VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKM #0518/01 0850900
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 260900Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY KAMPALA
TO RUEHC/SCSTATE WASHDC 8480
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHC
RHMCSUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT O TREASURY WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KAPALA 000518 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EB/IFD/ODF 
TREASURY FOR S DIRECTOR, WORLD BANK 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
EO. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON EFIN ENRG ETRD PGOV UG
SUBJECT: UGANDA: QUESTIONABLE WORLD BANK TENER DECISION AFFECTS US 
FIRM 
 
REF: 06 KAMPALA 102 
 
KAMPALA 03260518  001.12 OF 002 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY.  The Government of Uganda GOU) conducted a 
tender for 50 megawatts of theral generators to help alleviate the 
current gap n power brought on by diminished hydroelectric powr. 
and moved to consider the bid ranked second. After reviewing tender 
bids, including additionalsupporting documents, it was determined 
by the Wrld Bank (WB) that Mantrac/Unatrac, the local 
representative for U.S. firm Caterpillar (CAT), lacked adequate 
prior experience operating thermal generator power projects.  The 
GOU tender review committee has stated it is satisfied 
Mantrac/Unatrac possesses the requisite prior experience.  END 
SUMMARY 
 
¶2.  (SBU) According to senior Minister of Energy officials, and a 
representative from the tender review board conducted by Electricity 
Transmission Company Ltd (UETCL), the Mantrac/Unatrac bid was the 
top-rated proposal and the lowest priced per kilowatt hour. 
Minister of Energy, Daudi Migereko, told Emboff that the GOU bid 
rankings were submitted to the WB in Washington D.C.  Bank officials 
subsequently wanted clarification on Unatrac/Mantrac's prior 
experience on thermal generator projects to determine if prior 
experience was lease/BOO, supply and installation, or delivery only. 
 
 
¶3. (SBU) The Bank directed UECTL to pose these questions to 
Unatrac/Mantrac.  UETCL sent the questions to Mantrac in Kampala on 
September 28, 2006 and Mantrac responded on September 29.  The UETCL 
tender board was satisfied with Unatrac/Mantrac's response and 
determined it had adequate experience.  Uganda's office of the 
Solicitor General, which performs legal review on these tenders, 
also reviewed the WB's questions and Unatrac/Mantrac's responses. 
The Solicitor General office agreed with the Ugandan tender review 
board that Mantrac demonstrated adequate prior experience with 
thermal generators.  It forwarded these conclusions to Bank 
officials in Washington D.C. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The review by the WB in Washington D.C. lasted from 
September 2006 to March 2007, despite the emergency nature of the 
project to help alleviate the ongoing energy crisis.  World Bank 
headquarters told the GOU tender review board that it was not 
satisfied that Unatrac/Mantrac had demonstrated it had adequate 
prior experience.  The WB would not approve a "no objection" letter 
that would allow the project to be awarded to Unatrac/Mantrac. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) On March 15, Energy Minister Migereko said to Emboff that 
the tender review board recognized that this bid for Caterpillar 
equipment was backed by a major U.S. firm.  Ugandan officials were 
certain that the appropriate prior experience existed, and the GOU 
review board expected that the WB review would concur with their 
assessment after receiving the supporting documents from 
Unatrac/Mantrac. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The GOU is concerned that selecting another proposal would 
result in higher per kilowatt rates and therefore cost the people of 
Uganda higher prices for power.  The Unatrac/Mantrac bid was three 
cents per kilowatt hour lower than Aggrekko's.  The increased prices 
could create domestic political problems in Uganda because 
electricity tariffs have been raised multiple times since the 
beginning of the energy crisis and the Ugandan public is very 
sensitive to contracting irregularities.  The Ugandan public and 
business community have frequently vented their frustration over the 
high cost of energy in Uganda, which is discouraging investors.  A 
few firms in Uganda have had to close during the past year because 
of increased energy costs. 
 
¶7. (SBU) In early March, the Bank informed the tender board that it 
could proceed with preliminary discussions with Aggrekko, the second 
ranked bid submission.  Aggrekko currently operates 50 megawatts of 
thermal generators in Kampala.  The Norwegian firm Jacobsen was the 
third bidder.  Officials in the Ministry of Energy responded that 
this move would result in higher energy costs for Ugandans and 
created a monopoly if Aggrekko was awarded the contract.  The Bank 
told the GOU that monopoly concerns were not included in the 
original bid tender and could not be a factor for consideration. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) COMMENT:  This tender has been a long process for Uganda, 
which hoped to have the 50 megawatts of power awarded before the end 
of 2006.  Uganda still suffers power load shedding and although the 
Ministry of Energy has been proactive in identify alternative 
sources of power, the country desperately needs the gap filler 
solution provided by thermal generators.  It is unclear why the WB 
review found that Unatrac/Mantrac lacked the prior experience to 
operate a 50 megawatt thermal generator project, but it does not 
appear to be a lack of support by the tender review board in Uganda. 
 
 
*********************** 
* Missing Section 002 * 
***********************