The Independent Procurement Review Panel has concluded an investigation into the Free Education Project Secretariat after ROLAAN ENTERPRISES appealed against the decision of the Procurement Committee at the Free Education Project Secretariat Feps, tasked with the responsibility of procuring for specific tasks. 

Based on a summary of facts, Free Education Project Secretariat puts out a Bid advertisement on 14th June, 2025 via newspapers, inviting competitive bidders to submit their bids for “DESIGN, LAYOUT, EDITORIAL WORK, AND DISTRIBUTION OF TECHNICAL AND LEARNING MATERIALS FOR PRIMARY II,” PROCUREMENT NUMBER: SL-MBSSE – 483324-GO- RFB. The Appeal involves funds from a donor (World Bank) to the Government of Sierra Leone.

The Procurement Committee comprising evaluators from the Ministry of Basic and Senior Secondary Education (MBSSE) and the Teaching Service Commission (TSC). In compliance with section 53(1) Public Procurement Act 2016, bids were opened on 28th July, 2025 during which bid documents were examined, recorded by representatives of bidder institutions. After the preliminary verification of seven (7) bid documents only 3 bidders proceeded to Technical Evaluation stage.

The complainant Rolaan Enterprises was disqualified on the grounds that the Committee could not verify his ISO Certificate as well as any established website address. Based on this decision Rolaan Enterprises was aggrieved and pursuant to section 65 of the Public Procurement Act 2016, Rolaan Enterprises filed an appeal for a review of the decision of the procuring entity.

Related News

The Procuring entity and the complainant were summoned to appear before the Panel on 1st of September, 2025.
The Complainant narrated his grievances with respect to his complaint of unfair treatment and disqualification.

A. He stated that the Procuring entity disqualified him on the ground that his ISO certificate submitted could not be verified in any established website address (https://www.ukasltd.co.uk/certificate-clients/ Certificate Number: QA-55185/0725, Issuance date: 24.07.2025).
B. He also complained that the procuring entity failed to advert their minds to section 53(5) of the Act. That is, in case they had difficulties in accessing his ISO Certificate from the website address in the certificate they should have sought for clarification instead of disqualification which he thinks was unfair.

The procuring entity narrated their process in the search for the ISO Certificate.

A. They accepted limiting their search to a specific website.
B. They stated that they scanned the QR Code on the certificate but was not of help to them and they did not search the website address on the certificate.
C. The respondent admitted that searching for ISO Certificates is not limited to any particular website. It can be done from several website as there are over 1000 website addresses that can be searched.
D. They admitted not contacting the complainant to seek clarification about the website address.
They also explained that their guiding policy was the World Bank Procurement Guidelines and they are bound by it against the Procurement Act when both conflict in procedures

The Panel having examined the evidence presented finds as follows:-

1. That Rolaan Enterprises submitted the ISO Certificate as required by the Procuring entity.
2. That there is a website address in the certificate which should have been used to verify the ISO certificate instead a QR Code on the Certificate was used.
3. During the hearing the address was found on the certificate though not too visible.

4. That Procuring entity did not seek clarification as provided in section 53(5) of the Act when the QR code could not direct them to a website address.

5. The procuring entity thereafter erroneously concluded that the ISO Certificate could not be verified and proceeded to disqualify Rolaan Enterprises.
6. It is evident that their search was limited to few website hence the existence of the ISO in the website on the certificate was not searched. There is a need for them to have exercised their powers to seek clarifications before disqualifying Rolaan Enterprises.
7. It is noteworthy to address the submission of the procuring entity in believing that the World Bank Guidelines takes precedence in procurement process when they are in conflict with our laws. This, the IPRP states is a wrong interpretation of the law as a guide line could not override the laws of the country. The procurement law of Sierra Leone takes priority over any guidelines in all procurement processes in all public institutions in Sierra Leone. We therefore, direct that when there is a conflict between the procurement law and any guidelines the law takes precedent. It is also the responsibility of the procuring entity to seek advice from the National Public Procurement Authority when they are conflicted.

Based on the findings above, the Panel concludes as thus:

1. That the decision to disqualify Rolaan Enterprises is unfair, wrong and negligently done. It is therefore set aside.
2. That the Evaluation Committee re-evaluates Rolaan Enterprises within seven (7) days of receipt of this decision on the ISO Certificate as the website address to validate his ISO Certificate is now available.
3. That such re-evaluation be done with an observer from either the National Public Procurement Authority or the Anti-Corruption Commission to monitor the process.
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.