The Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets (PPDA) has faulted State-owned Greenbelt Authority (GBA) on how it modified the conditions of its K437 million maize seed supply tender, violating regulations.
An accountability expert has since argued that the matter is indicative of persistent procurement flaws beleaguered public institutions.
The controversy centres on tender reference number GBA/IPDC/G/AP-Inputs/2024/2025 for the supply and delivery of 8 750 units of 10 kilogramme maize seeds for winter cropping issued in May this year.
PPDA has since imposed penalties on the GBA, which was established to promote large-scale commercial irrigation to drive the country’s socio-economic transformation.
A successful bidder Walusiya Investments whose, bid amounted to K437.4 million, lodged a complaint at PPDA after noticing that the contract only quoted 1 000 kilogrammes which translates to 1.4 percent of what was under tender.
“The investigation uncovered that after the initial tender documents were issued, GBA reduced the quantities of maize seed and altered the specifications, but these changes were not communicated clearly to all participating bidders.
“This lack of transparency compromised the fairness of the process and gave some bidders an unfair advantage, violating the principles of competition and accountability,” the PPDA stated.
According to a ruling dated August 20 2024, GBA contended that it divided the quantities among other bidders due to concerns that Walusiya might not have the capacity to supply all the targeted areas.
However, the PPDA administrative review committee, chaired by David Ng’onamo, found that GBA had breached Section 44 (7) of the PPDA Act by splitting the quantities and introducing new specifications for the seed at the evaluation and approval stage.
The committee faulted the controlling officer, the Procurement and Disposal Unit (PDU), and the Internal Procurement and Disposal Committee (IPDC) on their handling of the matter.
“The controlling officer, the IPDC, and the PDU all played a role in the poor handling of this procurement proceeding as their acts violated Section 60(12)(a) of the PPDA Act 2017. In addition, their acts are punishable as provided under Regulation 199,” the verdict stated.
The committee has fined GBA K1 million, the IPDC K500 000 for actions that brought disrepute to the procurement profession, and another K500 000 for engaging in misprocurement.
Additionally, the committee directed that Walusiya be compensated, noting that “On the basis that the bidder was wrongfully denied a legitimate contract to supply quantities for Lot 1, the Respondent should award it a contract to supply 4 000 kilogrammes for its winter production.”
The PPDA website quotes the authority’s director general Edington Chilapondwa stating that the ruling “serves as a clear reminder that any breaches of procurement regulations will not be tolerated.”
He emphasised that “transparency, fairness, and adherence to the law are the core principles that must guide all procurement processes in Malawi.”
Rockford Mponela, managing director of Walusiya Investments, expressed relief at the outcome, noting that “justice has been served.” He added, “I would like to thank the authority for taking time to hear our side. As a small and medium enterprise, this hearing was also a learning process on public procurement issues.”
In an interview yesterday, Mponela argued that the reduction in the quantity of units to be supplied—from the initial 8 750 units (87 500 kg) to only 1.4 percent of that—was financially unviable.
“In the seed business, the profit margin is fixed at 10 percent of the entire contract sum, which includes transportation and other logistics.
“The 1.4 percent awarded could not cover the expenses required to manage the contract,” Mponela is quoted in the ruling, which was published on the PPDA website last week.
He further explained that the initial bid price had factored in economies of scale, making the reduced quantity uncompetitive.
On his part, GBA publicist Sam Majamanda said they have not yet seen the ruling. In response to our questionnaire he said: “No one had seen such communication yet as most of the authorities had been away from office to attend to other equally important tasks.
“Currently, we may not be able to comment on what steps we will take on the issue, until we receive and see the official communication on the matter.”
Meanwhile, transparency and accountability analyst Willy Kambwandira remarked that this case may be indicative of broader procurement issues within public institutions.
“This may just be the tip of the iceberg, and it tells us that procurement in parastatals is still messy. Unfortunately, it is Malawians who pay the price for such mess,” he said in response to a questionnaire.
The Centre for Social Accountability and Transparency executive director proposed regulatory reforms to hold public officers personally accountable for fines.
“There is no personal accountability for public officers involved in procurement flaws and fraud, and this case highlights that. Why should the Green Belt be responsible for settling penalties using taxpayers’ money?” he questioned.
