Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Bill (HB 2,2025)

This is a Bill — H.B. 2 of 2025 — not law. It proposes amendments to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, and nothing in it takes effect unless and until it is passed and brought into operation. Everything below is what the Bill would do if enacted.

The change bidders will feel first is preference. Section 29 currently says a procuring entity *may* give preference to Zimbabwean or local suppliers; the Bill would make that *shall*, provided the bid meets the requirements of the procurement. It would also add two new preference categories alongside the existing provisions for women: suppliers and manufacturers who are Veterans of the liberation struggle, or entities predominantly controlled by them, and suppliers who are youths or entities predominantly controlled by youths. Procuring entities would have to take into account the extent to which each must participate in a bid or be subcontracted.

Timelines tighten across the board. The fourteen-day periods in sections 55, 60, 67, 73 and 76 — contract award, quality and cost-based selection, information to rejected bidders, challenges, and review by a review panel — would all become ten days. More significantly for anyone contesting an award, a challenge would be lodged with the Authority rather than with the procuring entity that ran the procurement.

Several changes cut the other way, towards disclosure. Notices of award would have to be published for direct procurement, restricted bidding, framework agreements and consultancy services, which are precisely the methods where awards are currently least visible. The Authority would have to ensure all parties to a challenge get an opportunity to inspect the record of proceedings. Bidders and contractors would carry an express duty to act in good faith, to avoid false or misleading statements, and — where they become aware of one in a document they have already filed — to notify the procuring entity and rectify it without delay.

Others cut towards secrecy. The Minister could declare by notice in the Gazette that public disclosure would be contrary to the national interest for procurement for defence or public security, or for a procuring entity's trading stock where it operates in a competitive market, with the Act then applying with whatever modifications keep the information undisclosed. A declaration could be published after the event if the event happened in the context of a disaster. Bidders in an exempted procurement would have to be told of the exemption and would be barred from disclosing any details of it.

On conflicts of interest, the restriction on disposing of unserviceable, obsolete or surplus assets would extend beyond employees and board, council and committee members to their relatives — defined as spouse, civil partner, child including step and adopted children, parent including step and adoptive parents, and siblings. For that section, "employee" would include a Minister, a Mayor or a Councillor. Disposal by public tender would have to follow the competitive and restricted bidding procedures in Part VII.

Other proposals: authority to conduct procurement would be applied for annually rather than every two years, aligning with financial years; the requirement that bidding documents incorporate international standards would go; the shortlist limits of "not fewer than three and not more than six" in the request-for-proposals method would be removed; the Auditor-General would come off the Special Procurement Oversight Committee, with two members forming a quorum; the non-discrimination wording would move from "without regard to nationality" to "without unfair discrimination on any ground specified in section 56(3) of the Constitution"; and the Minister's regulation-making power would expand to cover electronic procurement, administrative penalties, and the licensing and training of procurement officers.

One inconsistency worth noting: the Bill's memorandum cites the principal Act as Chapter 23:22 in its opening line and as Chapter 22:23 everywhere else, including in the operative clauses. Note also that mandatory domestic preference and a non-discrimination clause drawn from section 56(3) of the Constitution sit in the same Bill without any provision reconciling them.