Pages
Monday, September 7, 2020
KAA on the spot over Sh900million terminals tender
By Rawlings Otieno
The Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) has been accused of flouting the law
in the award of the tender for the refurbishment of Terminals 1B and 1C
at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA).
Some of the bidders claim the Authority awarded the tender outside the
law and to a foreign entity that did not submit bids. Now, they want the
Procurement Administrative Review Board to review the decision.
China Jiangxi International Economic and Technical Cooperation won the
tender at a cost of Sh963,541,535 but one of the bidders claim that the
company is either non-existent or a state firm that trades in different
names which is a contravention of the Constitution and the procurement
law.
In an application filed at the Board, Ms Flooring & Interior, which
prepared a joint bid with other local contractors, says that the
evaluation of the tender was not conducted in accordance with the
Constitution, the law and the requirements of the tender documents.
The company says the tender register shows that the entity that bid for
the tender was called China Jiangxi International Economic at a sum of
Sh963,541, 535 and not the one that purported to have won.
“Looking at the tender register, China Jiangxi International Economic
and Technical Cooperation did not submit a bid. However, another entity
China Jiangxi International Economic is indicated to have submitted,”
the company says in the suit papers filed at the Board on July 16.
It argues that the two entities are separate and distinct and that
despite the searches it has conducted there is no information regarding
the company that was awarded the tender.
“Its existence is in serious doubt thus necessitating the intervention
of the Board to ascertain the true position and safeguard public
interest and the interests of other bidders.”
Jiangxi International has had a troubled relationship in Kenya after it
slapped the NSSF with a Sh6.9 billion compensation claim for the stalled
construction of Hazina Trade Centre.
The claim was over and above the original contract price of Sh6.7
billion for the building, forcing members of Public Investments
Committee (PIC) to accuse the company of working with NSSF to rob of the
Kenyan public.
“This is pure robbery with violence. I see a conspiracy between NSSF and
Jiangxi International to swindle taxpayers billions of shillings,”
Kiminini MP Chris Wamalwa said in 2018 when the PIC toured Hazina
Towers.
A total of 15 bids were received for the tender. Some of the lowest bids
came from three companies: Shaanxi Water Resources and Hydropower
Engineering (Sh960 million), China Civil Engineering and Construction
Corporation (Sh975million) and China Wu Yi Co Ltd (sh752 million).
However, the management of KAA went ahead to award Jiangxi on the pretext that it was the lowest evaluated.
But Flooring & Interior claims KAA disregarded the law as it failed
to apply or give due regard to the tender requirements, especially where
there was a provision that local firms where indigenous Kenyans own 51
per cent or more of the share capital were to be allowed a 10
preferential bid.
“Based on this tender requirements, Jiangxi should not have been awarded the tender,” the company says in its pleadings.
The company says it sent a representative at the tender opening who was
turned away on the grounds that due to the prevailing Covid-19
situation, the tender opening would be done internally and the results
made known to the bidders on notice.
The company wants the Board to declare the winning bidder as a
non-existent entity and one that did not submit its bid for the tender
in line with the requirements of the tender
It also wants KAA, as a procuring entity, compelled to provide all due
diligence reports from referees given by M/s China Jiangxi International
Economic and Technical Cooperation to demonstrate that the entity had
performed contracts of a similar nature as required in the tender
documents.
Additionally, it wants KAA to provide the technical and financial
evaluation results and those of the winning bidder to ascertain that the
law and evaluation criteria was followed and the preference accorded to
it by law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
No comments :
Post a Comment