TIWAI’S ‘WIN OR WRECK’ GAMES BOOMERANG
Tiwai Memory Masters Limited (TMM) has suffered a major reputational setback in what critics describe as an apparent campaign to discredit the Ministry of Communication, Technology and Innovation (MoCTI), undermine confidence in the World Bank-funded Sierra Leone Digital Transformation Project and exert pressure on the procurement process, after the Independent Procurement Review Panel (IPRP) dismissed the company’s complaint, upheld the Ministry’s technical evaluation and raised serious concerns over potentially fraudulent information contained in TMM’s own bid.
The ruling, delivered on October 6, 2026, has effectively turned the spotlight away from TMM’s allegations against the Ministry and onto the company’s own technical deficiencies, questionable personnel documentation and the conduct of its representative, Mohamed Alpheus Turay, who was reprimanded during the proceedings.
At the centre of the controversy is TMM’s unsuccessful challenge to the 88.86 percent technical score awarded by the Technical Evaluation Committee in the procurement for the supply, installation, implementation and support of Government Wide Area Networks (GWAN) and Government Local Area Networks (GLANs) across Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).
After examining the company’s complaints and the evaluation records, the IPRP concluded that the 88.86 percent score was fair and correct, with deductions justified by shortcomings identified in TMM’s technical proposal.
The determination represents a significant vindication for MoCTI, which had previously provided detailed responses to the company’s objections through correspondence reportedly reviewed and approved by the World Bank, the project’s principal funding partner.
Despite those explanations, TMM continued challenging the evaluation, while critical media publications surrounding the dispute raised questions about the Ministry’s integrity and the credibility of the procurement exercise.
What makes the controversy particularly striking is that, when the company’s criticisms intensified, the contract had not even been awarded to any bidder. TMM and other participating companies had been invited to the bid-opening process scheduled for September 29, 2026.
This development has fuelled concerns among some observers that the dispute may have extended beyond a legitimate demand for procurement accountability into what they perceive as an attempt to pressure the Ministry and influence the outcome of a competitive bidding exercise.
Indeed, critics of TMM’s approach have characterised its sustained objections and the surrounding negative publicity as an apparent attempt to blackmail the procurement process into producing a favourable outcome.
According to this school of thought, the strategy is to create sufficient controversy around an unfavourable evaluation, cast doubt on the credibility of the implementing institution and generate anxiety among international development partners, potentially forcing officials to reconsider their decisions.
Some observers have gone further, alleging that this is not the first time TMM has resorted to such tactics when confronted with the possibility of losing a competitive procurement exercise.
They contend that, rather than accepting the consequences of a technically deficient or less competitive bid, the company has allegedly sought to muddy the waters through sustained complaints and adverse publicity, hoping to create pressure on implementing agencies and discourage development partners from proceeding with procurement decisions it opposes.
These allegations of a recurring pattern have not been independently established, and the IPRP ruling did not determine that TMM had engaged in blackmail or deliberate sabotage. Nevertheless, critics argue that the company’s handling of the present dispute raises legitimate questions about whether its objective was simply to obtain a fair evaluation or to secure a more favourable commercial outcome through external pressure.
One observer’s characterisation of the alleged approach captures the concern: “If I cannot win the contract, nobody else should get it.”
That sentiment, critics maintain, reflects a potentially destructive attitude towards competitive public procurement, where the success of a national development programme risks becoming secondary to the commercial ambitions of an individual bidder.
They argue that such alleged tactics, wherever they occur, must be firmly rejected because procurement decisions should be determined by technical competence, compliance with established requirements, value for money and transparent evaluation procedures, rather than intimidation, adverse publicity or pressure on funding partners.
However, while the alleged sabotage strategy remains a matter of interpretation and criticism, the IPRP’s actual findings against TMM provide a much firmer basis for scrutiny.
Most damaging is the Panel’s finding concerning one Rashid Abu, whose curriculum vitae formed part of TMM’s technical submission.
According to the ruling, TMM presented Abu as having been employed by the company for the preceding ten years, despite evidence indicating that he was an employee of the Bank of Sierra Leone.
The Panel questioned how Abu could simultaneously be a full-time employee of the Central Bank and TMM, describing the representation as “tantamount to fraud” and directing that the practice should cease immediately.
This finding raises serious questions about the accuracy and credibility of the personnel information submitted by TMM in support of its bid.
It is particularly significant because the company had vigorously challenged the integrity of the Ministry’s evaluation process, only for the independent review to identify a potentially fraudulent representation in its own documentation.
Although the Panel’s observation does not amount to a criminal conviction or establish criminal liability, its explicit reference to fraud constitutes a serious adverse finding that demands clarification from the company.
Questions now arise over who prepared or authorised the employment information, what verification was undertaken before Abu’s credentials were submitted and whether the representation was consistent with the documentary evidence available to TMM.
For a company seeking to participate in a major World Bank-funded procurement exercise, the integrity of submitted credentials is fundamental to public confidence and the credibility of the bidding process.
Beyond the controversy surrounding Rashid Abu, the IPRP also identified substantive technical weaknesses in TMM’s proposal.
These included inadequate equipment specifications, deficiencies in network resilience, inconsistencies in the proposed technical architecture and shortcomings in meeting certain geographical coverage requirements.
Among the issues examined was TMM’s proposed fibre-optic network coverage of approximately 61.4 kilometres against a stated requirement of 208 kilometres, alongside the omission of Port Loko from the proposed regional metro-network design.
