ISLAMABAD: Seven pharmaceutical companies have approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC), challenging the procurement process through which Border Health Services (BHS) Pakistan awarded a contract for meningococcal meningitis and influenza vaccination services to a private company.
They have alleged serious violations of public procurement rules and a lack of transparency.
The IHC has issued notices to the Ministry of National Health Services, the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, the Public-Private Partnership Authority, the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, and a private company, making them respondents in the case.
However, Health Minister Mustafa Kamal and BHS have maintained that all rules were followed and said they would submit a reply to the court.
Violations of public procurement rules, lack of transparency alleged; minister terms allegations incorrect
The petitioners include Gesundheit Concerns, Amson Vaccines and Pharma, Immuno Well, Hoffmann Human Health Pakistan, Hospital Services and Sales, 3A Diagnostics, and Immunonet Pharma. They contend that the procurement process deprived eligible market participants of a meaningful opportunity to compete.
According to the petition, a copy of which is available withDawn, the tender for vaccination services was to be conducted under the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, with bids submitted and opened on July 2, 2026.
The petitioners allege that the procurement opportunity was advertised in only one newspaper, Nai Baat, instead of being published on the PPRA website and in at least two widely circulated national dailies, one in English and the other in Urdu.
They argued that the limited advertisement curtailed competition and violated mandatory procurement requirements.
The petition also questions the description of the exercise as the selection of a “private partner”, while the bidding documents simultaneously referred to open competitive bidding under the PPRA framework. The petitioners have asked the court to determine whether the arrangement legally qualified as a public-private partnership or was essentially the procurement of vaccination services subject to ordinary procurement rules.
Another major objection concerns the alleged failure to disclose the required quantities of vaccines, the payment mechanism and the technical and financial bids.
The petitioners contend that these omissions undermined transparency and prevented prospective bidders from preparing comparable offers.
They have also challenged the non-disclosure of the final evaluation report and other procurement records, including approvals, the value-for-money assessment and the executed contract.
The petitioners further point out that the previous vaccination arrangement reportedly involved a cost of around Rs1,250 per dose/person, whereas the amount under the new arrangement is approximately Rs4,500 per pilgrim.
They have sought the production of the complete procurement record and judicial scrutiny of the tender and the resulting contract.
They argue that public authorities must act fairly, transparently and in accordance with the law when public funds and the public interest are involved.
Advocate Supreme Court Irfan Memon, while talking toDawn, said the Ministry of Religious Affairs had previously arranged vaccines, with vaccination charges included in the Hajj package.
“On the other hand, for Umrah, travel agents used to arrange vaccination. However, this year BHS has floated a tender for all pilgrims and those who go abroad for jobs. Counters have been established at airports, and they are charging Rs4,500 from each person,” he claimed.
“We have challenged it because the advertisement was published in just one newspaper and was not uploaded on the website. Only one company had applied for the contract, which was awarded to it. The charges have increased fourfold,” he alleged.
Health Minister Mustafa Kamal, while talking toDawn, said all the allegations were incorrect.
“PPRA rules were followed, and a number of companies had applied for the contract. The fact is that some of the companies had even approached me regarding the tender/contract, but I had told them that they should apply and that the contract would be awarded to the lowest bidder,” he explained.
“BHS is under my ministry, so I am aware of everything that happened. Companies that failed to apply have been trying to stop the process. If they have approached the court, a proper reply will be submitted there,” Mustafa Kamal said.
Border Health Services-Pakistan (BHS-P), in a written reply, claimed that the procurement of meningococcal meningitis and influenza vaccination services was initiated through an open competitive bidding process in accordance with Rule 20 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004.
It said the procurement notice was published in more than one newspaper. The bidding documents were also uploaded to the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) website and made available through the Electronic Pakistan Acquisition and Disposal System (EPADS).
“A total of 22 firms downloaded the bidding documents through EPADS. However, only one bid was received by the stipulated closing date and time. In this regard, Rule 38B of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, titled ‘Single Responsive Bid in Goods, Works and Services’, provides the applicable framework for considering a single bid,” it said.
“Under this rule, a single bid may be considered where it meets the prescribed evaluation criteria, complies with the specified terms and conditions and technical requirements, is consistent with the law, and satisfies the requirement of price reasonableness. The procuring agency is also required to exercise due diligence and observe the principles of economy, efficiency and value for money,” BHS added.
The authority said, accordingly, the receipt of a single bid does not, by itself, establish a violation of procurement rules. The procurement must be assessed on the basis of the applicable rules, bidding documents, evaluation findings and relevant procurement record.
Published in Dawn, October 15th, 2026
