MUA Life Ltd. Loses Challenge on Rs 41.6 Million CEB Insurance Deal

The Central Electricity Board (CEB) will now be insured by SICOM, not MUA Life Ltd. The Independent Review Panel (IRP) recently dismissed MUA Life Ltd’s challenge, confirming that the Rs 41.6 million group life and permanent disability insurance contract goes to SICOM for 24 months.

The process started on February 19, 2025, when CEB issued a public tender. Three companies submitted bids, including MUA Life Ltd, which had previously insured the contract from May 2020 to June 2023.

On June 5, 2025, the Bid Evaluation Committee selected SICOM, despite its bid being about Rs 2.46 million higher than MUA’s Rs 39,140,906.

The day after, MUA challenged the decision, arguing its bid was “significantly less expensive” and highlighting its past service quality.

MUA also referenced a technical issue on the e-procurement platform during a previous tender that they claimed had prevented them from winning a similar contract.

However, on June 9, 2025, CEB rejected MUA’s contestation, citing non-compliance with clause ITB 18.1 of the tender rules.

This clause requires bids to remain valid for 90 days after the submission deadline, which was March 24, 2025. MUA’s bid stated it was valid from July 1, 2025, making it non-compliant.

On June 16, 2025, MUA took the matter to the IRP, calling the error an “involuntary mistake.” MUA argued it was a minor, correctable issue under public procurement regulations (Regulation 37(8)(c) of the Public Procurement Act).

They claimed the extended validity until June 19, 2025, covered the evaluation period, and that rejecting their bid would cost the public treasury Rs 2.46 million.

MUA also criticized CEB for not seeking clarification, which is allowed under clause ITB 30.1, without changing the bid’s price or content.

At the hearing on July 9, 2025, the IRP did not accept MUA’s arguments. A Bid Evaluation Committee representative stated that bid validity is a mandatory requirement, and any correction could breach fairness among bidders.

The IRP cited Directive No. 3 from the Procurement Policy Office and clause ITB 29.2, which defines material deviations as those significantly affecting rights or obligations.

The panel confirmed that MUA’s error was a “material deviation,” making the bid non-conforming.

Allowing retroactive correction would violate equal treatment rules. Therefore, MUA’s bid was deemed legally invalid.

As a result, SICOM will retain the Rs 41.6 million contract for two years.

Source: Defi Media