Bidders usually meet these exemptions through BPP's tender guidance, not the Acts themselves. That is a problem, because BPP's own wording does not always match the law, or even match itself.
The ITF exemption: an "or" against an "and"
BPP's registration guide states the ITF exemption as fewer than 5 staff or annual turnover under ₦50 million. Read plainly, that is an "or" test: either condition alone is enough.
The ITF Act itself is stricter. It applies "and": a firm needs fewer staff than the threshold and turnover under the same limit, at the same time, before it counts as exempt. Who must pay the ITF levy sets out that combined test in full.
A firm that relies on BPP's looser reading alone could still owe ITF once the Act's actual wording is applied.
The PenCom exemption: BPP disagrees with itself
The PenCom picture is messier, because BPP's own materials do not agree with each other.
| Source | What it says |
|---|---|
| BPP's guide page | fewer than 15 staff are exempt |
| BPP's registration procedure PDF | fewer than 3 staff are exempt |
| Pension Reform Act 2014, s.2(2) | the scheme applies to organisations with 15 or more employees |
| PenCom's own certificate practice | certificates are issued to employers with 3 or more staff |
Four sources, but only two different numbers. The guide page and the Act agree on one figure, and the registration procedure PDF agrees with PenCom's own certifying practice on the other, lower one. BPP's own two PenCom documents contradict each other even though each matches a different outside source.
What this means for a tender-staff rule
BPP's tender-facing position states that a PenCom certificate is required for bidders with 15 or more staff. That lines up with the Pension Reform Act's own threshold, not with the smaller figure in BPP's registration procedure PDF.
In other words, the number that matters for a live bid is not necessarily the same one that decides whether PenCom will issue your business a certificate in the first place. A firm can sit below the tender-facing threshold and still choose, or need, to hold a certificate because PenCom itself will certify it.
Why the safe reading is the stricter one
Across both exemptions, the pattern repeats: BPP's tender-facing wording tends to be looser or less consistent than the Act it is meant to summarise. Relying on the loosest available reading is the version most likely to leave a bidder short if challenged.
Before a bid, that means:
- Check the specific tender document's own wording first, since it may state its own rule directly.
- Where it does not, apply the Act's stricter test, not BPP's looser one.
- For PenCom specifically, remember that PenCom's own certifying practice can differ from any single BPP page.
- When in doubt, treat a current certificate as the safer position, even where a reading of an exemption might excuse you from holding one.
Common mistakes
- Quoting BPP's guide page as if it were the only word on either exemption.
- Not noticing that BPP's own two PenCom documents disagree.
- Assuming the Pension Reform Act's 15-or-more threshold is the same number PenCom certifies from.
- Treating an "or" reading of the ITF exemption as safe, when the Act itself reads "and".
For more on the ITF side of this, see who must pay the ITF levy and the ITF compliance certificate guide. For PenCom specifically, the PenCom compliance certificate for tenders guide covers the certificate itself, and the tender compliance certificates checklist covers the rest of the pack.