The Communication Authority yesterday was on receiving end over some Sh 69 million paid for a delay occasioned by the contractor.
The 2014 transaction was an additional cost on the contract to supply and install demountable office partitions and supply and installation of carpets and vertical windows blinds at CA.
According to CA, the 45-day delay was occasioned by a dispute over the material used by the contractor, which the project manager noted differed from those specified in the Bill of Quantities.
The Authority, according to director general Francis Wangusi, said the contractor — M/s swarn singh (Kenya) Limited — lodged arbitration claim which was ruled on her favour.
Wangusi told MPs that the payment was done pursuant to an arbitration award dated January 31, 2014 in the matter of an arbitration between M/s Swarn Singh (Kenya) Limited and M/s Communications Commission of Kenya in line with the agreement and conditions of contract for building works between the CCK and the claimant.
Initially, CA, which succeeded CCK, went to the High Court to have the award set aside, an application that was dismissed.
“This meant that arbitral award had force in law just as a court judgment would. Non-payment would amount to contempt and therefore the Communication Authority of Kenya was therefore obliged to comply with and settle the arbitral award,” Wangusi told the National Assembly’s Public Investment Committee chaired by Mvita MP Abdulswamad Sheriff.
“As such, the Sh 69,963,922 paid to settle duly issued award was, therefore, a proper charge to public funds,” Wangusi told the Mvita MP Abdulswamad Sheriff-led committee.
MPs Shariff, Justus Kizito (Shinyalu), Rashid Kassim (Wajir East), Zachary Thuku (Kinangop) took issue with the CA boss for okaying payment for the delay, which, according to legislators, should have been met by the contractor.
“We really need to unearth what happened during the arbitration. Why did you commit the government to pay huge sums of money for a delay occasioned by the contractor?” Kizito posed.
Rashid wondered why the Commission decided to pay instead of proceeding to the appellate court after the High Court dismissed the case.
