GWAN/GLAN Procurement Debacle Exposed

The recent public discussion surrounding the GWAN/GLAN procurement process has raised important questions about the proper handling of bidder complaints and the role of the media in public procurement matters.

At the centre of the issue is a technical evaluation dispute involving Tiwai Memory Masters Ltd. (TMM), which participated in the procurement process. TMM has stated that, based on its own assessment of the criteria contained in the Request for Proposals, it expected a technical score of approximately 96 percent. The official score communicated to the company, however, was 88.86 percent.

Minister of Higher Education

TMM subsequently sought clarification on how the evaluation criteria and scoring methodology were applied. The company maintains that its request was a legitimate procurement inquiry and not an attempt to undermine the process or accuse any institution of wrongdoing. It has also indicated that it may pursue further clarification through the appropriate formal channels.

This raises a fundamental question: How can a bidder’s complaint or request for clarification suddenly be interpreted as a crime?

Public procurement processes are designed to allow bidders to seek clarification, challenge procedural concerns, and request explanations where they believe an evaluation may not have been fully understood or properly applied. Such mechanisms exist to promote accountability, fairness, and confidence in public contracting. A complaint, by itself, is not proof of criminal conduct, nor should it automatically be presented as evidence of malicious intent.

A bidder’s disagreement with an evaluation outcome does not necessarily mean that the evaluation committee acted improperly. Equally, the fact that a bidder requests a review does not mean that the bidder is attempting to manipulate, obstruct, or discredit the process. These are matters that must be established through evidence, documentation, and the appropriate review mechanisms not through speculation or public hostility.

The apparent escalation of this matter from a procurement complaint into a public confrontation is therefore concerning. What began as a difference in technical scoring and a request for clarification has increasingly been portrayed by some commentators as a wider dispute involving alleged misconduct. Such portrayals risk confusing the public and prejudicing the parties involved before the relevant facts have been independently established.

The media has an important responsibility in circumstances of this nature. Procurement controversies are matters of legitimate public interest, particularly where public funds or donor-funded projects are involved. However, public interest reporting must be distinguished from sensational reporting. It is essential to separate verified facts from allegations, opinions, assumptions, and unresolved claims.

In this case, several issues should be kept distinct:

TMM’s internal self-assessment is different from the official score awarded by the evaluation committee.

A request for clarification is different from an allegation of criminal conduct.

A procurement disagreement is different from evidence of corruption, fraud, or obstruction.

A media report is not a substitute for a formal procurement review or legal determination.

Unproven claims about a company’s performance or alleged contract termination should not be presented as established facts.

If there are credible allegations of wrongdoing, the proper course is for the relevant authorities to investigate them through lawful procedures and for evidence to be presented. If there is no such evidence, parties should be cautious about using language that may unfairly damage reputations or create the impression that a bidder has committed an offence merely by exercising its right to complain.

The procurement authorities also have a responsibility to provide clear and adequately documented explanations to bidders. Where a bidder believes that the scoring does not correspond with the criteria in the Request for Proposals, a detailed explanation can help resolve the matter before it becomes a public dispute. Transparency does not weaken procurement institutions; it strengthens public confidence in them.

Likewise, companies participating in public tenders must conduct themselves responsibly. Complaints should be based on the procurement documents, submitted through the proper channels, and communicated without making unsupported allegations. Respect for due process must apply to both procuring entities and bidders.

The wider concern is the growing tendency to treat disagreement as disloyalty and scrutiny as hostility. In a healthy procurement environment, bidders should be able to ask questions without fear of intimidation, while public institutions should be able to defend their decisions with evidence and documentation. Neither side benefits when an ordinary procurement disagreement is transformed into a press war.

The GWAN/GLAN matter should therefore be addressed calmly, fairly, and on the basis of the official procurement records. The public deserves to know whether the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the published criteria. TMM deserves the opportunity to understand how its score was calculated. The procuring entity deserves the opportunity to explain and defend its decision. The media deserves access to accurate and verifiable information before publishing serious allegations.

Ultimately, a complaint is not a crime. A disagreement is not proof of corruption. And a bidder’s request for clarification should not be treated as criminal conduct unless competent authorities, acting through due process, establish that an offence has occurred.

The proper response to a procurement complaint is evidence, explanation, and lawful review not accusation, intimidation, or a public campaign of condemnation. That is the standard required to protect the integrity of the GWAN/GLAN process and the broader public trust in procurement in Sierra Leone.