The Panel concluded that the Technical Evaluation Committee had acted properly in awarding marks for compliant aspects of the proposal while deducting marks for deficiencies.
Consequently, TMM’s internal assessment, which reportedly placed its technical performance at approximately 96 percent, failed to persuade the independent Panel to overturn the official evaluation score of 88.86 percent.
The implication is clear: a bidder’s confidence in its own technical submission cannot substitute for compliance with the requirements of a competitive procurement exercise.
The company’s difficulties were compounded by the conduct of its representative, Mohamed Alpheus Turay, who was reprimanded by the IPRP over derogatory remarks reportedly directed at the Respondent and the Panel itself.
According to the ruling, Turay made statements questioning the integrity of the proceedings and appearing to prejudge their outcome, prompting the Panel to caution him against such conduct.
The reprimand is particularly embarrassing considering that TMM had voluntarily invoked the independent administrative review mechanism to challenge what it considered an unfair evaluation.
For critics, the incident reinforces concerns about the confrontational manner in which the company pursued its grievances.
They argue that while every bidder has a legitimate right to question procurement decisions and seek administrative redress, that right must be exercised responsibly, with respect for the institutions mandated to resolve disputes.
The combination of an unsuccessful complaint, identified technical deficiencies, a potentially fraudulent personnel representation and the reprimand of its representative has consequently dealt a substantial blow to TMM’s position.
More importantly, the controversy has wider implications for the Sierra Leone Digital Transformation Project, a major national initiative designed to strengthen government connectivity, modernise public institutions, improve digital infrastructure and enhance public service delivery.
The GWAN and GLAN procurement forms an important component of that initiative, with the proposed networks expected to facilitate more effective and reliable communications across government institutions.
Any unnecessary disruption to the procurement process could therefore have consequences extending beyond the commercial interests of the companies competing for the contract.
It is against this background that observers have expressed concern about the potential consequences of sustained, inadequately substantiated attacks on implementing institutions and development-funded projects.
They warn that efforts to create controversy around procurement exercises, particularly through allegations that have not been independently established, can erode public confidence, discourage constructive engagement and undermine the credibility of important national development programmes.
Some critics believe the alleged strategy is calculated to alarm funding partners by portraying procurement processes as compromised, thereby creating uncertainty and pressure on implementing agencies.
In their view, this amounts to an attempt to achieve through controversy and reputational pressure what a bidder has failed to establish through the technical evaluation process.
Such an interpretation, however, remains an allegation rather than a finding of the IPRP. The Panel’s determination addressed the specific procurement complaint, the technical evaluation, the questioned personnel representation and conduct during the proceedings.
In its final determination, the IPRP dismissed TMM’s complaint, upheld the technical score of 88.86 percent and lifted the suspension affecting the procurement process, allowing the exercise to proceed under the applicable rules.
Importantly, the ruling did not disqualify TMM from further participation. Instead, it permitted the procurement to advance to the opening of financial proposals and subsequent stages.
The decision therefore vindicates MoCTI on the contested technical evaluation without determining the ultimate winner of the contract.
Nevertheless, the outcome has substantially weakened the company’s public challenge to the Ministry’s evaluation and shifted attention towards questions about the accuracy of its own bid documentation.
It also sends an important message to companies competing for publicly financed contracts: procurement complaints must be grounded in demonstrable irregularities, while bids themselves must meet the technical, documentary and ethical standards required by the process.
No bidder should be denied the right to seek redress, just as no implementing institution should be subjected to improper pressure to alter a legitimate evaluation simply because a participating company is dissatisfied with its score.
Equally, international development partners must be able to distinguish between credible allegations of procurement wrongdoing and disputes arising from unsuccessful attempts to secure more favourable evaluations.
For TMM, the October 6 ruling has created an uncomfortable reversal.
A company that challenged the credibility of the Ministry’s technical assessment must now confront an independent determination affirming that assessment, identifying deficiencies in its proposal and raising serious concerns about the representation of a proposed staff member.
The company also faces questions about the conduct of its representative and the justification for the sustained public controversy surrounding an evaluation the Panel ultimately upheld.
Whether TMM’s actions formed part of a deliberate pressure campaign remains unproven. But the ruling has undoubtedly strengthened the position of those who argue that competitive procurement should never be held hostage to the demands or dissatisfaction of an individual bidder.
Observers maintain that any attempt to frustrate a national project because a particular company fears losing a contract must be rejected, regardless of the identity or influence of the bidder involved.
The principle, they insist, is straightforward: No company has an automatic entitlement to a public contract, and no bidder should be permitted to undermine a legitimate procurement process simply because the outcome may not favour its commercial interests.
Ultimately, what began as TMM’s challenge to the integrity of MoCTI’s technical evaluation has ended with the Ministry’s position upheld, the company’s own technical shortcomings exposed and serious questions raised about information contained in its bid.
For critics who believe the company attempted to pressure its way towards a favourable outcome, the ruling represents a spectacular backfire.
Instead of discrediting MoCTI, TMM now finds its own credibility under scrutiny. Instead of overturning the technical evaluation, it has seen the score independently affirmed. And instead of derailing the procurement exercise, the IPRP has cleared the way for the process to continue.
The alleged pressure tactics may not have been established as deliberate sabotage, but the outcome is unmistakable: **TMM’s challenge has failed, MoCTI has been vindicated on the disputed evaluation, and the company’s own bid is now overshadowed by serious questions arising from the independent Panel’s findings.