Standards bureau on the spot over vehicles inspection firm

Imported cars in transit through Nairobi. Queries are being raised over why Kebs retained the services of a pre-shipment inspection firm disgraced by its peers. PHOTO | FREDRICK ONYANGO | NATION MEDIA GROUP 

In Summary

• An industry stakeholder told Sunday Nation that Japan Habour has very clear guidelines on monitor vehicle test procedures at the port, mainly to protect Japanese workers.
• The pre-shipment firm’s managing director, Mr Kiyoaki Hatano, wrote to Kenya Bureau managing director Charles Ongwae on September 14 claimed that they would continue to 
• inspect pre-shipment motor vehicles for radiation level compliance. 
• Anything short of that, industry sources said, exposes the exporter to additional costs or loss of full amount invested per vehicle since the exporter will be required to take up the cost of returning the unroadworthy vehicles, should it be established at the port of arrival that the car is unfit.  

By WALTER MENYA
More by this Author

The striking off by a Japan-based association of the firm contracted to offer quality inspection of used motor vehicles destined for Kenya has put the Kenya Bureau of Standards on the spot.

Quality Inspection Services Japan was delisted by the Japan Harbour Transportation Association on claims of poor inspection of radioactive substances in used vehicles for export.

An industry stakeholder told Sunday Nation that Japan Habour has very clear guidelines on monitor vehicle test procedures at the port, mainly to protect Japanese workers.

It is this failure to comply to these guidelines that caused the delisting of the inspection services firm. 

The pre-shipment firm’s managing director, Mr Kiyoaki Hatano, wrote to Kenya Bureau managing director Charles Ongwae on September 14 claimed that they would continue to inspect pre-shipment motor vehicles for radiation level compliance. 

“The services discontinued are only those specifically appointed by Japan Habour. The decision does not affect our roadworthiness inspection for Kenya and other countries such as Tanzania because our radiation inspection was just limited to those vehicles/machinery for their controlled harbour areas,” Mr Hatano said. 

The question now is why Kenya Bureau would retain the services of a firm that its own peers have expressed lack of confidence in.  

The tender was for pre-shipment inspection, which therefore means that all motor vehicles it handles must be inspected at the port before shipment. Every party that qualifies for this assignment was required to demonstrate their ability to do the same. 

Anything short of that, industry sources said, exposes the exporter to additional costs or loss of full amount invested per vehicle since the exporter will be required to take up the cost of returning the unroadworthy vehicles, should it be established at the port of arrival that the car is unfit.  

This is done to protect the Kenyan public — from the port worker to the end user. 

But Mr Ongwae said they will stick with Quality Inspection Services Japan was because Japan Habour is not a Japanese government agency.

“Motor vehicles from Japan will be inspected for radiation before they come to Kenya. Japan Harbour Transportation Association will not handle any vehicle that has not been inspected by their approved inspectors. This means no vehicle will leave Japan without inspection,” Mr Ongwae said. 

But one question that lingers is the due diligence that Kebs carried out on the firm before awarding it the contract in January. The three-year contract was awarded amid acrimony in the industry, and the matter had to be decided by the Public Procurement Administration Review Board. Kebs had shortlisted seven firms, namely Japan Export Vehicle Inspection Centre Ltd (Jevic), East African Automobile Services Ltd, Bureau Veritas, Wilnar International Company, Japan Auto Appraisal Institute, and Auto Terminal Japan. 

Some of the rival bidders had challenged the award to Inspection Services on competence and capacity. They also claimed that due diligence that normally should be conducted before opening of bidders’ financial proposal, was conducted after the firm received a letter of award.

East African Automobile Services and Jevic also claimed that the tender document did not specify the number of contractors that were to be engaged by Kebs.

The firms argued that in the past, Kebs would specify the number of companies to be contracted. From 2012 to 2015, the tender was awarded to three contractors, namely Jevic, Quality Inspection Services and Auto-Terminal Japan to inspect vehicles from Japan, United Kingdom, Dubai, Singapore and South Africa.

The aggrieved bidders had stated in their appeals that even after being prompted during the tender submission window period to clarify on the number of contractors Kebs intended to engage from 2015, the standards bureau failed to give clear direction.

The firms appealed to the procurement board asking it to annul the award to Quality Inspection Services.

The firm was said to have submitted fewer copies of the bid proposal than the mandatory three.

Jevic also wanted the board to nullify the tender arguing that Kebs failed to provide them with minutes of the technical proposal opening meeting on November 24.

Furthermore, there were allegations of conflict of interest by Quality Inspection Services, which is claimed to be the motor vehicle inspection arm of Jans Trading Company Ltd, one of the largest Japanese exporter of used vehicles to Kenya.

The request for proposal expressly barred bidders from having business in conflict with inspection, namely exportation, and clearing and forwarding.

In the contract, Quality Inspection Services had agreed to pay Kebs $41 (Sh4,346) in administration fees for every vehicle inspected. Since Kenya on average imports 7,000 used cars a month, this translates to $287,000 (Sh30,422,000) a month due to Kebs in administration fees.