performance Securing Declaration rather than traditional bank guarantees:

• Provider declares acceptance that failure to perform or default-triggered termination results in 3-year suspension from all Government procurement
• Valid until completion of all obligations and defects liability period
• Signed by authorised representative of the provider

---

Negotiations (Form 45)

When negotiations are required, the PDE prepares a Negotiations Plan with:

• Issues for negotiation
• Objectives (what the entity aims to achieve)
• Negotiation parameters (acceptable ranges, limits, walk-away points)

Negotiations team is named with positions and departments; Chairperson identified.

---

ESHS Requirements (Quotation Method)

All bidding documents must include Environmental, Social, Health and Safety requirements, evaluated on a pass/fail basis:

• Sustainable procurement criteria (energy saving, ISO 14001, marginalised groups support)
• H&S competence (policies, accident records, training, certifications)
• Code of Conduct (signed by each worker) covering GBV/SEA prevention, child protection, non-discrimination, community engagement

---

Reference Files

Load these references for detailed procedural requirements:

Reference	Content
references/ppda-evaluation-forms-and-procedures.md	Complete content of Forms 14, 15, 16, 24, 26, 45, 49, Performance Securing Declaration, and User Guide for Quotation Method — all scoring criteria, table structures, process steps, and bidder strategy notes
references/ppda-act-and-regulatory-framework.md	PPDA Act (Cap. 205) legal framework — institutional structures (5 PDE bodies), 9 procurement methods, preference and reservation schemes (7% for Ugandan consultants), contract types, evaluation rules, bidding process, negotiations, administrative-review/complaints mechanism (two tiers since the 2021 Amendment: Accounting Officer, then PPDA Appeals Tribunal), suspension of providers, offences and penalties, conflict of interest rules, compliance audit requirements, practical tips for consulting firms
references/local-government-procurement.md	Local-government procurement — Accounting Officer = CAO / Town Clerk; LG Contracts Committee (no lawyer requirement); the Commitment Control System (no LPO/contract without an approved commitment requisition and an uncommitted balance in the quarter's limit); vote control; contract certificates and LPOs paid by crossed cheque; internal audit confirming value for money; no councillor signs council financial documents; how local-government procurement now sits under the consolidated PPDA Regulations 2023 (the former LG (PPDA) Regulations 2006 were revoked, 5 Feb 2024) while the LG (Financial and Accounting) Regulations 2007 govern the financial-control interface
references/ngo-and-donor-procurement.md	NGO/CSO and donor-funded procurement — NGOs are not bound by PPDA; the common pattern (≥3 quotations on a bid-analysis form above an org-set threshold, a Procurement Committee that is not the end user, requester cannot approve or pay, lowest responsive bid with documented exception); the Reasonable/Allocable/Allowable test and unallowable-cost list; records retention; how donor rules (World Bank, USAID ADS, EU/GIZ, AfDB, UN) layer on top with the stricter rule winning
references/contract-management-and-payment-linkage.md	Contract-management and payment linkage for Form 49 — milestone-based payment schedules tied to certified deliverables, retention, performance security and advance-payment guarantees (30% advance ceiling), and funds-flow reconciliation (delivered = certified = committed = paid) against the quarter's commitment limit